The results of the recent convocation of world governments in Paris, attempting to achieve effective and widely accepted methods to deal with climate change, were pretty much what might have been expected.
The multi-national agreement was more serious, more comprehensive and potentially more effective than any previous similar attempt. But it’s potential is disastrously limited by failure to specify hard-and-fast national commitments, realistic deadlines and specific requirements to keep fossil fuels “in the ground,” the latter prohibition being vitally necessary to prevent greenhouse gas emissions from escalating to a point from which there is no recovery.
Anyone who has experienced membership in deliberative bodies knows that a consensus on difficult issues almost inevitably results in the weakest possible declaration. This has always been evident in the Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose language requires unanimous ratification by many nations, including the oil-producing biggies. Its estimates and predictions have always been extremely conservative and of the mildest nature. The actual pace, intensity and extent of climate change have universally exceeded their predictions.
For many years I’ve admired environmental activist Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org. His persistent advocacy for effective methods to prevent unstoppable rise in the temperature of the planet’s earth, air and water despite discouraging failure of governments and industries to address the issue in any meaningful way is in my mind nothing less than heroic. It was a McKibben article in the NY Review of Books in 2002 that woke me to the issue and prompted me to write an extensive editorial in the local Green Party newsletter titled “Fiddling While Earth Burns.”
(In that same year Santa Barbara city council member Gil Garcia appointed me to an ad hoc committee formed to devise means of dealing with what was then thought to be an electricity crisis; not until later did we find that the “crisis” had been manipulated by key power companies who cut the power supply to drive up prices. Before this discovery, as our group planned for its first public presentation, I asked permission to have five minutes to address climate change, since it would provide additional incentive for Santa Barbarans to conserve electricity produced by greenhouse gas emitters. The majority decided it was “not our mission”; “you can’t do justice to the subject in five minutes”; one member thought the subject boring. For some of us, times have changed.)
McKibben also looms large in my estimation because he has been one of the few public figures to approximate my opinion of California’s Governor Brown. Referring to fracking throughout the state, McKibben wrote in the Los Angeles Times (May 24, 2015), “It’s as if the governor banned smoking in California but turned the Central Valley over to growing tobacco.“
Another public figure I think of as an ally is Lancaster mayor/attorney Rex Parris, whose law firm has filed a class-action suit against California for “a conspiracy involving Gov. Jerry Brown, state regulators, Chevron Corp. and the oil industry [to] let petroleum companies inject their wastewater into California aquifers …” (Los Angeles Times)
The recent Paris accord is a document of “promises, promises.” It is said that the US used all its diplomatic skill to assure this result so that the agreement would be Republican Party-proof, i.e., not legally binding and therefore not subject to congressional approval as a treaty.
What is a reasonable prediction of success when 195 nations agree to a list of promises?
Perhaps an answer does not depend on the behavior of whole nations, but on the behavior of companies, industries and municipalities.
“Shortly after the Port of Los Angeles agreed to require air quality improvements at one of its busiest terminals seven years ago, top port officials privately began rolling back pollution-cutting measures they promised, governments records show …”
“As a condition of allowing [China Shipping] to expand its terminal in 2008, the port pledged to transform it into a green operation through a series of measures to reduce harmful emissions from diesel trucks, container ships and cargo-handling equipment.
“In September, the port disclosed it had failed to carry out several requirements…. documents show that top officials at the port were for years aware of the shortcomings … Staff members kept track as the company violated a series of mandates … to cut emissions of diesel particulate, a carcinogen …”
“Port emissions increase cancer risk and asthma rates … according to health studies …”
“The Times requested copies of compliance reports that China Shipping is required to submit … The city’s response said, ‘such documents do not exist.’” (ibid., Dec. 15, 2015)
The apparent motive for this municipal corruption was the money China Shipping brought to the community during a time of economic slowdown.
