EDITOR’S NOTE: William Jewell, Professor Emeritus in Biological and Environmental Engineering at Cornell University, has enjoyed a long professorial career as a teacher and researcher. His interests in environmental issues has led him to “some unique areas of research and teaching interests.” As one of the early explorers of how to blend academic interests in environmental and ecological engineering with an entrepreneurial direction, Dr. Jewell has developed a biomass system scalable for farm operations both large and small. In this Professor Jewell reflects on his interpretation of the progress from the recent Paris conference on the climate, both good and bad. The professor is a summer resident of Providence Bay.
by Bill Jewell
The good part of this “agreement” is that it sets out efforts to try and limit global warming caused by humans to less than 2° Centigrade. One hundred and eighty-seven countries have written a document describing how they can reduce greenhouse gas emissions that could achieve this goal, referred to as “a road map.” It is estimated that this agreement covers 97.1 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in 2011.
Items that stand out from my early reading of the document is as follows. The goal of less than 2° Centigrade is not sufficient, and neither is the time frame appropriate or impressive, apparently variable depending on each country’s commitments from 2030 to the year 2100. Neither the urgency or the magnitude of the problem is mentioned or a focus of this agreement. Warming has already occurred to the point where we know large areas are no longer inhabitable and the time to turn this ship around given immediate, effective and drastic reductions is probably greater than 100 years.
The document is written with a heavy legalistic hand making it difficult to interpret, but apparently drafted so that some of the more influential governments [the US, for example, with its amazingly, unbelievable ultra conservative Republican congress] will not deep six the agreement. This however, has not diverted all of the Republican presidential candidates for the US Fall 2016 election to swear to veto any agreement.
It is a written document only with little or no enforcement or penalties identified if some country does not perform, it appears that all actions are pretty much democratically driven and voluntary. This includes raising over $100 billion annually from developed countries and giving it to developing countries most affected by climate change.
Second, and perhaps most important to me, at least, is the homo sapiens-centric focus of everything in the agreement. We humans are the only living thing on Earth that refuses to abide by ecological principals—one species out of the millions on this amazing planet. We are in the midst of the sixth largest extinction of species the Earth has ever known—losses that are priceless, yet not mentioned in “The Agreement.”
Although the agreement is words and voluntary, the single largest bit of hope that it could lead to useful world cooperation, is that once before the world has acted, and action was taken to avert a disaster to our atmosphere – ozone hole agreement to control ozone destroying chemicals. Note, however, that this agreement was signed into being nearly 30 years ago, and only now are we measuring significant success [Monday, May 22, 2006. Researchers say the ozone hole over Antarctica is likely to contract and may disappear by 2050 – as a result of a global reduction of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone-depleting emissions WIKI news].
The agreement is full of weasel words–count them in the following statement from the agreement: “5. Parties acknowledge that adaptation action should follow a country-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional knowledge, knowledge of indigenous peoples and local knowledge systems, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant socioeconomic and environmental policies and actions, where appropriate.”
The agreement tries to list every group that might be slighted if left out–the following is an example stated in varies ways throughout the agreement: (Countries) should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity.”
These are the kinds of statements that leave much to the imagination: “All parties should strive to formulate and communicate long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies, mindful of Article 2 taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.”
A quick scan of commentary about the agreement shows a wide range of opinions ranging from positive to very bitter and vitriolic. One opinion that caught my eye, and one that verges on the edge of my opinion was written in the blog of a magician, John Sanbomatsu ‘The Real Climate Hoax’ posted January 7, 2016. In it he states that the real magic occurred in Paris where “the world’s political elites made the global warming crisis itself disappear–creating the illusion of decisive action, where in fact there was nothing.”
James Hansen, the famous former NASA scientist and authority on climate change, was more negative and direct when he denounced the agreement “as a “fraud” and a “fake.” As Hansen and others suggest, the illusion of action in Paris may in fact prove worse than no action at all. For it has left the public with the mistaken impression that the climate crisis is now going to be dealt with, perhaps even solved, on the cheap, in half-measures, and without disturbing the powerful economic and social forces that profit from ecological destruction. And that is the greatest deception of all.
