tag:theconversation.com,2011:/columns/cop21-blog-474COP21 blog – The Conversation2015-12-17T15:38:44Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/525252015-12-17T15:38:44Z2015-12-17T15:38:44ZThanks to Paris, we have a foundation for meaningful climate progress<p>The <a href="http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf">Paris Agreement</a> is a truly landmark climate accord, and checks all the boxes in my <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-five-point-scorecard-that-predicts-success-at-the-paris-climate-talks-51380">five-point scorecard</a> for a potentially effective deal. It provides a broad foundation for meaningful progress on climate change, and represents a dramatic departure from the Kyoto Protocol and the past 20 years of climate negotiations.</p>
<p>In Paris, representatives of 195 countries (plus the European Union) adopted a new hybrid international climate policy architecture that includes: bottom-up elements in the form of <a href="http://unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/items/8766.php">“Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs)</a>, which are national targets and actions that arise from national policies; and top-down elements for oversight, guidance, and coordination. Now, all countries will be involved in taking actions to reduce emissions.</p>
<p>Remarkably, 186 of the 196 parties to the agreement submitted INDCs by the end of the Paris talks, representing some 96% of global emissions. This broad scope of participation under the new agreement is a necessary condition for meaningful action – but, of course, it is not a sufficient condition.</p>
<p>Also required is adequate ambition of the individual contributions. But this is only the first step with this new approach. The INDCs will be assessed and revised every five years, with their collective ambition ratcheted up over time. </p>
<p>That said, even this initial set of contributions could cut anticipated temperature increases this century to about 3.5°C – more than the frequently discussed aspiration of limiting temperature increases to 2°C (or now, under the Paris deal, potentially to 1.5°C), but much less than the 5-6°C increase that would be expected without this action. (<a href="http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2015/11/06/stories/1060027629">An amendment to the Montreal Protocol</a> to address hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) is likely to shave off a further 0.5°C of warming.)</p>
<p>The problem has not been solved, and it will not be for years to come, but the new approach brought about by the Paris Agreement can be a key step toward reducing the threat of global climate change. </p>
<p>The new climate agreement, despite being pathbreaking and the result of what The New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/world/europe/climate-change-accord-paris.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0">rightly described</a> as “an extraordinary effort at international diplomacy”, is only a foundation for moving forward. But it is a sufficiently broad and sensible foundation to make increased ambition over time feasible for the first time. </p>
<p>Whether this foundation for progress is effectively exploited is something we will know only 10, 20, or more years from now.</p>
<p>What is key in the agreement is the following: the centrality of the INDC structure; the most balanced transparency requirements ever promulgated; provision for heterogeneous linkage, including international carbon markets (through “internationally transferred mitigation outcomes” – ITMOs); explicit clarification in a decision that agreement on “loss and damage” does not provide a basis for liability of compensation; and 5-year periods for stocktaking and improvement of the INDCs. </p>
<p>So my fundamental assessment of the Paris climate talks is that they were a great success. Unfortunately, some advocates and some members of the press may characterise the outcome as a “failure,” because the 2°C target has not been achieved immediately. But the Paris Agreement provides an important new foundation for meaningful progress on climate change, and represents a dramatic departure from the past 20 years of international climate negotiations. </p>
<p>Of course, the problem has not been solved, and it will not be for many years to come. But the new approach brought about by the Paris Agreement can be a key step towards reducing the threat of global climate change. In truth, only time will tell.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52525/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<h4 class="border">Disclosure</h4><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert N. Stavins receives funding from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the Enel Foundation.</span></em></p>The Paris deal has laid the foundations for real global progress on climate change. On that score, it must be judged a huge success.Robert Stavins, Professor of Business and Government, Harvard Kennedy SchoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/522432015-12-11T18:31:03Z2015-12-11T18:31:03ZGood deal or bad? Emotional turmoil as Paris climate talks draw to a close<p>How should we react to the likely outcome of the Paris climate conference? Unless something dramatic happens overnight it is very likely that the news media on Sunday morning will hail the Paris agreement as a breakthrough and a big victory for those pushing for strong action on carbon emissions.</p>
<p>Yet on Friday we heard from some of the best-informed scientists that the outcome will be a catastrophe.</p>
<p>So who is right? They both are. It depends on the question being asked.</p>
<p>One question is: “What could we reasonably hope would be achieved at the Paris conference?” In my assessment (that is, compared to my expectations about what was possible based on experience and the signs coming into the conference), the likely agreement is about as good as could be hoped for.</p>