“The city of Flint, MI, has declared a state of emergency over contaminated water supplies amid calls for a criminal investigation, the resignation of the state governor and a class action lawsuit that could top $1bn.” (theguardian.com, Dec. 17, 2015)
In 2014, a state-appointed city manager directed the city of Flint to switch its water use from the Detroit River (clean) to the Flint River resulting in massive lead poisoning to the city’s residents.
“Lead in the environment is particularly dangerous to young children, whose fast-developing brains are prone to damage that often does not show up until years later, in the form of learning disabilities or behavioral problems.
“Health effects in adults could include a higher risk of cancer …” (ibid.).
Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, who had approved the switch and was aware of its consequences, at first lied as to his responsibility but later had to admit to it and to its reason: to save the state money.
On the other side of the coin, the city of San Bernardino, CA “… is in the process of creating a Sustainability Master Plan … comprised of measures that, when implemented, will enable the City to reduce its greenhouse gas … emissions from City operations and the community. The strategies …cover a variety of sectors: land use, transportation, waste, water, and green infrastructure.” (sustainablesanbernardino.com)
Which of these scenarios is most likely to be replicated throughout the world in the 21st century? It can hardly be denied that for many people and their governmental overseers – elected or otherwise – “money talks” and is the only voice heard.
What do climate scientists think of the “COP21” accord?
James Hansen, formerly of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, one of the earliest scientists to warn of the existence, and danger, of escalating carbon dioxide emissions, has called the current agreement a “fraud”:
“”It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, [i.e., unless greenhouse gas emissions are taxed across the board] they will be continued to be burned.’”(theguardian.com, Dec. 12, 2015)
Are there other climate scientists’ views?
Johan Rockström, Executive Director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre:
“This is not just about limiting temperature rise but also maintaining the resilience and integrity of carbon sinks such as the oceans and forests….
“We need global decarbonization. The language of ‘greenhouse gas neutrality’ opens up the possibility of relying on massive carbon sinks while continuing to burn fossil fuels. This is a very risky future. The INDCs need to be reviewed very regularly – every two or three years. It is not enough to review every five years.”
Kevin Anderson, Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for climate change research, Manchester:
“Aspiration and rhetoric will not deliver reductions in CO2 emissions; we need to deliver action. This draft agreement is weaker than Copenhagen. The current text is not consistent with the latest science. …
“For the global poor, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere, the current text is somewhere between dangerous and deadly….
“Around 50% of global CO2 emissions come from 10% of the population. There are huge opportunities to reduce demand, but it needs to be reduced by people who are high emitters. Including most of us in this room.”
Joeri Rogelj, Research Scholar at the Energy Program of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis :
“Article 2 as it stands is a wake-up call that 2°C is already unacceptable to most countries. 1.5°C is now being acknowledged, … As lead author of one of the rare studies of a 1.5°C scenario, in the current text there is an inconsistency between the target and how to get there.
“In Article 3 about [means of accomplishing] the long term goal, we now see compromise language about greenhouse gas neutrality. This still obscures the fact that CO2 emissions will have to fall to zero to stabilize warming at any level.
“To limit warming below 1.5°C, there is no scenario available that says that we can delay action to 2020 and beyond. We need a global peak of emissions by 2020 to limit warming to 1.5°C. Overshooting would rely on possibility to extract carbon from the atmosphere on a massive scale. Urgent action is needed to hedge against risks.”
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK):
“This text will send signals to civil society, consumers and businesses. It will be up to business, consumers, citizens and particularly investors to finish the job. The divestment movement will be crucial in this.” (zmescience.com, Dec. 11, 2015)
I agree with all these but, in my view, the last best summarizes where we stand as the planet’s national representatives return to their home countries.
To all climate change deniers, many of whom are oil/gas company shills who’ve figuratively crawled into a hole while the blinding light of publicity has focused on a global conference that has attempted to grapple with a threat to the future of all living things, I can only repeat the words of author/journalist Chris Hedges in a recent speech:
“Do these people really think they’re going to escape?”
William Smithers
Santa Barbara