Paris climate pact is weak scientifically, but politically significant

 

There is good news from the Paris COP21. Most of the nations of the world, 196 of them, agreed to override their many differences and sign the Paris Climate Agreement of December 2015. That fact alone is a significant turning point. It merits the euphoria many people feel.
 

This is not the same as the scientific consensus that we have had for years. The agreement is political. It puts climate deniers out of business. Climate denial has made the American public the most oblivious to climate change of any nation in the world. The revelation that Exxon Mobil has spent millions on climate deception for almost 40 years should help create a new understanding in the U.S.; there should be no debate about climate change and its consequences.

The next piece of good news is that this accord is a triumph of public demonstration. The governments on their own would never have done it without a public outcry. The governments admit it, and the lesson has been learned. We have seen that demonstrations can create a political atmosphere that is irresistible. I marvel at the taste and creativity of the demonstrations in Paris in spite of the terrorist attack. They turned the focus away from terrorism to climate justice. This is the most moving part of COP21.

At the Copenhagen conference in 2009, the guidepost for understanding climate change was changed to a temperature goal, 2°C, rather than parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. The substitution deflected focus from the seriousness of our polluted atmosphere. For six years the IPCC sang the 2°C tune without adjustment, as negative climate impacts became impossible to ignore.

The new Climate Agreement does contain an adjustment.  It now says that the world must hold temperature well below 2°C and limit temperature increase to 1.5°C. We are now at slightly less than 1°C.

A New York Times report, “Key Points of the Paris Climate Pact,” says that it is the beginning of a universal intention to limit global warming. That is an important point. Just as the agreement is weak and contains loopholes, its very plasticity leaves room for negotiation. This is where public demonstrations can, and I believe will, demand continual improvement.

The pact requires the 196 nations of the world to meet every five years to strengthen their commitments. The pact does say that the 196 nations need to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels and toward 100% renewable and non-polluting energy. Every four years, nations meet to discuss climate change in preparation for the five-year conference.  As Mae Boeve of 350.org says, “Pressure from people will close the gap between what was signed and the action we need.”

Mae Boeve is referring to the fact that the agreement will not deliver a livable climate. That’s the bad news, and many activists are upset.  As she says, “The deal represents important progress, but progress is not our goal. Our goal is a just and livable planet.”

James Hansen is also very upset, calling the climate agreement a “fraud.”  This is understandable. Hansen is a scientist, and the very basis of the negotiation, which discusses temperature and not the CO2 content of the atmosphere, is a false platform on which to create an agreement.

The public should be aware that the creators of the document are politicians, not scientists, and it is the politicians who are making the decisions. But something, and something real, has been accomplished.