h/t Andrew McRae and Pat in comments
Here are some rough preliminary thoughts on the latest version of the COP21 document.
The Australian ABC news made it sound like Moses was just about to come back from the Mount. “There were tears!”.
James Hansen, though called Paris talks ‘a fraud’
“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”
It’s a rare moment when I am on the same side as he is.
On the other hand, The Wall St Journal writes that it is watered down but will “transform” the economy:
If approved and implemented, the agreement would force businesses and citizens to sharply reduce their use of fossil fuels like oil, gas or coal and could fundamentally transform the global economy.
Both James Hansen and the Wall St Journal are right. The Paris agreement will achieve nothing for the environment, but transform the economy anyway.
As I predicted, India comes on board:
“This is a good agreement,” Prakash Javadekar, India’s environment minister, said. “This means that all together will act to mitigate the challenge presented by climate change.” India is one of the key countries in the international negotiations.
From the deal itself. The global carbon market is voluntary. The words “must”, “requisite”, ” and “enforce’ are not used in the entire document and there is no mention of “decarbonize” either:
Article 6. 3. The use of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes to achieve nationally determined contributions under this Agreement shall be voluntary and authorized by participating Parties.
The exit clause (sing hallelujah)
Once this is signed, a country can get out four years later, perhaps a whole year before another big five-year-review pulls them back in.
1. At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.
2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal.
3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from this
There is a four month cooling off period:
This Agreement shall be open for signature and subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by States and regional economic integration organizations that are Parties to the Convention. It shall be open for signature at the United Nations Headquarters in New York from 22 April 2016 to 21 April 2017.
They got the transparency and five year deals:
9. Each Party shall communicate a nationally determined contribution every five years in accordance with decision 1/CP.21 and any relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement and be informed by the outcomes of the global stocktake referred to in Article 14.
Developing countries can’t file for compensation
There is a clause in there that says the rich countries (which care incredibly much about the poor ones) cannot be sued by them: (I think they mean this clause on p7 of the PDF above, but they may mean another clause entirely)
Part III, 52. (p7) — Agrees that Article 8 of the Agreement does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation;
The Business Standard says that this clause was moved out of the main document. (And at 1.45am I cannot resolve this point exactly).
With the US refusing to budge, the French presidency has been forced to retain the clause in the Paris package that would block any prospects of the vulnerable to file a claim for compensation or liability in the future for loss and damage arising out of climate change.To make it seem as if it’s disappeared, the clause has been removed from the core Paris agreement and added to what is called the decision text that 196 countries would also be required to accept in Paris.Article 5 of the Paris agreement carries the decision on having a loss and damage mechanism for future.“For all practical purposes all that’s been done is transport the clause a bit out of sight for some to claim it’s not in the Paris agreement. But a decision by the Conference of Parties of the UN climate convention carries the same legal implications in this case – all future rights have been forfeited. Period,” said a delegate from the G77 group who was unhappy with the decision to bend backwards for the US red-line.
49. Requests the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism to establish a clearinghouse for risk transfer that serves as a repository for information on insurance and risk transfer, in order to facilitate the efforts of Parties to develop and implement comprehensive risk management strategies;
50. Also requests the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism to establish, according to its procedures and mandate, a task force to complement, draw upon the work of and involve, as appropriate, existing bodies and expert groups under the Convention including the Adaptation Committee and the Least Developed Countries Expert Group, as well as relevant organizations and expert bodies outside the Convention, to develop recommendations for integrated approaches to avert, minimize and address displacement related to the adverse impacts of climate change;
PS: We’ll be getting back to original research and the notch and solar model soon after the Paris Show and the analysis of that settles down.
PPS: We could really use your help in the tip jar. Thanks to the people helping out. We can’t do this without you!