Winter 2016 Issue
By Eric Sharpe
Some 195 nations met in Paris in early December with one goal: Limit global emissions of greenhouse gasses in order to mitigate global climate change. Their goal was to ensure that industrialized nations begin addressing emissions by reducing reliance on fossil fuels and increasing renewable energy options. They were successful - on paper. The agreement sets forth an “ambitious” goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to stave off global warming by “Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.”
The announcement came down with great fanfare on December 12, 2015. But the details are not being applauded by most hard core environmentalists. First, the agreement is non-binding, which is to say, no promises were made, and if they were, there won’t be any repercussions for any nation failing to adhere to the standards. And the standards are fairly weak to begin with. The wording in the 31 page document is frail, at best.
In fact, the wording feels a lot like a polite request rather than any commitment. Member nations agree to reduce carbon dioxide output “as soon as possible” indicating there are only loose deadlines in place. In the agreement, “Parties are encouraged to take action to implement and support the existing framework.” Not exactly strong wording. Countless line items begin with “invites parties,” “urges parties,” “encourages parties,” and “requests parties” to do something. Additionally, those “parties” have until 2020 to “communicate,” their “determined contributions” to reducing greenhouse emissions. There are no definitive obligations nor commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The document is replete with such playpen friendly wording that the term “non-binding” seems harsh. The niceties outline a vague agreement which seems to be a clear indicator of the true impact it will have, that being little to no actual impact on emissions.
Claims by participant nations such as France indicating that the agreement was “ambitious and balanced” and an “historic turning point” don’t reveal the lack of true commitment to the document by member nations. The agreement only requires 55% of nations to ratify the agreement to become binding… or rather non-binding. Even if ratified, and taken serious by member nations, the plan is hardly ambitious. Only those nations which ratify the agreement will be expected to set voluntary emissions reduction limits… but the document does not indicate what that limit should be. And if they don’t meet this voluntary limit…. well, they don’t. There are no penalties in this game… and every kid gets a participation trophy.
But this commentary should not be seen as a liberal complaint nor conservative finger pointing. This article is not about whether global warming is happening or whether it is man-made, or whether nations should be doing something about it. The point to be taken away is that the Paris agreement is little more than show. It has no real meaning. It is nothing less than a joke that isn’t very funny because despite the hollow nature of it, it has indeed had a tremendous impact on the economic health and welfare of capitalist nations. The announcement alone sent coal stocks tumbling (and renewable energy stocks soaring), panicked workers at every level of the fossil fuel delivery chain, and given something to celebrate for environmentalists everywhere. In essence, the results of the agreement have led to little more than a party for one side and a panic on the other. And as a result, energy security is a little less secure. All this because of a show. In the coming years, the agreement will likely fade into memory as another failed effort. Does anyone remember the Kyoto Protocol? That was 1997. And it was claimed to be the exact same success that the Paris Agreement is now being hailed to be.