What Klimazwiebelists have to say on the COP21 result

All have an opinion on the result of COP21, even if these opinions may be based on rather different perceptions of the results. But we thought that it could be interesting if we Kimazwieblists would present some individual views. Four of us, Reiner Grundmann, Werner Krauss, Hans von Storch and Eduardo Zorita, have taken on the challenge - here are their views (in alphabetical order):




Reiner Grundmann

Pretty much everyone was taken by surprise that not only did the Paris agreement come to pass, but that it entails a much more ambitious goal than previously thought possible. Even the EU Commissioner for Energy and Climate Action admitted today (three days after the adoption of the treaty) that they had not looked into the implications of this target.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/14/eu-says-15c-global-warming-target-depends-on-negative-emissions-technology?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco

COP21 may have been a masterstroke in diplomacy but it is not a roadmap to decarbonization. The diplomatic agreement was made possible through various developments over the last months, among them the US China alignment. During the negotiations in Paris, a compromise on two key fronts was decisive: 

(1) denying developing countries compensation in exchange for a more ambitious target (1.5 C), and 

(2) replacing the formula of greenhouse gas neutrality for net zero carbon emissions.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-the-final-paris-climate-deal

Both terms are different. Net zero carbon emissions are much harder to achieve than greenhouse gas neutrality. Future fossil fuel emissions from existing infrastructure alone would increase temperatures by 1.3 C above pre-industrial levels. And we are adding more fossil fuel plants to this infrastructure. 

The final text wants to see a peak in global greenhouse gas emissions “as soon as possible”, and achieve a “balance” between emissions and sinks in the second half of the century.

What does this mean? It means that the coming months will expose the goals as unachievable on current technologies and trajectories. There is a stark choice: either radically new zero carbon technologies will be stimulated, or geo-engineering solutions will be promoted. Both could be developed unilaterally, or within a multilateral framework.

Diplomacy has achieved a stunning result, but the job only has started.

Werner Krauss

Paris means hope - COP 21 should leave everyone happy, at least for the moment. Only recently, Paris was a synonym for a world shaped by terror. Now Paris stands for the will of humanity to take care of a common planet, with the new climate treaty as a powerful symbol. And we should not underestimate symbols; symbols are facts, too. Once again, climate scientists played the role of the high priests by providing the magic 2-degree target that finally enabled small islands, emerging and developed nation states to find common ground.

It was left to the Pope and environmental activists to add some realism: they reminded us that climate is first and foremost a relationship between human and non-human actors, angels included. From now on, climate change will more than ever serve as a powerful point of reference for the fight of indigenous groups for environmental justice; for the development of new technologies, or for treaties among powerful nation states in order to reduce their carbon emissions. Nothing is solved yet, but the door is still open.

Hans von Storch

I welcome the COP-21 agreement as constructive and as an effort to deal with the real problem, which is the change in climate, related to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, for political reasons an unreachable goal is included – namely of limiting the change of global mean air temperature to a maximum of 1.5 degree – but voicing impossible wishes may have its therapeutic value.

The agreement is of significance because it places the implementation of measures for reducing emissions and for dealing with the consequences of anthropogenic climate change at the forefront, while legal issues and thus expected future conflicts of national and ideological interests occupy less attention. The concern is about the future of the climate system, not about the legal opportunities of labelling oneself and others as good or evil. The governments of almost countries agree that both issues, the emissions and thus the accumulation of greenhouse gases, and the vulnerability to extreme weather events need attention. The positive aspect is that the governments agree that the choices must be temporarily flexible and conditional upon, in particular, the development goals of the different countries.

Admittedly, I do not expect that the bundles of measures, which will be implemented in the future, will allow meeting the 2 degree goal. But in the course of time additional significant options will emerge, so that the climatic development will become less and less unfavorable in the coming decades.

However, agreeing on the treaty should be wake-up call for climate science, if it can contribute to a better debate and political decision making process. This means that it confronts the ubiquitous warning practice by some scientists that this and that drama will unfold if certain political measures are not taken. Science should also engage in robust monitoring efforts, for accurately determining both emissions and the response in terms of climate change; new options for mitigation as well as reducing vulnerability should be researched. And finally, science should oppose the trivializing narratives that almost all extreme weather events are significant because they are ”due to” anthropogenic climate change; that most negative social developments are related to changing climatic conditions. These narratives contribute to a dramatizing of the climate change problem, and maybe lead for a short time to heightened attention, but another effect is that other significant failings, such as insufficient adaptation or the consequences of European colonialism, are minimized.

Eduardo Zorita

The agreement reached by the Conference of the Parties in Paris to limit  greenhouse gas emissions reminds me of other declarations that have been  touted in the past as 'historical steps' forward: the EU Lisbon  declaration (2000) to establish Europe as the most competitive economic  region in the word by 2010 (!) or the Euroland comprise to limit
government budget deficits to 3% of GDP. The countries that signed the  COP21 agreement were bound to present, already at the Paris conference,  their individual plans to limit their emissions: and yet, it turns out  that those plans are not enough to limit the self-imposed warming limit  of 2C. Why should a voluntary treaty, signed by the very same countries,
work better ?

The only mechanism that could contribute to limit emissions and that I  could identify more or less in the text of the agreement is the indirect threat to oil and mining companies that credit and investment maybe not  yield the expected returns. But that by itself will not help surpass  the technological challenges that still need to be solved to the  expand energy production by renewables.

All in all, my view is that the COP saga is the wrong path to mitigation.

Print this post