<p>It finally acknowledges that warming should be kept below 1.5°C, there will be five-yearly reviews (with exceptions), climate financing has been ramped up, the crippling formal division between rich and poor countries has been broken down and various other provisions have been resolved towards the good end of expectations.</p>
<p>It’s become clear that what is being achieved in the negotiating rooms is being trumped by what is happening outside. In the last fortnight I have <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-earth-has-moved-big-businesss-radical-climate-shift-is-now-unstoppable-52119">witnessed</a> the quite amazing shift among investors and “non-state actors” that signals a sea-change in climate action that now seems unstoppable. (This comes from someone with a well-founded reputation as a doomsayer).</p>
<p>But there is another question that can be asked: “Will the Paris Agreement be based firmly on the science and commit the parties to actions that will limit global warming to less than 2°C and preferably 1.5°C?” The answer to that is undoubtedly no.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/190/8c77ad2c631b947ec1188bf545bc5376f6623e31/site/index.html?lat=51&lng=51&zoom=3">country commitments</a> brought to Paris are expected to limit warming to <a href="https://theconversation.com/most-countries-need-to-at-least-double-their-efforts-on-climate-study-49731">perhaps 3°C</a>, which will be catastrophic if it occurs. Limiting warming to 1.5°C now seems impossible. As Steffen Kallbekken, Research Director at the Centre for International Climate and Energy Policy, put it at a conference briefing: by the time the current pledges enter into force in 2020, we will probably have exhausted the entire carbon budget for the 1.5°C degrees target.</p>
<p>So the Paris agreement arguably locks us into a warming trajectory that will be disastrous.</p>
<h2>Worse than Copenhagen?</h2>
<p>How are we to find our way through these conflicting stories?</p>
<p>Consider the statement on Friday by Kevin Anderson. He made the heart-stopping claim that the deal as it stands is <em>worse</em> than the Copenhagen Accord. The commitment to science has been stripped out in Paris, he said, and emissions from shipping and aviation, huge and growing sources of emissions, have now been “exempted”.</p>
<p>Anderson knows carbon budgets better than most; but if we stand back and look at the effect of the Copenhagen agreement on the world versus the likely effect of the Paris agreement on the world then his claim makes no sense.</p>
<p>When the media, and everyone else, declared that Copenhagen was a disaster the signal to the world, and especially to business, was that nations cannot agree and not much is going to happen.</p>
<p>Yet when the media, and almost everyone else, reports that Paris was a huge success the signal to the world, and especially business, is that nations have agreed on a firm direction, that the world is rapidly changing and that you are crazy if you do not get on board.</p>
<h2>Two right answers</h2>
<p>There is good reason to feel, like me and others such as <a href="http://blogs.afp.com/correspondent/?post/climate-change-glass-half-full-or-half-empty">Marlowe Hood</a>, torn in two directions. For those who understand the situation, the polarity sets up a powerful tension. If it’s uncomfortable to be suspended between the poles, it’s dangerous to go all the way to one or the other.</p>
<p>If we allow ourselves to be drawn over to the everything-will-be-OK pole, we are ignoring the science and indulging in wishful thinking.</p>
<p>If we allow ourselves to be drawn over to the catastrophe pole, which is quite consistent with the science, then we become unable to recognise and encourage the positive steps that are being made. Three degrees is a big improvement on four, and 2.5°C is even better, even if it remains bad. But what matters most is momentum.</p>
<p>After writing the “good news” stories I mentioned, hearing the scientists again was like a bucket of cold water. But we have to live between the poles, because it is the tension that allows us to believe that the great step forward of Paris, while still a long way short of what is needed, could set the world on a path where much more becomes possible.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52243/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
How should we react to the likely outcome of the Paris climate conference? Unless something dramatic happens overnight it is very likely that the news media on Sunday morning will hail the Paris agreement…Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics, Centre For Applied Philosophy & Public Ethics (CAPPE), Charles Sturt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/522212015-12-11T09:34:34Z2015-12-11T09:34:34ZThe final countdown: Paris talks overrun but a climate deal is within reach<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105401/original/image-20151211-8314-lffzxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=6%2C8%2C675%2C368&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Pulling an all-nighter as the climate talks enter their final frenetic hours.</span> </figcaption></figure><p>The UN climate summit is due to reach an agreement on Saturday afternoon, Paris time. By this stage of the ill-fated Copenhagen summit six years ago, the wheels were already coming off. People had started to panic. The grand dream - laughably ambitious in retrospect - was evaporating.</p>
<p>Paris is different. The mood is fairly upbeat, and someone (French foreign minister Laurent Fabius) is in charge. A solid deal which will help avoid dangerous global warming is within reach. The earnest, tired negotiators can almost taste it. They are working through the night – in fact several nights, because the summit will now run over – to land it. </p>
