Blog

COP21 : What is worth the Paris agreement ? By Hôtel★★★ Restaurant gourmand Coco Lodge Majunga.

The Paris agreement allows Governments to rent the “success” the 21st Conference of the Parties of the UN Climate Convention. But what is worth ?

This text is certainly considerable progress with regard to the impasse in which the United Nations process since COP-15 in Copenhagen. If the discussions had continued, with the reaffirmation of the objectives of the Convention, the plan of action post-protocole of Kyoto remained stranded. The Paris agreement raises the action, on the basis of a general consensus. It was the first of the objectives of the COP-21, It is reached.

But what is the magnitude of this action ? This is to underline the schizophrenic nature of the text. An accented character by reference to a more ambitious climate target, in appearance, that the 2 ° C of warming not to exceed Copenhagen. The figure of 1.5 ° C broke into the text, in the following form in the preamble : "insisting with great concern on the urgency of the significant gap between the effect global mitigation commitments made by the Parties in terms of annual global emissions of greenhouse gases up to. 2020 and profiles of the evolution of global emissions consistent with view to contain the rise in temperature mean the planet significantly below 2 ° C above pre-industrial levels and to continue efforts to limit the rise in temperatures to 1.5 ° C.' What is the problem ? One to ask how and why, After dropping to the Secretariat of the Convention of voluntary emissions targets that, If they are all respected what is unlikely, put the planet on a course around 3 ° C, These same countries bind illico a still harder to reach target.

A SCHIZOPHRENIA PLEADED
During the discussion, countries, often amongst the most vulnerable to climate change, even advanced the idea of not to exceed 1.5 ° C. Supported, loudly, by number of NGOs environmentalists. This objective is presented as a question “of life and death” some small island developing States. Problem : that said the science on this point ? The digital simulations are climate scientists are affirmative : This bar will be necessarily exceeded. The global warming potential gases greenhouse already in the atmosphere amounts to 0.3 ° C over the current. Reflective fine particles, that cool the climate of 0.3 ° C, are destined to disappear in as and as you implement cleaner technologies. (It should be noted this informative detail : scientists from other specialties, as of glaciologists, can support such an objective, It is therefore in full effect whether specialized).

Temperatures since 1880
In other words, pictorial way, If the 7,3 billions of humans were hara kiri tomorrow morning, and abrogated the light leaving the scene, the global average temperature would rise all the same by about 0.6 ° C. Gold, the temperature in October 2014 already titillates the 1 ° C higher than at the end of the 19th century. Certainly, It will probably back down to a chouia when the current Nino in the tropical Pacific will subside, next spring. But not for long. Conclusion : It is physically impossible not to exceed the 1.5 ° C. Car, as I said on France Inter last Thursday, every morning hundreds of millions of people will take their car to go to work, or a train powered by coal and gas electricity, des Hauts fourneaux will make steel… and that's not going to stop in the next 20 years.

How this 1.5 ° unattainable C arrived in the text ? As a result of pressures exercised first by the most vulnerable countries, that is a red line… and therefore the acceptance of this red line by most major countries, where its mention in the inaugural speech of François Holland. Why ? Because deny it, even on behalf of the simple taking into account the climate science, would have blocked the adoption of the agreement by the most vulnerable countries.

SCHIZOPHRENIA CONFESSED IS HALF REDRESSED
What will be the consequences of this hitch to realism, This negation of hard realities which will be required ? The positive would be to accelerate the time where the poorest and most vulnerable countries will be able to rely on the text adopted in Paris to tell historical climate change leaders and the biggest emitters per capita that they must compensate damage. A perspective to the whole of the text of the part “Damages”, blogs 48 to 52. Such a situation could accelerate the transfer of efficient and less GHG-emitting technologies to the countries of the South, strengthen mechanisms to limit tropical deforestation, but also transfers related to adaptation to climate change in order to limit the damage. But this is an optimistic assumption, Nothing in the text includes obligation in this respect for rich countries. Cannot reverse hypothesis, in the absence of such acceleration, to fear, the gap thus growing between promises and the results could well turn against any global coordination process. Or justify violence between States.

Paragraph 17 of the Paris agreement.
This schizophrenia compensates however of a rare quality : It is declared. In the preamble, the text says although there is a "significant difference". (euphemism of diplomats) between the aggregated promises States in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and the climate objective, not only that do not exceed 1.5 ° C but also that of the 2 ° C above pre-industrial. In part II of the text, voluntary contributions nationally determined, paragraph 17 goes further and quantifies the significant gap in noting that emissions arising from these promises should reach 55 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases (equivalent C02) en 2030 While it should not exceed the 40 billion tonnes to give himself a good chance of not to exceed… the 2 ° C (for memory, emissions of 2014 are 36 billion tons for CO2 alone linked to fossil fuels and cement). The text of the Paris agreements should therefore not be characterized as misleading. It said explicitly that the account is not. But why ? Number of NGOs have a militant response ready that question : It is the fault of the lobbies of fossil. If this response has a share of truth, It is insufficient, and even dangerous, because it nourishes illusions and hides the deepest springs of fossil energy consumption.

