Outdoor
COP21 – worthwhile or a cop out? BY CLAIRE FRIEDLANDER
As I write, news and social media are ignited by Donald Trump’s momentous decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. It has sparked heated debate and highlighted a general curiosity regarding the exact nature of the treaty. Essentially, the multilateral Conference of the Parties met in Paris in December 2015 with their primary goal being to establish targets for limiting greenhouse gas emissions toward preventing global temperatures from rising above 2° Celsius by the end of this century. The completed treaty was rewarded with ratification by all countries bar only Syria and Nicaragua. Increasing frequency and ferocity of natural catastrophes challenges Trump’s assertion that climate change is a fallacy. 2016 was the warmest year ever recorded, and temperatures are projected to keep rising. Sceptics insist that climate change is natural, which holds some truth, but it’s the rate at which it is changing that is significant, having doubled in the last 50 years. Overwhelming scientific opinion concurs that human pursuit of economic growth, dependent on the burning of fossil fuels, has caused these rapid changes. Only enormous integrated global effort can possibly tackle the issue. So why did Trump abandon the single agreement that has been reached to address it? Following through on his campaign promise to cancel US participation in order to
save face in his beleaguered presidency perhaps, or connections with lucrative fossil fuel industries? His shortsighted anti-environmentalism ignores growing renewable energy momentum that threatens to eclipse traditional fossil fuel industries, thus voiding many of his reasons for withdrawal. His suggestion that Climate Change is a Chinese Conspiracy, however, underlines one of his main arguments. Despite having a third of China’s population America produces more greenhouse gases, and amusingly, China could now trump Donald, claiming leadership in renewables. His Administration’s assertion that the treaty offers greater freedoms to heavy-polluters such as China and India for meeting emissions targets is true though. There are different standards for developing countries. Developed, richer countries have principally caused global warming from pre-industrial levels, yet poorer, economically powerless countries are most vulnerable to its ravaging effects. In fairness, developing countries should be permitted similar opportunity to develop their own economies. COP21 aspired not only to lower global emissions, but also to redress this unfairness. This should transform developing economies and facilitate their investment in clean technologies going forward. Nationally Determined Contributions
For more information: www.friedlanderdesign.com
80
(NDCs) set each country’s input and enables developed countries to fund developing countries. Trump rebelled against the costs, but in reality America has, to date, paid only $500 million of its $3 billion pledge (about $9 per citizen), in contrast to Sweden’s payment of $581 million ($60 per head). There is no penalty system, and emissions cuts are voluntary, which is broadly perceived to be the treaty’s greatest failing. Interestingly, Nicaragua refused to sign the treaty suggesting it wasn’t rigourous enough. In reality, unless fossil fuels are left in the ground, the entire Agreement can be seen as flawed. With temperatures already approaching 1°C above pre-industrial levels, the 2°C warming threshold is also criticised. At 2C extreme weather will render large parts of the world uninhabitable. Rising ocean levels could swallow islands and coastal areas, and marine systems will collapse with ocean warming and acidification. Perhaps the Paris Agreement is a cop out after all. However imperfect it may be, though, it’s all we have. It offers a starting point and framework, and as the culmination of decades of complex deliberation it could be considered the ultimate example of multilateral diplomacy. Notably, the almost universal ratification of it suggests that climate change is being taken seriously.