<p>A disaster of Copenhagen proportions is unlikely now. But nor is it possible that the summit can clinch a deal to cap global warming at 2°C, or 1.5°C (both targets are featured in the latest <a href="http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/da02.pdf">draft text</a>, released late on Thursday evening). There’s one thing all 196 countries at these talks do agree on, and that’s that they’re not yet ready to commit themselves to the deep national cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that scientists say are required. Climate change always has been someone else’s problem.</p>
<p>At this point I could talk about UN processes, about texts and brackets and articles, but I’ll spare you the full horrors of the UN bureaucracy.</p>
<p>The two most likely options are: first, a fairly strong deal which charts a course towards avoiding dangerous levels of global warming. The idea is that deal would be ratcheted up over time. It would cement quite strong ambition on addressing climate change, with more hard work to come.</p>
<p>Option B is a weaker deal which settles for more modest ambition. It would let countries off the hook on their emissions, and it would not feasibly map out a course to keep global warming to 2°C or 1.5°C. Option B would not be without value; it would help lay out some of the global architecture to reduce emissions and it would be more ambitious than what came before. But it would confirm what many already suspect – that the UN cannot solve climate change. Under the UN system, 196 countries have to agree on every word of this deal. And those countries include oil producers, coal exporters, countries with parliaments loaded with climate sceptics, and desperately poor countries with more immediate problems to fix. Is it any wonder that 23 years of these summits have produced so little?</p>
<p>At this stage the issues that will determine whether the Paris deal ends up being option A or option B are how ambitious the deal is on cutting emissions and the language used on that; how the deal strikes a balance between developed and developing countries; and whether richer countries put enough money on the table to help poorer countries.</p>
<p>Plenty of people at the utilitarian Le Bourget conference centre in outer Paris will tell you which way the deal is heading, but the truth is at this stage no one knows - not even the leaders of the United States, China and India, who may make a decision over a phone call on Friday night or Saturday morning.</p>
<p>Wherever the Paris deal falls, however, it will only be part of the story on planet earth’s future climate. Sure, the media loves a big summit with celebrities (of whom there have been plenty here). But what’s becoming increasingly clear is that what matters is what’s done by federal, state and local governments, by <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-earth-has-moved-big-businesss-radical-climate-shift-is-now-unstoppable-52119">businesses</a>, by board members, by entrepreneurs, and by ordinary people from Beijing to Bhopal to Broome.</p>
<p><em>This post was originally published on the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute’s <a href="http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/cop21blog">COP21 blog</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52221/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Exhausted negotiators are still working hard to land the Paris climate. They haven’t saved the climate yet, but a Copenhagen-style diplomatic disaster has been avoided.Cathy Alexander, Research Fellow, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/521192015-12-10T09:59:10Z2015-12-10T09:59:10ZThe earth has moved: big business’s radical climate shift is now unstoppable<p>The most surprising revelation here at the Paris climate conference has been the astonishing shift in the world of investors over the past 12 months. There is now unprecedented momentum towards participating in the transition to a low-carbon economy, and the view at the “big end” of the conference is that a strong agreement will provide an extra shove. It’s unstoppable now.</p>
<p>It’s not that investors and chief executives have had an ethical epiphany about climate change; it’s just that they can see where the world is headed, and it makes sense to be part of it rather than being stuck in the economy of the 20th century. As US Secretary of State John Kerry said yesterday: “While we’ve been debating, … the clean energy sector has been growing at an incredible rate.”</p>
<p>Contrast that with Australia, for instance, where the attitude of the business community has always been “we don’t want to be at the forefront of global action”. The old fossil fuel companies still have the dominant voice in the public debate and in the policy process. It may take another year for what’s happening across the world to sink in, but the complaint will increasingly become “we don’t want to be left behind”. </p>
<p>So what are the dimensions of this shift in business and investor sentiment? I <a href="https://theconversation.com/business-big-hitters-highlight-the-huge-growth-in-climate-risk-management-51848%22">wrote last week</a> about how investors are running ahead of governments, as shown for example by the quiet revolution in the growth of green bonds, and by the <a href="http://montrealpledge.org/">Montreal Carbon Pledge</a> under which large investors have committed to measuring and reporting on the carbon footprint of their portfolios. In a little over a year, this pledge has been signed by investors controlling more than US$10 trillion in assets.</p>
<p>More immediate abatement action is to be found in the so-called <a href="http://sciencebasedtargets.org/">Science Based Targets</a> initiative, under which 114 large corporations have pledged to reduce their emissions in a way consistent with the 2°C objective. Big corporations including Ikea, Coca-Cola, Dell, General Mills, Kellogg, NRG Energy, Procter & Gamble, Sony and Wal-Mart have already signed up and are implementing plans.</p>
