Tadzio Müller | Rosa-Luxemburg-Foundation| Consultant for Climate Justice and Energy Democracy
There are abacojet.com cialis without prescription many other medicines available with these web services. It is belongs to the class of drugs known as serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) and also acts as an anti-depressant. tadalafil tablets 20mg You can explore Kamagra online cheap viagra professional in order to purchase the herbal extract. But I don’t think Haley’s coaching ability had anything to do with why he was fired. get cialis without prescriptions
The UN climate summit in Paris is certainly important. But an agreement in Paris is unlikely to include a number of urgently needed policies, and may instead constitute a shift in a disastrous direction. What can we realistically expect from the Paris Agreement, and what would the Summit actually need to achieve?
On Saturday, 24 October 2015, two media reports were published that perfectly summarise the challenges we face from climate change:
The first report – “Yesterday, the final meeting in the run-up to the Paris Climate Change Conference took place in Bonn”. After months of optimism (“This time we’ll make it work – not like in Copenhagen”, “We’ve learned from our mistakes”, “This time it will be different”), our hopes were dashed when the report ended by stating, “Climate talks fail to break deadlock”. But what is blocking the negotiations? The participants can’t still be haggling over emission reductions, because this issue has already been settled (through voluntary commitments) and it’s not even on the agenda. So what’s the problem? As always, it’s about the struggle over global resources. But it’s not natural resources that are the focus here, because fossil fuels are not discussed at climate summits. The deadlock is not even about the climate as such. It’s about the Northern states finally coughing up the agreed financial resources, despite numerous declarations of intent; financial resources that were to be made available to assist the South in adapting and mitigating the problems caused by climate change; financial resources that would help the North do justice to its historical responsibility for climate change.
The second report – This one reached us from Mexico; it’s simple, clear and direct: “‘Worst hurricane of all time’ sweeps across Mexico”. The President of Mexico, Peña Nieto, tweeted that this had been the most severe hurricane that had “ever occurred on the planet”. More than 60,000 people had to be brought into safety. Fortunately, the hurricane weakened before striking the Mexican mainland, but it clearly demonstrates what we are up against. What would happen if the international community were to respond properly to the challenges demonstrated by these media reports? What would happen at the UN climate summit in December and what kind of resolutions would it pass?
The benchmark: what Paris ought to deliver
A possible scenario: Given the fact that the threat of climate chaos is a global problem and therefore needs global solutions, the “international community” acknowledges its responsibility to find effective, equitable solutions to the problem. The stage has already been set with this year’s UN Conference on Climate Change in Paris, which is expected to pass a successor agreement to the only legally binding international treaty on climate change – the Kyoto Protocol. The media circus is already in full swing in Paris, the NGO caravan is rolling into town, and state and government leaders have arrived to hammer out the key points of the agreement. The chances of agreement are actually quite high, because a civil society campaign has finally managed to prevent energy companies, banks and the other “dirty industries” that finance the fossil fuel system from gaining access to the summit, and from sponsoring future climate summits. Guided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which (after overcoming its massive cognitive dissonance), thanks to the latest research on climate change had recently decided to articulate a set of truly radical political demands, and due to massive pressure from the global climate justice movement in cities throughout the world, the international delegates attending the Summit agree to a binding international climate agreement that reflects a climate justice agenda.
- Global average temperatures are capped at an increase of 1.5-degrees Celsius:
The two-degree target is withdrawn, as it involved tacitly accepting the destruction of huge swathes of (mainly African) agricultural land, flooding several island states, and causing massive migrations. Instead, the delegates set a legally binding target of an average global temperature rise of no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. In accordance with the precautionary principle, they also agree that everything has to be done to prevent this limit from being exceeded. Accordingly, the delegates add a clause to the Paris Agreement that overrides any provisions in other international treaties – including free trade and investment protection agreements – that run counter to the 1.5-degree target. - An end to the role of market mechanisms in climate politics:
The highly controversial and ineffective market mechanisms are revoked, because they clearly encouragecorruption. The highly questionable REDD mechanism is abolished (as it enabled forests to be assignedeconomic values as carbon dioxide sinks). In addition, the world moves away from the emissions trading model – including the sale of modern indulgences that was glorified as “offsetting”. Instead, the debate about the best way to curb carbon dioxide emissions is now conducted between people who favour tax-based solutions (carbon tax) and those who support regulatory intervention (such as coal phase-out legislation). - Recognition of peasant agriculture, food sovereignty and agroecology instead of “climate-smart” agriculture:
Agricultural policy is finally moving decisively in the right direction. As one of the main drivers of climate change, industrial agriculture now faces cutbacks. Shortly before the Paris Summit, a push led by big agro-businesses towards “climate-smart agriculture” was unmasked as a plot to enhance their power and expand land-grabbing. As such, the Paris Summit establishes a global support structure for smallholder agriculture under the banner of food sovereignty and agroecology; this has long been demanded by the smallholder farmers’ movement La Via Campesina.
