There was glad-handing all round in Paris over the weekend, where as expected some 195 nations signed a global agreement on climate change proponents say will keep temperatures from rising more than the magic 2 degrees Celsius level versus pre-industrial times , and perhaps signal the end of the "fossil fuel era."
The heart of the deal requires countries to set increasingly ambitious targets for cutting their national emissions and to report on their progress - but, crucially, leaves the actual targets, which are not legally binding, for countries to decide for themselves and to achieve whatever way the choose - or maybe not achieve at all.
President Obama, for example, has pledged to reduce US CO2 emissions by 26-28% by 2030 - but how that will actually happen is not at all clear.
In addition, analysts say those pledged will in fact not keep global temperatures from rising above the 2 degrees C threshold and will result in more like 2.7-degree rise, according to the UN climate model.
There are two problems with all this. First, that 2.7-degree rise would occur even if all the countries actually achieve their reduction pledges - a huge uncertainly, given there is no real monitoring or enforcement mechanism relative to the pledges, and countries such as China and India (the number 1 and 3 emitters of CO2, respectively) have made it clear they will not sacrifice economic growth in the name of CO2 reductions.
Second, the analysis and much of the commentary around the agreement treat the UN climate model as if it can precisely estimate the impact of CO2 on global temperatures, which is simply untrue.
Acknowledging the pact's limitations in addressing global warming, the New York Times was still very positive on the deal, commenting that "the deal could be viewed as a signal to global financial and energy markets, triggering a fundamental shift away from investment in coal, oil and gas as primary energy sources toward zero-carbon energy sources like wind, solar and nuclear power. "
Importantly, the new pact is being positioned as a non-legally binding agreement and thus not a treaty, which in the US would require Senate approval.
In fact, the very looseness of the commitments to reduce CO2 emissions is what allowed the agreement to be reached. Attempts at a deal in the past, such as the 2009 Summit in Copenhagen, fell apart in large measure because the initial idea was that the agreement would set CO2 reduction targets for every nation on earth, terms that countries as China and India simply would not accept.
As part of the deal, countries will be required to reconvene every five years, starting in 2020, with updated plans that would tighten their emissions cuts.
They will also be required to reconvene every five years starting in 2023 to publicly report on how they are doing in cutting emissions compared to their plans. They will be legally required to monitor and report on their emissions levels and reductions, using a universal accounting system.
 All that said, it will involve a self-reporting system, and other than public shaming there is no mechanism to enforce hitting reduction targets. And the agreement contains nothing like the 1997 Kyoto pact that forced Japan, Canada and many European countries into a cap and trade system for CO2 emissions - a system that in the end did little to reduce greenhouse gas emisions,
While countries are free to set up their own cap and trade programs, as the state of California has done on its own in the US, or enact a direct tax on CO2 emissions, there will be no global programs coming out of this agreement.
The agreement also maintains the existing commitment to create fund that will provide $100 billion annually starting in 2020 to help poorer countries cut their carbon emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change, but details are once again very vague and this part of the deal is also non-legally binding. Nevertheless, the agreement also calls on rich nations to pledge a higher sum by 2025.
This will lead to a host of issues down the road, such as whether China, the world's second largest economy but still positioned as a "developing" one, should somehow get a share of this $100 billion annual pool, if it actually materializes. Existing pledges total far less than $100 billion for even the first year.
A number of environmentalists decried the deal even as diplomats were patting themselves on the back in Paris.
For example, James Hansen the former NASA scientist, considered the father of global awareness of climate change, claims Paris talks were a "fraud."
"It's a fraud really, a fake," he said. "It's just BS for them to say 'We'll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.' It's just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned."
Reactions to the deal were mixed from a business perspective. While many business leaders praised the deal, Stephen Eule, vice president for climate and technology at the U.S. Chamber, said the same obstacles remain that have made past climate pledges a problem, including how to fund costly alternative energies.
"The Paris climate conference delivered more of the same - lots of promises and lots of issues still left unresolved," he said. "The White House's overall domestic strategy of making energy more expensive and less abundant to satisfy international constituencies, many of whom compete against the United States, should worry the business community, American workers, and consumers."
The bottom line: there is far less in this agreement than the approving headlines would have you believe. Whether that is a good or bad thing depends on your perspective.
Do you think the UN climate agreement really is a big deal? Why or why not? Let us know your thoughts at the Feedback button below.
|