<p>Dell, for example, has pledged to reduce emissions from its facilities and logistics operations by 50% by 2020 (relative to 2011 levels), and to reduce the energy intensity of its product portfolio by 80% by 2020.</p>
<p>These corporations have not decided that principles should outweigh profits; they have decided that, looking over the next several years, sustaining profitability requires that they shift to low-emission energy. One factor weighing on corporate minds is exposure to risk in energy markets, which are likely to be more volatile and uncertain partly because of the growing challenge posed to fossil energy.</p>
<p>Central bankers are now anxious that a rapid, structural shift in energy markets and the destruction of asset-value in some of the world’s biggest companies may disrupt the global financial system. As I <a href="https://theconversation.com/business-big-hitters-highlight-the-huge-growth-in-climate-risk-management-51848">reported</a>, the governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney speaks of the need for an “orderly transition” to a zero-carbon economy. </p>
<p>This unprecedented business commitment feeds into, and is partially stimulated by, the <a href="http://newsroom.unfccc.int/lpaa/">Lima-Paris Action Agenda</a>, which <a href="http://newsroom.unfccc.int/lpaa/lpaa/massive-mobilization-by-non-state-stakeholders-summarized-at-cop21/">wound up yesterday</a> and must be considered one of the standout successes of COP21. The number of mayors, governors, chief executives and investment managers who have arrived here to declare publicly their commitment has been unparalleled. </p>
<p>Yes, the message of this conference is that something big has shifted in the world.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52119/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The most surprising revelation here at the Paris climate conference has been the astonishing shift in the world of investors over the past 12 months. There is now unprecedented momentum towards participating…Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics, Centre For Applied Philosophy & Public Ethics (CAPPE), Charles Sturt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/518722015-12-09T11:06:16Z2015-12-09T11:06:16ZThe ‘Climate Games’ aren’t just activist stunts – they’re politics beyond the UN<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104892/original/image-20151208-32402-7onmt7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=4%2C134%2C1011%2C626&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The games begin: satirising Christmas consumerism outside a French shopping centre.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Climategames.net</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>At the moment, most people interested in the politics of climate change (including me) are focusing on a small site in Paris’s northern suburbs. This is where the COP21 negotiations are taking place. </p>
<p>While to us this is clearly important, making the argument for the significance of international climate negotiations is harder than it should be.</p>
<p>Since its <a href="https://theconversation.com/timeline-un-climate-negotiations-50529">birth in 1992</a> the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has not really succeeded in altering the world’s business-as-usual practice. It’s also hard not to be aware that fossil fuel interests are disproportionately well represented in negotiations, given their contribution to the problem. And right now, global climate politics risks being reduced to <a href="https://theconversation.com/draft-deal-emerges-midway-through-paris-climate-talks-but-leaves-plenty-to-do-51871">contested wording</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/paris-climate-talks-slow-to-a-crawl-as-obstructionists-threaten-the-deal-51626">disagreement</a> over the contents of square brackets in the draft agreement. </p>
<p>So it’s understandable that some view the response to an unprecedented global crisis as bureaucratic, symbolic, or diplomatic manoeuvring that may or may not give rise to the necessary change. </p>
<p>In this context, protest is an important reminder of both the limitations of international negotiations and of the concerns and interests of those not represented. And while we might usually focus on large-scale organized protests, recent years have seen the emergence of creative forms of mobilisation and activism about climate change. </p>
<p>One of these, in action during COP21, is the <a href="https://www.climategames.net/en/home">Climate Games</a>. </p>
<p>The Climate Games has its origins in a mobilisation against a coal plant in Amsterdam in 2009. It involves individuals <a href="https://www.climategames.net/teams">forming teams</a> and engaging through an <a href="https://www.climategames.net/en/reports">interactive website</a> to find innovative ways of drawing attention to climate change and the limits of existing responses to it. These games draw together creative activists to find different ways of disrupting what organisers call “<a href="https://www.climategames.net/en/faqs#mesh-manifestations">the Mesh</a>” – the international climate system as represented by fossil fuel interests, lobbyists, politicians and “greenwashers”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105049/original/image-20151209-15584-sm3uwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105049/original/image-20151209-15584-sm3uwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105049/original/image-20151209-15584-sm3uwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105049/original/image-20151209-15584-sm3uwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105049/original/image-20151209-15584-sm3uwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105049/original/image-20151209-15584-sm3uwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105049/original/image-20151209-15584-sm3uwm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Street art takes on Big Oil in Lisbon.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Climategames.net</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One action associated with the Climate Games was the <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/makers/artists-plaster-paris-hundreds-fake-200500747.html">distribution of fake advertisements around Paris</a> drawing attention to the role of politicians and companies that present themselves as part of the climate solution. </p>