- 80 per cent of fossil fuel reserves will be left in the ground:
The most ground-breaking change takes place in the fossil fuel energy system. Although the “carbon budget“-method is not without its critics, the international community agrees to leave 80 per cent of all known fossil fuels in the ground and to decarbonise the global energy system by 2050. - Just transitions for the post-fossil age are enabled:
As the Paris Agreement genuinely seeks to promote climate justice, it establishes properly financed plans for the global shift away from fossil fuels, and a just socio-ecological transformation. Just transitions secure the livelihoods of workers in fossil fuel-based and energy-intensive sectors, with trade unions being the key players in these negotiations. As the participants understand that this policy means more than justice for workers, and that indigenous groups and women are also central to climate justice, indigenous rights, human rights and women’s rights become one of the most indisputable principles of the Paris Agreement. Until now, these sections of the population have suffered disproportionately from global warming despite the fact that their economic and reproductive practices cause far less damage than those of other sections of society. - The Global North’s is ready to pay up, and a clever compromise on climate financing is found:
The question of financing remains hard-fought until the end. Whereas the rich countries of the North do not want to increase the US$ 100-billion annual commitment they made at the failed Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, the countries of the South insist on the implementation of the resolution passed at the 2010 alternative summit – the World People’s Summit on Climate Change (WPSCC) in Cochabamba. The WPSCC calculated that the ecological debt owed to the South amounted to at least six per cent of the North’s annual GDP. The parties negotiate the following clever compromise during the last night of the Paris Summit: the North accepts the principle ofecological debt and its responsibility for the financial loss and damage caused by climate change. In return, the Global South forgoes raising specific financial demands for the time being, and agrees to the establishment of a bipartite committee of experts. As the North is currently being damaged by austerity, this commission is to develop proposals for the North on how to provide these funds without jeopardizing social stability.
On 12 December, after two weeks of difficult negotiations, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, and the Mexican chair of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), Christiana Figueres, announce the signing of the Paris Protocol before the Summit’s assembly. The agreement is the most important document to date on global climate policy, and marks the beginning of a new phase in ‘international relations’. In Paris, humanity finally begins to react to the self-inflicted crises and the dangers it has caused during theAnthropocene. “We’ll always have Paris”: the agreement represents a real step forward and indeed a historical turning point.
What will actually happen in Paris
The admittedly unrealistic scenario described above is what would happen if humanity were to respond appropriately and apply climate justice to the issue of climate change. Reality, of course, is very different. During 20 years of frustrating UN climate talks, global greenhouse gas emissions have continually risen. In fact, they have risen even faster during this period than in the past. While the Kyoto Protocol spectacularly failedand devastating hurricanes increasingly coincide with climate summits, this time, in year 21 of the UN’s climate talks, is intended to finally produce a real deal. This possibility is strengthened by the fact that the French Summit director is determined to finalise an agreement as the government is quite unpopular at home and urgently needs a foreign policy success. Significantly, Segolène Royal, the Minister of the Environment, has not been given the portfolio for this issue. Instead, it has been handed to the far more powerful Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, and with him, the Corps Diplomatique of the former Grande Nation. France clearly intends to put all of its might behind the Paris Agreement.
The following scenarios are plausible
Scenario one: As could be foreseen from the last round of negotiations held in Bonn, despite the trumpeting from all sides, 21 years of negotiations fail to produce a deal. In the run-up to Paris, optimists (ignoring history) called this year’s summit “the last, best chance” to save the world. Their high hopes have now been replaced with a correspondingly irrepressible mood of despair. The UNFCCC is still in force, but it is frantically struggling for political relevance and seems set to join the WTO as another global institution that has been unable to survive the end of the hegemony of neoliberal globalisation.
Scenario two: Many observers believe that a deal will be struck this time round. And because expectations have been scaled down so far, it does actually seem possible. People who believe that the UN climate change process can provide substantial political results see the following best-case scenario:
- The two-degree target is abandoned:
As stated above, national targets on emission reductions are not discussed in Paris. Instead, they are to be presented to the UNFCC’s Secretariat as voluntary commitments known as intended national determined contributions (INDCs). These contributions are an improvement on the business-as-usual scenario, as this would have resulted in a global average temperature increase of at least 4.5 degrees Celsius. However, the research initiative Climate Action Tracker estimates that the INDCs will still lead to an average global temperature rise of around 2.7 degrees Celsius, and as such they are not enough to reach the two-degree target.Even in the best-case scenario, in which states keep to their voluntary commitments, we should expect average global temperatures to rise above the two-degree limit. According to the IPCC, exceeding the two-degree increase would reduce the chance of the Earth’s climate remaining stable and of avoiding global climate chaos to 50 to 70 per cent. In other words, in accepting the current INDCs, we are playing Russian roulette with the world – but with one bullet, and only two chambers. This version of the Paris Agreement amounts to a tacit approval of the destruction of the global climate and of massively worsening inequalities and injustices.The only mechanism that is currently under discussion – the “ratchet” – foresees the international community returning to discussions in five years (at best) with the aim of submitting more ambitious goals at that time. Whether this will actually occur to a sufficient degree remains unclear. Moreover, this mechanism completely ignores the point that climate scientists such as Kevin Anderson never tire of emphasizing: the longer we wait to implement emissions reductions, the more drastic the consequences for the climate. And why it is more realistic to expect governments to propose drastic emission reductions in five years than to do so now? In essence, the ratchet mechanism seems primarily aimed at postponing the problem, and perhaps shifting the responsibility to a future government.