Another very well known climate activist, Bill McKibben, gives room for optimism in his New York Times article dated the day after the release of the agreement. After pointing out the very modest, and politically acceptable nature of the “unenforceable’ agreement, he states that: “But what this means is that we need to build the movement even bigger in the coming years, so that the Paris agreement turns into a floor and not a ceiling for action. We’ll be blocking pipelines, fighting new coal mines, urging divestment from fossil fuels—trying, in short, to keep weakening the mighty industry that still stands in the way of real progress. With every major world leader now on the record saying they at least theoretically support bold action to make the transition to renewable energy, we’ve got a new tool to work with.”
The Canadian quantitative response to reduction of greenhouse gases was developed by 60 Canadian scholars in response to UN secretary Ban Ki-moon’s request to all countries in the Fall of 2014 (biology.mcgill.ca/unesco/EN_Full report.pdf). This document details 10 policy actions that could be immediately adopted to kick-start Canada’s necessary transition toward a low carbon economy and sustainable society. Principally among them was the unanimously recommendation of putting a price on carbon. They state in the executive summary: “Because renewable energy resources are plentiful, we believe that Canada could reach100 percent reliance on low carbon electricity by 2035. This makes it possible, in turn, to adopt a long-term target of at least 80 percent reduction in emissions by the middle of the century, consistent with Canada’s international climate mitigation responsibility.”
One Canadian action that stands out is ‘The Leap Manifesto.’ The writing of ‘The Leap Manifesto’ was initiated in the spring of 2015 at a two-day meeting in Toronto attended by 60 representatives from Canada’s indigenous rights, social and food justice, environmental, faith-based and labour movements. The This Changes Everything team convened the meeting but did not determine any outcomes. The idea was to create a space to not just say “no” to the worst attacks on human rights and environmental standards, but to dream together about the world we actually want and how we could get there. The Manifesto went through several drafts and was shaped by the contributions of dozens of people.
This is one of the most creative and imaginative documents developed by various groups responding to climate change. In part it states that: We could live in a country powered entirely by renewable energy, woven together by accessible public transit, in which the jobs and opportunities of this transition are designed to systematically eliminate racial and gender inequality. Caring for one another and caring for the planet could be the economy’s fastest growing sectors. Many more people could have higher wage jobs with fewer work hours, leaving us ample time to enjoy our loved ones and flourish in our communities.
We know that the time for this great transition is short. Climate scientists have told us that this is the decade to take decisive action to prevent catastrophic global warming. That means small steps will no longer get us where we need to go. So we need to Leap.
Some details: the agreement mentions only one targeted area for carbon management, forests (more about this below), but the following was issued as a highlight: “Many forested countries, including those which are economically least developed, have planned to stem—or even to reverse—deforestation trends. Forests are natural “carbon sinks” and are also beneficial for adaptation and the preservation of biodiversity. Mexico has to this end set an objective of zero percent deforestation by 2030, while the Democratic Republic of the Congo plans to plant about 3 million hectares of forest by no later than 2025. China’s reforestation programme, which is already underway, will help to increase the national forest stock by 4.5 billion cubic metres by 2030 compared to 2005, thus doubling the accomplishment of the past 10 years.”
Note that the most important forests and largest areas are not mentioned, this is why the document is so hard to interpret–the Amazon and Russia, not to mention Canada.
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (a protocol to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer) is an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of numerous substances that are responsible for ozone depletion. It was agreed on 16 September 1987, and entered into force on 1 January 1989, followed by a first meeting in Helsinki, May 1989. Since then, it has undergone eight revisions: in 1990 (London), 1991 (Nairobi), 1992 (Copenhagen), 1993 (Bangkok), 1995 (Vienna), 1997 (Montreal), 1998 (Australia), 1999 (Beijing) and 2007 (Montreal).[1] As a result of the international agreement, the ozone hole in Antarctica is slowly recovering. Climate projections indicate that the ozone layer will return to 1980 levels between 2050 and 2070.[2][3] Due to its widespread adoption and implementation it has been hailed as an example of exceptional international co-operation, with Kofi Annan quoted as saying that “perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date has been the Montreal Protocol”.[4] In comparison, effective burden sharing and solution proposals mitigating regional conflicts of interest have been among the success factors for the ozone depletion challenge, where global regulation based on the Kyoto Protocol has failed to do so.[5] In case of the ozone depletion challenge, there was global regulation already being installed before a scientific consensus was established. As well in comparison, lay people and public opinion were more convinced about possible imminent risks.[6][7].