<p>In London, activists put on an <a href="http://allevents.in/events/this-changes-everything-unauthorised-film-screening-in-bp-sponsored-tate/954227057948464">unauthorised screening</a> of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1870548/">This Changes Everything</a>, a documentary on resistance and climate change, at the BP-sponsored Tate Modern. </p>
<p>A coal powerplant blockade in Germany, art installations in Paris, and an online re-creation of Pacman (featuring fossil fuel company logos instead of ghosts) are among some of the other entries thus far. </p>
<p>There are, of course, bases for criticising this type of action. <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/dont-bother-protesting-at-the-paris-climate-change-conference-there-are-better-ways-to-tackle-global-a6760311.html">For some</a>, these forms of protest seem to be more for the benefit and enjoyment of participants than effectively targeted at building political pressure for strong climate action. </p>
<p>And for others, including many representatives of the more traditional environmental campaigning community, the organisers and participants in the Climate Games are too cynical about international climate negotiations. While global climate action to date has been limited, a range of non-governmental organisations <a href="http://www.climatechangenews.com/2014/09/08/ngos-optimistic-for-chances-of-a-climate-deal/">now say they are optimistic</a> that this time we will see a breakthrough international agreement built on genuine global concern. </p>
<p>But so far, at this point in history it’s hard not to agree that the scale of the problem is not reflected in the actions undertaken by our political leaders. And in the context of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-state-of-emergency-could-thwart-public-demonstrations-at-the-paris-climate-talks-50841">significant restrictions</a> to traditional marches and gatherings after last month’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/paris-attacks-2015">terror attacks</a>, finding innovative ways to put public pressure on negotiators within Paris in particular is important. </p>
<p>Perhaps the most important contribution of the Climate Games, however, is that they remind us that climate politics cannot be reduced to formal negotiations between heads of state and their representatives. The types of actions promoted and undertaken as part of the Climate Games point to the fact that the climate problem is genuinely structural and systemic. These actions draw attention to the role of our market systems, the individual choices we as consumers make each day, and the decisions that political leaders and companies make that question their stated commitment to climate action. </p>
<p>In this way, participants remind us of the broader dynamics and politics of climate change. They also remind us of the potential gap between the outcome in Paris and genuine movement to a low- or no-carbon future.</p>
<p>As analysts of sub-national climate politics and the political economy-climate relationship have <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/mx/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/environmental-policy-economics-and-law/transnational-climate-change-governance">long argued</a>, climate politics is much more that just the international negotiations under the UNFCCC. Those organising and participating in the Climate Games not only reaffirm this message, but they also find new and creative avenues for disrupting dominant discourses of climate politics.</p>
<p>Personally, I hope they have fun in the process.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51872/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<h4 class="border">Disclosure</h4><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matt McDonald has previously received funding from the UK's Economic Social and Research Council</span></em></p>The global activist escapades that make up the Climate Games remind us that climate politics isn’t just confined to the United Nations summit in Paris.Matt McDonald, Associate Professor of International Relations, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/519192015-12-09T10:55:43Z2015-12-09T10:55:43ZEveryone knows climate adaptation is crucial, but beyond that it’s pretty hazy<p>Most of the international and scientific community knows that <a href="http://unfccc.int/adaptation/items/4159.php">adaptation</a> is a vital part of how the world will confront climate change. Gone are the days when we worried that adaptation was a distraction from mitigation. Now we know the two concepts go hand in hand. Climate change has started and will continue for coming decades, thanks to the greenhouse gases we have already emitted, and continue to emit. On the other hand, adapting to the extreme climate change that would come about if we carried on with business as usual would overwhelm adaptation in much of the world.</p>
<p>While there is broad agreement that adaptation (and therefore money) is needed, there are many aspects of adaptation that remain quite murky. Several of these have been discussed at COP21 over the past few days. To make progress in reducing the effects of climate change worldwide, we will need to rapidly overcome these adaptation shortcomings.</p>
<p>We have no idea how much adaptation will cost, beyond expecting it to be a lot.