- No enforcement mechanisms:
We need to be realistic – it would be naïve to believe that all actors will abide by their voluntary commitments, especially when doing so conflicts with the chance of making a profit. Economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions are closely linked within fossilistic capitalism. The recent Volkswagen scandal demonstrates how little we should believe official emissions statistics, and it is not just VW that has been underhanded on this issue. The German (and possibly European) state apparatus is also involved in this same system of fraud.The Summit has made a fatal error by not including legally binding mechanisms to enforce the INDCs. Effective mechanisms are needed to force countries to comply with their obligations; those that do not, and those that cheat on measurements, must be forced to pay penalties that significantly outweigh the financial benefits of fraud.
- No phasing out of fossil fuels:
The negotiations in Paris really need to implement the fastest possible decarbonisation of the global energy sector and the creation of just transitions. However, the phrase “phasing out fossil fuel emissions by mid-century”, which was at least considered by the international community as a long-term goal, has been thrown out of the negotiations. At best, the parties are likely to agree on the wishy-washy target of “carbon neutrality”. This enables states to use compensatory mechanisms (offsetting), such as carbon capture and compression for underground storage, and incalculablegeoengineering technologies, to avoid making sustained emissions reductions and to balance their emissions and claim to be climate neutral. - Just transitions to the post-fossil fuel era are completely neglected:
It’s not inconceivable that our allies in the trade union movement might pull off the feat of enshrining the concept of a “just transition” into the treaty. However, without detailed mechanisms that provide financial support for the preparation and implementation of a just transition, the inclusion of this phrase would remain a symbolic gesture. - “Climate-smart agriculture” is gaining acceptance:
Although it is central to the climate, the issue of agriculture is not directly on the negotiating agenda. Nevertheless, crucial decisions will still be made through lobbying and on the sidelines of the conference. It looks like the major agro-fertilizer corporations will be able to gain broad acceptance for “climate-smart agriculture”. This will enable the industrial agricultural sector to expand its massive use of fertilizers and pesticides, and its use of genetically modified plants. In addition, the inclusion of agricultural land and processes as part of the highly controversial offsetting mechanism will increasingly force small farmers off their land, and exacerbate land-grabbing. Clearly, under the guise of climate protection, global agriculture is threatening to become even more emissions-intensive, environmentally harmful and inhumane. - Inadequate and non-binding financial commitments are made by the Global North:
The Global North will uphold the promise it made in Copenhagen to provide US$ 100 billion annually for climate-related financing (as of 2020). However, without an enforcement mechanism, this commitment remains nothing but hot air, at least for now. An OECD report claims to demonstrate that the Global North currently pays around US$ 60 billion of this sum. In fact, classical development aid is being repackaged as “additional” funds for climate financing. If polluter states are to accept their historical responsibilities, they will have to pay for the loss and damage they have caused through climate change. Paraphrasing the draft agreement demonstrates exactly how far the polluter countries are from this aim: they merely state, “We recognise that there is a problem”. - No restrictions on industry sponsorship and lobbying:
One reason that real climate policy is not at the centre of the UN climate summit is that fossilistic capitalist is deeply embedded in the structures of our societies: we are collectively dependent on fossil-fuel driven economic growth. A particularly macabre illustration of this is provided by the fact that those actors who earn the most from overexploiting the climate – fossil fuel companies such as EDF, GDF-Suez and Air France – are the very same companies that are sponsoring the Paris Summit. Although the Summit ought to be about preserving the future of the planet, the present structures provide nothing more than the illusion of climate protection, while further legitimising business-as-usual, and opening up additional opportunities for profit.
Although even the best possible scenario at the Paris Summit seems disastrous, it is still relevant from a climate policy perspective. One thing is clear, the Paris Agreement will continue to lag behind what is needed in the policy areas mentioned above, and it may even represent a shift in a completely wrong direction (such as by expanding market mechanisms). “We’ll Always Have Paris” is an omen of the failure of capitalist, over-accelerated humanity when faced with problems that we have created ourselves. It was so much better when this phrase just brought Bogart and Bergman to mind.
Finally, the issue of whether a significant deal will be struck in Paris is not the only matter of political importance in this context. The questions of how civil society will – and should – position itself to the agreement are also key. Answering these questions, however, involves taking a profound look at recent developments in the climate (justice) movement. There will be more about this issue in this dossier soon.