“Not Totally Happy”
I woke up this morning hoping to sit down to read (and write about) a new global climate change deal… but there still isn’t one. The deal was supposed to come out in Paris this morning, but now the release has been postponed until this afternoon. I have two theories, either: 1) the Paris climate summit is attempting to build suspense and keep the world on the edge of it’s seat before releasing what we are all hoping will be a historic, world-changing document, or 2) they must be stuck on some issue that threatens to unravel the whole operation. So, what are the big challenges?
Most of the challenges that remain reduce down to disagreements between developed and developing countries. Many of the disagreements are centered on the mutually agreed-upon concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” For the most part, developed nations have historically contributed most to climate change, and so developing countries often believe that those countries should do the most to solve the problems. An additional twist is that the countries most immediately threatened by climate change and who are least prepared to combat its challenges are those who are still developing. Though the themes are generally developed versus developing countries, some of the specific roadblocks at play are as follows:
· Temperature goal — This issue came back onto the table after having been settled in the 2010 Cancun agreement as the following: …”commit to a maximum temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and to consider lowering that maximum to 1.5 degrees in the near future.” Some of the smallest islands and states that are most threatened by rising seas levels want the target moved to 1.5 degrees. From my perspective, I don’t see much of a point as we wont hit either target, but maybe it would be a nice move. It seems negotiators have three options for the wording moving forward: below 2 degrees, well below 2.0 degrees with efforts to reach 1.5 degrees, or plainly 1.5 degrees.
· Zero emissions — The question here is at what point do we want to set peak emissions? The more stringent option goes something like “peak emissions as soon as possible with deep cuts by 2050 and an end goal of net zero emissions by [mid-century][the end of the century]
· Money to fund all of these changes — There are many questions here regarding amount of money offered, accounting for those funds, and concerns about follow through in the future, among other things.
· Loss and Damage — The wording here is important. Developed countries feel that they can and should help pay for future loss and damage due to changes in the climate, but it seems some language of “compensation and liability” is weaseling into the talks. The developed countries want to eliminate this language for fear of being sued.
· Future improvements — As arguably the most important aspect of the whole deal, there is much concern over what needs to be done moving forward. Options include hard reporting of efforts, frequent “stocktaking” of where we stand, and future “racheting” down of restrictions.
So, which do you think has them held up?
Regarding a recent draft, Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, was speaking about pushback from some negotiators and he commented that, “Of the big players, no one was totally happy.”
I don’t think he meant that as a good thing, but isn’t that the definition of a good compromise?
Acknowledgements:
http://www.allisonbraun.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Compromise-2.gif