THE FALSE LEADS OF THE CARE BEARS FROM CLIMATE
One of the most obvious examples of this wrong track is that of maritime and air transport, not mentioned in the text, After exclusion of a paragraph treating. This decision is presented as the result of an action of lobbies (aircraft manufacturers, Airlines, shipowners…) on the negotiators. And late because the total of their emissions (2% for the air including) can only increase under current decisions : There are around 20.000 aircraft in service, the manufacturers and companies rely on 37.000 en 2033, whose 31.000 to build (source GIFAS). But these lobbies need to act ? No. These are all of the Governments of the planet who still refuse to taxing kerosene, to pay the price of climate these two means of transport externalities, and investing in infrastructure (airports, such as our Lady of the Landes, and ports for maritime freight). Why ? In obedience to the industrialists and transporters ? Nenni. Because these Governments are all convinced that it must follow the advice of the neo-liberal economists, increase trade, based economies on the “comparative advantages” developed territories in regional or global competition, booster mass tourism.
It is by choice that the Government refuse. And monitor as milk on the fire commands to aircraft, which provide, in France, work to factories employing the largest number of workers and engineers. Believe that it is a problem of the weakness of Governments vis-à-vis industrial survey of the false trail of the care bears from climate. Those who have still not understood, or pretend to not understand, If fossil fuels have such use, Massif, This is not first because they are sources of profits for multinational companies, but at first due to their physical and chemical characteristics (concentrated energy, ease of use) their abundance and their low direct cost. And that the essential differences between the standards of living of Europeans and Senegalese, Ethiopians or of Bengali correspond to energy consumption differences that explain. An average French consumes on average 7000 kWh per year of electricity, an inhabitant of Niger 30 kWh… one side habitat, doctor, schools and University, firefighters… the other deprivation. the satisfaction of the basic needs of the three billion humans who live more poorly on the planet cannot be obtained without that they can access more energy than today ' hui, and, at least in three decades, fossil fuels contribute strongly.

FACE THE CONTRADICTION AND THE REAL
Confront this contradiction to engage serious climate policies within a broader project of human progress calls into question this to believe most of the Governments of the planet. They believe in capitalism, and even at its deregulation forced (the European Union continues to deregulate and increase competition in electricity generation systems and rail networks, nonsense before the necessary ecological planning), they believe in the need for a caste of rich and super-rich (and often form part of), they often despise democracy even reduced to the appearance… they do not need to “assign” the industrial lobbies, they have a strong desire that latter exist. And in most democratic countries, they represent the will of the people. When Emmanuel Macron says he wants more young people dreaming to become billionaires thanks to the net-economy (and not to have great ideas to solve economic and social problems and implement them in solidarity-based cooperation between beings humans), It expresses the thought of a President of the Republic elected by a majority of votes in an election “normal”.

Climate cacophony
These realities that explain the schizophrenia of the Paris agreement. So they are not spillable by a demonstration calling for “Save the planet”. They are durable. And that is why, in my book, The underside of the climate cacophony, written at the end of the last spring, I was anticipating the outcome of the COP-21 thus : "At the moment where this book is written., the contribution of most countries remain unknown, in particular that of the Giants China and India. But it is likely that, When will be the accounts a month of COP-21, the account will not be. In other words than the allowable emissions of these 'contributions' trajectories will not be in line with the 2 ° C climate target. But, could it be otherwise ? Even a 'success' of the COP-21, that is the signature of an agreement whatever it is, will be only one step in a long process by which humanity will face the consequences of the transformation of the planet which she engaged. The idea that she would be able to define now, permanently and for the whole century, the strategy and the means of control of this transformation, Optimizing the fairer the exploitation of natural resources with regard to current and future needs, is a very pious and completely vain wish.

This little exciting prospect, some draw the conclusion that we cannot expect anything of this Convention and the negotiations that accompany. And to turn to local action, consumers or businesses, or symbolic decisions such as the sale of shares in oil companies owned by local authorities or American universities, or even to the action of each consumer to reduce its use of fossil fuels. These actions are not unnecessary and some are even very important. They allow to make concrete progress on many of the technical or economic subjects. But they quickly find their limits on the mode of the car driver who would take a train… that does not exist. Global coordination will be necessary to go further than the first economy measures, the choice to double dividend, the implementation of efficient technologies and therefore profitable immediately. That is why the continuation of the process of the Convention, with the requirement for countries to report annually their "inventory" of greenhouse gas emissions, to meet for negotiations where we speak of climate goals, aid for vulnerable countries, coordination for the promotion of technology little or no issuer, support for the policies of reforestation or limitation of the deforestation… must be one of the major goals of the COP-21. It is by this yardstick can judge his success."

By Hôtel★★★ Restaurant gourmand Coco Lodge Majunga