In 2010, the World Bank released a <a href="http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/06/27/000425970_20120627163039/Rendered/PDF/702670ESW0P10800EACCSynthesisReport.pdf">report</a> suggesting that by 2050, adaptation might cost between US$70 billion and US$100 billion per year. </p>
<p>At a COP21 <a href="http://web.unep.org/adaptationfinancegapupdate2015">session on finance</a>, the <a href="http://www.unep.org/">United Nations Environment Programme</a> announced that the World Bank’s numbers could even be underestimates, once you factor in all sectors and look beyond the middle of this century. In some respects, this does not matter because public commitments to adaptation internationally are just a <a href="http://www.unep.org/climatechange/adaptation/gapreport2014/portals/50270/pdf/Executive_summary.pdf">small fraction of either estimate anyway</a>.</p>
<p>So here, broadly speaking, is what we know (and don’t know) about climate adaptation so far:</p>
<p><strong>Some costs of adaptation remain unaccounted for.</strong></p>
<p>Some costs are easier to estimate than others. For example, we can readily estimate the cost of increased fertiliser use or reinforcing buildings and infrastructure. But we know that climate change will also undermine the resilience and functioning of natural ecosystems that provide essential services. </p>
<p>The costs of shoring up, relocating, or reintroducing those services is largely unknown. Furthermore, according to <a href="http://web.unep.org/adaptationfinancegapupdate2015">UNEP</a>, only 14% of adaptation spending is currently directed to natural resource management. Most of it currently goes to agricultural projects. We will need to expand those expenditures to ecosystem restoration and preservation.</p>
<p><strong>We lack ways to evaluate the success of adaptation.</strong></p>
<p>International agencies have a long track record of evaluating development activities by collecting data where projects are implemented in comparison to areas where they are not. In theory, this method can be used to evaluate adaptation projects as well, but the timescale of adaptation is different than traditional economic development. In adaptation, the environment will be different at the start of the project than at the end, and we will want to know not if the project has improved on the original situation, but rather whether it is durable under future conditions. We must develop new standards for judging when adaptation activities have been successful.</p>
<p><strong>Adaptation actions are not yet helping vulnerable people.</strong></p>
<p>In a presentation at the weekend <a href="http://www.jamesford.ca">McGill University researchers</a> reported two interesting results from their <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2863.html">study</a> on country-level adaptation activities, based on reporting provided to the UNFCCC each year.</p>
<p>First, they found that the wealthier a country is, the more it spends on adaptation. This suggests that adaptation activities may limited by the availability of funds. </p>
<p>Second, they found that high-income countries are making little or no progress on adaptation for vulnerable populations, including the poor, the elderly, and indigenous groups. The poor and vulnerable will need the most adaptation so this apparent inequality will need to be fixed.</p>
<p><strong>There still is disagreement about what adaptation even is.</strong></p>
<p>At an adaptation session co-hosted by the University of Maryland, McGill University, the <a href="http://www.nd-gain.org">ND Global Adaptation Index</a> and others, some debate focused on the definition of adaptation itself. Klaus Radunsky, an Austrian member of the <a href="http://unfccc.int/adaptation/groups_committees/adaptation_committee/items/6944.php">UNFCCC Adaptation Committee</a>, offered (in my opinion) the best definition of adaptation: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is all the extra effort that we will need to put in, thanks to climate change, to achieve the recently announced <a href="http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals">UN Sustainable Development Goals</a>. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Sustainable Development Goals invite us to end hunger, deliver clean water to people around the world, and protect vital ecosystems. It will take the best of humanity to achieve these goals, and climate change will make getting there even harder. We will need climate change adaptation to reach these goals, and we need to understand adaptation better to do it right.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51919/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Projects to help people adapt to climate change are essential. But no one really knows how much to spend, or even how to tell which projects are working.Jessica Hellmann, Professor of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior; Director, Institute on the Environment, University of MinnesotaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/519202015-12-08T15:47:23Z2015-12-08T15:47:23ZClimate-related ‘loss and damage’ is a key issue, but it’s fiendishly complex<p>One of the many side events here at the climate conference was a <a href="https://seors.unfccc.int/seors/reports/events_list.html?session_id=COP21">session on the loss and damage</a> suffered by the poorest and most vulnerable communities as a result of the effects of climate change. </p>
<p>It was held jointly by the <a href="http://climatejustice.org.au/">Climate Justice Programme (CJP)</a> and the <a href="https://www.boell.de/en">Heinrich Böll Foundation</a>, who propose to establish a global “carbon levy” on all fossil fuel extraction, to be paid into an international loss and damage mechanism to help those communities facing the worst impacts of climate change. </p>
