Climate talks to convene in hottest year ever

 

In 1977, the leaders of ExxonMobil were told that burning oil would heat up the planet disastrously. Their top scientific minds agreed that this greenhouse effect was caused by man-made carbon dioxide, and there was a short window of 5 or 10 years in which to make hard decisions about changes in energy strategy. The Department of Energy knew about this research.

 

Not only did Exxon cover up this information, it spent millions in disinformation and outright lies to maintain business as usual and increase its profits. ExxonMobil fueled a culture of denial that continues to be deep and pervasive even as it uses our tax money for more exploration.

 

At the same instant of the above revelation, the tabulators of global warming at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stand aghast at what is happening, and happening far faster than most climate scientists expected. It is not just that 2015 is the hottest year ever—it is a lot hotter. The planet is leaping into a new era, and there is no indication that we may reach a plateau in which to catch our breath. All the temperature anomalies from 1880 to 1940 were below the mean. From 1978 to 2015, all anomalies were not only above the mean, they were way above the mean. The change on the chart is massive and inescapable. Heat is taking over.

 

These two realities are the conflicting foundation on which the COP21, climate convention, will meet in Paris from November 30 to December 11. The targets under the Kyoto Protocols are expiring. A new agreement is set to be finalized in Paris. The agreement will take effect in 2020. That fact is itself painful.  Such governmental inertia may be bureaucratically practical, but crisis has its own practicality. Responsible thinking would mobilize governments worldwide to immediately reduce emissions in every possible way. 

 

The Paris negotiations will focus on:

• deeper emissions reduction targets,

• financing clean energy infrastructure in the money-poor nations,

• tools to strengthen efforts over time, and

• mechanisms to hold countries accountable. 

 

There has been some progress. The relatively wealthy industrial nations are planning to help finance energy infrastructure in the nations who could never afford it, or who would otherwise use polluting energy.  The industrial nations are thinking of donating $100 million each for that purpose, since the health of the entire planet benefits. But why so little? The 2015 U.S. defense budget is almost $600 billion. It is justified on national security grounds, but there is no greater national security issue than a healthy planet. What about siphoning off $100 billion per year for alternative energy around the world? That would say that we understand the problem, and that it is serious. This level of seriousness would inspire many nations.

 

The 195 nations of the world who will participate in the Paris negotiations were asked to pledge, by last April, the climate action they will take to reduce future emissions. So far, about a third of the nations have not yet complied, including India. 

 

It is hard to assess the value of each pledge, since there is no one standard. For example, Russia pledges between a 25% and 30% reduction below 1990 levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The United States pledges 26 to 28% domestic reduction on GHGs by 2025 compared to 2005, making its “best effort.”  There is a significant difference between 1990 and 2005 levels!

 

And what is meant by “domestic reduction?” Nations like Monaco and Switzerland plan 50% reductions below 1990 levels by 2030. The entire European Union pledges a 40% reduction below 1990 levels by 2030. China pledges a 60 to 65% reduction below its 2005 level per unit of GDP by 2030. What does that mean? Does it mean not taking into account domestic electricity for over a billion people?

 

Compare these figures with the probability that New York City could quickly reduce its electrical consumption by 50%, or the demand by 350.org for 100% renewable energy by 2050. It is well understood to be possible.  This is a moment when a transition to renewables is a revolutionary economic force that could power a just transition; yet 350.org comments that the Paris talks are looking like a global failure of ambition.  On September 15, the Financial Times reported that the pledges are falling short of what is needed for the IPCC’s modest goal.

 

It’s like moving forward with the brakes on.  You could call it the ExxonMobil effect.  According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a staggering 95 percent of companies are affiliated with trade groups that have exhibited obstructionist behavior.  The vast majority of all companies contribute in part to blocking policies on climate action despite their public support for climate action.  The 117 board members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce aggressively block policies that would address climate change.  They have tremendous resources to influence the course of negotiations.

 

According to the UCS, it is important to get the business community on board if there is to be significant progress in climate negotiations. This is where climate justice must begin. Because non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are not at the decision table, the process is fundamentally undemocratic.

 

A case in point is the way the development of solar energy is being throttled. Both Spain and Italy, for example, made rapid progress to derive 25% of their energy from solar and wind. Once that level of clean energy was reached, Italian funding to increase beyond 25% dried up and all solar installations stopped. The same happened in Spain. Growth will probably continue in countries that have not yet reached 25%, which includes the U.S., but it is difficult to get above the 25% threshold.

 

That is because utility companies are deliberately creating a glass ceiling.  At levels higher than 25%, the utilities think green energy cuts into utility profits too much. Denmark and Germany are two exceptions. They have enough grassroots pressure to maximize clean energy. Part of Germany’s success comes from small-scale community energy projects. We need to recognize that sufficient emission reductions are possible only when we resolve the conflict between profit-driven utilities and local, consumer ownership of energy production.

 

As things are shaping up in Paris, the EU is committed to strong and binding action. By contrast, the UK is looking at an agreement that “will enable business to remain competitive and grow.”  The U.S. has such a weak reduction pledge that offering it is an embarrassment. President Obama’s Clean Power Plan is meaningless. He recently met with China’s top climate change negotiator to discuss a cap-and-trade deal of the kind that was discredited decades ago as nothing more than a snake oil illusion. Why negotiate the buying and selling of permits to pollute when we are in a planetary emergency that requires zero emissions? President Obama talks climate change and then permits Shell in the Arctic and suggests oil exploration on the Atlantic coast. If he is a lame duck who has little reason to worry about the opposition, why doesn’t he more fiercely push for a fossil-free future?

 

What is needed now is massive grassroots lobbying, with appropriate, concrete demands.  Failure to advocate strongly-articulated demands is tantamount to an endorsement of a failed status quo. The first thing for everyone to know is that huge and immediate reductions are possible. Technology coupled with across-the-board conservation can do it.  Non-governmental organizations are the only sector promoting such a pro-planet agenda. How will they represent us in Paris?

 

Although the Sierra Club will attend the Paris talks, it appears that its demand is for “action.” But what does that mean? By contrast, this is the message 350.org. is bringing to Paris: “Keep Fossil Fuels in the Ground” and “Finance a Just Transition to 100% Renewable Energy by 2050.” Green-peace is also saying that the world can thrive with 100 percent renewable energy by 2050. Several renowned climate leaders, among them Lester Brown, Tim DeChristopher and David Suzuki, sent a letter to President Obama calling for an all-hands-on-deck mobilization at wartime speed. The letter calls for zero emissions by 2025.  Even this may not be sufficient, but at least these climate leaders are showing the way with vision and courage when we can no longer afford to burn any more carbon.

 

The UN Climate summit in Paris is a nation state organization. Only nations have voting rights. Can we expect them to enact deep and binding reductions if they currently subsidize fossil fuel extraction to the tune of $5.3 trillion every year? Clearly, the behind-the-scenes power of the fossil fuel industry is restraining governmental action.  At the same time, the people have the moral high ground in this crisis of civilization.

 

If we organize and show up at the Paris COP21, and beyond, particularly with the support of Pope Francis, people power can force the issue. Greenpeace, Sierra Club, 350.org, World Wildlife Federation, and every other environmental organization must join with the public in raising one united, never-ending voice calling for the end of fossil-fuel subsidies. Only that can topple the rogue carbon extraction industries, opening the world to the clean energy economy.