#COP21 deal :The historical agreement reached last week cannot be characterised such an historical agreement because all countries , all of them, did not break their cooperation with the lobbies which destroy our planet.
This deal offers just the possibility to come out of this irresponsibility without any guarantee that the countries that signed the agreement they will actually reach the targets.Its implementation will start in 2020. Any signatory may withdraw from 2023 .
Governments have signalled an end to the fossil fuel era, committing for the first time to a universal agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions and to avoid the most dangerous effects of climate change.
— CECHR (@CECHR_UoD) 14 Décembre 2015
Before the #COP21 deal, countries were committed that the overall greenhouse gas emissions were going to bring us to an increase of the global temperatures by 3°C this century. From now on, Paris deal takes us toward a new goal of 1,5°C. Instead of providing solutions, COP21 has negotiated a future that is still on path to heating earth from 3 to 7 degrees Celsius (°C) within this century.
— France Inter (@franceinter) 13 Décembre 2015
First thing that makes me say that this is not a historic deal is because the deal’s decrease goal (1,5°C) should be reached in the long term , therefore i ask the people who read this: how much time this “long term”means : ten 10 years, 50 years old, a whole century?
Let’s be serious! This objective is unworthy for the humanity, because in order to reach the 1,5°C, fossil fuels elimination must be immediate and irreversible. There is no shortage of attractive alternatives sources of energy. A shortage of political will probably yes for some countries.
If there was a positive point to this agreement, it would be the implementation of an every year revision cycle of countries commitments. That should be nice, but this target of 5 years as indicated until 2020 is it a good one? All the countries agreed on demands from the US and European Union for five-year reviews of their emissions reductions – an exercise that had been resisted by China. This time indicated is it going to be respected? The way this was indicated by the 196 signatories is very fuzzy. The only certainty, is that the starting line of this deal is the climate irresponsibility not indicated:
Ilan Kelman, UCL- The Guardian: For all that is encouraging in the draft agreement, the timescales and lack thereof are worrying. Little substantive will happen until 2020, while clear deadlines for specific targets are generally absent. Even if this agreement is accepted in Paris, plenty of opportunities remain for governments to change and for legislatures to fail to ratify. It will be particularly difficult to deal with the US Congress. Nigel Arnell, University of Reading: This marks a big step in our attempts to curb climate change. The goal of limiting the rise in global temperature to well below 2C – and to work towards 1.5C – is more ambitious than many would have thought just a couple of years ago. But, as the agreement points out, the pledges that have currently been made are not sufficient to achieve this target. The agreement includes a commitment to update pledges and make them more progressive, but the text is vague on the overall ambition: it does not specify a date for the peaking of emissions, and specifies only that reductions should lead towards “greenhouse gas emissions neutrality” in the “second half of the century”.
COP21 has essentially doomed that 1.5°C target, as negotiators failed to ensure binding, obligatory, quantifying, and drastic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions cuts from the top polluter countries and corporations, such as the industries of fossil fuel and mineral extraction, power generation, transportation, and agri-industrial plantations.
The implementation of 1.5°C target was a crucial point in order to survive above the sea for countries such as Bolivia , the Philippines , the Maldives (on behalf of AOSIS group) ,the Barbados (on behalf of CARICOM group) , Angola , Saint Lucia , Costa Rica, Ecuador , Nigeria or the Philippines , South Sudan and Bangladesh. India also supported the " 1.5 ° C" but asked for more financial aid to adopt it. One country opposed to it a lot: Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia increased its oil production last months in order to counterbalance the fracking oil offer made in America. But this little 0.5 ° C lower compared to 2 ° C is not anecdotal , it implies a strong and immediate action. According to the IPCC , this means a massive reduction of 70-95 % of world's greenhouse gas emissions by 2050!
While the agreement encourages the development of alternative and clean energy and other technologies for climate mitigation and adaptation, industrialized countries continue to dictate its governing framework and regulations. Technology transfer to poor and developing countries is still contingent on the prerogative and conditions of the advanced capitalist countries.
Expect the rampant promotion of ‘clean coal’, nuclear power, mega dam, and carbon capture and storage technologies as part of the climate mitigation efforts. These ‘repackaged’ dirty and destructive technologies are part and parcel of the corporate greenwash that allows for a ‘more business than usual’ approach.
Six years after the chaotic ending of the Copenhagen climate summit, the agreement now known as the Paris Agreement for the first time commits rich countries, rising economies and some of the poorest countries to work together to curb emissions.
Rich countries agreed to raise $100bn (£66bn) a year by 2020 to help poor countries transform their economies. The overall agreement is legally binding, but some elements – including the pledges to curb emissions by individual countries and the climate finance elements – are not.
— Agence France-Presse (@afpfr) 12 Décembre 2015
Accounts from behind the closed doors of negotiating session described tense exchanges between oil-producing countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, and a rapidly constituted US- and Europe-backed High Ambition Coalition, which kept up the pressure for a strong temperature goal and regular reviews of emission-cutting plans.
Most COP21 negotiators and campaigners have failed to see the inextricable links between the fossil-fuels industry and the military industrial corporations . Fossil fuel firms, petro-oil companies and military industrial corporations have common areas of interest and clear financial stakes in fossil fuel-rich regions of the world like Middle East Asia and Africa.
The end of Climate Talks :
— Athégriste (@athegriste) 12 Décembre 2015
Sources: Theguardian, Lefigaro.Fr, United Nations