<p>There have also been side events on climate displacement, to discuss <a href="https://theconversation.com/most-kiribatian-households-are-mulling-climate-migration-and-thats-just-the-start-51627">climate change-induced migration</a> – including forced displacement – and human mobility. </p>
<p>What was not mentioned at any of these events is that both the carbon levy and the climate displacement proposals (which are not matters that would ordinarily be considered together) face huge issues of causation and attribution – matters that are crucial in addressing the climate change problem. </p>
<p>This is especially so for climate displacement.</p>
<p>At the loss and damage side event, the CJP pointed out that the single biggest cause of climate change is burning fossil fuels, and that the “carbon majors” – who include big coal, oil and gas – have extracted fossil fuels responsible for <a href="http://carbonmajors.org/carbon-majors-press-release/">roughly two-thirds</a> of climate change pollution.</p>
<p>It further argued that poor and vulnerable communities are paying for loss and damage with their lives, homes and livelihoods, while the carbon majors “make huge profits from selling the products responsible for causing climate change”.</p>
<h2>Climate displacement</h2>
<p>Climate displacement had already been examined at an <a href="https://seors.unfccc.int/seors/reports/events_list.html?session_id=COP21">event on December 1</a>, which discussed the importance of social science research for understanding climate change-induced migration. It was argued that the relationship between climate change and migration was not straightforward but, rather, is multifaceted and touches on virtually all aspects of life.</p>
<p>An <a href="https://seors.unfccc.int/seors/reports/events_list.html?session_id=COP21">event the next day</a> addressed human mobility as one strategy to adapt to climate change (relying largely on the new <a href="https://www.nanseninitiative.org/">Nansen Initiative</a>). </p>
<p>And at the weekend, yet another <a href="https://seors.unfccc.int/seors/reports/events_list.html?session_id=COP21">event</a>, organized by a large number of non-government organisations from Bangladesh and other least-developed countries, argued for the creation of a new UN protocol for loss and damage, based on the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” of different nations for climate change.</p>
<h2>Causation</h2>
<p>An important issue associated with all of the these proposals is the extent to which climate change causes the event that gives rise to the loss and damage or the displacement. It is <a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol33_2/Docherty%20Giannini.pdf">not possible at present for science to determine</a> whether a particular environmental event was caused by climate change. It is possible, however, to identify certain phenomena and trends as consistent with climate change. </p>
<p>Another issue is the extent to which humans contribute to particular climate change events. Science can determine neither whether a particular environmental event was caused by climate change, nor the extent to which humans contribute to specific climate change events. </p>
<p>However, it has also been <a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/elr/vol33_2/Docherty%20Giannini.pdf">argued</a> that science can determine the likelihood that humans have “contributed to a type of disruption”.</p>
<h2>Whose fault?</h2>
<p>This moves us on to the issue of attribution. As <a href="http://www.carbonbrief.org/climate-change-attribution-studies-are-asking-the-wrong-questions-study-says">Carbon Brief reported earlier this year</a>, attribution studies look at each individual event alone to see how climate change may have made that event stronger or more likely.</p>
<p>But a <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n8/full/nclimate2657.html">new paper in Nature</a> argues that the methods used in these studies tend to underestimate the influence of climate change, and suggests a new approach to identify the “true likelihood of human influence”. </p>
<p>This paper says that a better approach is one “which asks why such extremes unfold the way they do”. Specifically, it suggests that it is more useful to regard the weather event (or other incident) as being largely unaffected by climate change, and question whether known changes in the climate system’s thermodynamic state affected the impact of the particular event.</p>
<p>It’s complex science that underpins an even more complex issue.</p>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-johnston-123333">Rebecca Johnston</a> contributed reporting for this blog post</em>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51920/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
One of the many side events here at the climate conference was a session on the loss and damage suffered by the poorest and most vulnerable communities as a result of the effects of climate change. It…David Hodgkinson, Associate Professor, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/518692015-12-07T11:00:21Z2015-12-07T11:00:21ZAustralia’s climate diplomacy is like a doughnut: empty in the middle<p>There is a profound disconnect between Australia’s international climate diplomacy and its national climate and energy policies.</p>
<p>The diplomacy could be cast in positive terms, on the surface at least. </p>
<p>During the first week of the climate negotiations in Paris, Australia displayed a preparedness to be flexible and serve as a broker of compromises in the negotiations over the draft Paris Agreement. </p>
