PARIS IS NOT ENOUGH

By Saul Shimmin

The agreement reached at the Paris Summit last December is an unprecedented and positive development in international efforts to sustain the environment. Whilst it is worthy of celebration, it does not merit the degree of triumphalism that has surrounded it in the media. The agreement that was reached is a draft proposal, meaning that it still requires ratification by the countries represented at the conference. Realistically, some of the states that agreed to the proposal will not adhere to it. The U.N does not have any real power to resolve such non-compliance by member states. Whilst this point is tinged with cynicism, it is also tempered by reality.

The previous protocol established in Kyoto in 1997, entailed extensive reforms such as ‘sustainable agriculture’, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing ‘energy efficiency’. As the New Scientist points out, the U.S never agreed to the protocol. As there is nothing stopping states from rejecting the proposal in their respective legislatures back home, America’s decision to ignore the protocol was reciprocated by other nations producing high levels of greenhouse gases. Many of the states likely to renege on the draft proposal will be developing countries as their growing economies are based upon manufacturing and resource extraction. Both create high demands in energy that can only be sated cheaply by fossil fuels. Plus who can blame them for doing so? These countries are hungry for the lifestyle that more developed nations like us have. Article 6 of the draft proposal does provide significant assistance to developing countries in tackling the effects of climate change within their borders. Assistance is a worthwhile act but it will not dissuade them from their pursuit of economic growth. Just as these nations cannot exploit our past responsibility for climate change to cause wanton pollution, we cannot reprimand them for using cheap fossil fuels to develop. This cycle leads to an impasse between developed and developing countries that will not be breached. The elites of country present at Paris receive their mandate from their people back home, not the U.N, so ultimately they are going to pursue whatever suits their domestic interests.

In politics classes, the word ‘narrative’ often surfaces, the idea that the web of events that make up life adhere to some pleasant linear order. One of my politics teachers jokes that politics students, bridled by an unhealthy obsession with the subject, see narratives everywhere. Maybe he is right, but with the advent of the Paris agreement it is hard not to see a narrative poking through the articles. When the environment is discussed it predominately revolves around climate change, and consequently, greenhouse gases. Yet, saving the environment presents a daunting myriad of problems. Think about oil. We are told that we need to stop using oil in power plants and cars, and that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and diminish global warming. Yet oil is the fulcrum of our economy. Many of the products you use or consume daily derive from oil. The keyboard I am typing on consists of plastic, plastics consist of polymers and polymers come from oil. A quick search on the internet proves my point. ExxonMobil has even got a webpage about the many products made from oil. The draft proposal at Paris does not simply talk about reducing global warming, it also entails preserving bio-diversity among other issues. Yet this is not talked about enough in the public domain. The simple narrative that persists is that we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It suggests that we can adapt without making painful choices that may mean sacrificing many conveniences within our lives for a long time.

(To continue reading full article, visit our website: www.theuoblinguist.co.uk)