<p>Australia has also <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/paris-un-climate-conference-2015-australia-backs-target-of-limiting-warming-to-15-degrees-20151204-glg5dc.html">agreed</a> to support the inclusion of a temperature goal to limit global warming to 1.5°C, which is a matter <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-vulnerable-nations-bloc-looks-set-to-redraw-the-climate-politics-map-51536">very dear to the hearts</a> of Pacific Island nations for whom climate change is a fundamental existential threat. </p>
<p>Australia will serve as co-chair (with South Africa) of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/green-climate-fund">Green Climate Fund</a> in 2016, which will be channelling money to the most vulnerable countries in the Pacific and elsewhere to enhance their preparedness for the harmful impacts arising from a much warmer world. </p>
<p>In his <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-leader-sets-his-sights-low-in-opening-conference-gambit-51542">address</a> on the opening day of the conference, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced that Australia would ratify the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (Kyoto II) and commit A$200 million a year in climate finance going forward to 2020. </p>
<p>And on the sidelines of the negotiations, environment minister Greg Hunt <a href="http://www.greghunt.com.au/Home/LatestNews/tabid/133/ID/3588/Media-Release-12-million-allocated-for-Coral-Triangle-Initiative-grants.aspx">announced</a> that Australia would provide A$1.2 million towards the Coral Triangle Initiative for Coral Reefs, Fisheries and Security. </p>
<p>He also unveiled the <a href="https://environment.gov.au/minister/hunt/2015/mr20151202.html">Blue Carbon research project</a> to explore how the protection of marine and coastal habitats could reduce emissions by storing carbon while also protecting biodiversity and fisheries.</p>
<p>Yet appearances can be deceiving. The A$200 million in annual climate finance comes from the aid budget and is not new or additional. Nor does it represent an enhanced commitment relative to previous contributions. </p>
<p>And it is widely acknowledged that an enhanced commitment to climate finance by rich countries to assist poor countries to develop clean energy and adapt to climate change will be central to garnering the support of developing countries to a Paris agreement. </p>
<p>Australia had every reason to ratify Kyoto II, since it had one of the lowest emissions targets in the developed world for 2020 (5% below 2000 levels). </p>
<p>Australia has also been able to benefit from greenhouse gas accounting rules (including a carry over of surplus emissions allowances from the first commitment period) that will enable achievement of this target at the same time as greenhouse emissions outside the land sector are set to increase by around 11% by 2020.</p>
<p>Contrast this with Germany, the UK and Denmark, which announced that they will <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/05/australia-climate-talks-developed-nations-cancel-carryover-emissions-reduction-credits-kyoto">cancel their surplus emission allowances</a> and not carry them over for Kyoto II. </p>
<p>Australia’s climate diplomacy is therefore like a doughnut: a few some promising initiatives around the edges but nothing in the middle.</p>
<p>The missing middle, of course, is robust domestic targets and policies for 2020 and the post-2020 period.</p>
<h2>Get serious</h2>
<p>If Australia was really serious about aiming for a more ambitious temperature target to stand firm with its neighbours in the Pacific, then it would have domestic politics that were commensurate with this ambition. </p>
<p>As the strong contingent of civil society organisations from Australia at COP21 have been quick to point out, Australia’s domestic policy settings, including significant fossil fuel subsidies, actively encourage fossil fuel production and use. </p>
<p>These subsidies, along with the government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/emissions-reduction-fund">Emissions Reduction Fund</a>, cast the burden on the public to pay for the cost of carbon pollution, rather than the polluters. </p>
<p>The first week of the negotiations included a string of announcements of new initiatives on divestment from fossil fuels and efforts to promote the phase out of fossil fuel subsidies. This included a <a href="https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/FFSR_Communique_17_4_2015.pdf">communiqué</a> on fossil fuel subsidy reform, signed by eight non-G20 countries (including New Zealand and Norway) and supported by France and the United States. </p>
<p>Australia <a href="https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/aust-wont-sign-fossil-fuel-094322803.html">declined</a> to give its support to the communiqué. Turnbull said Australia would have supported it if it had been restricted to “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies.</p>
<p>Yet economists describe fossil fuel subsides as perverse because they harm the economy (by propping up inefficient industries) and the environment, and soak up scarce public money that could be better spent elsewhere. </p>
<p>To make matters worse, the government’s decision to approve the giant Carmichael coal mine in Queensland will completely cancel out any of the modest goodwill provided by Australia’s diplomacy. </p>
<p>Germanwatch’s <a href="https://germanwatch.org/en/download/10407.pdf">Climate Change Performance Index</a> for 2015 ranked Australia 60th out of the 61 countries surveyed – second last to Saudi Arabia. This is down from 57th last year.</p>
<p>No amount of flexible and constructive climate diplomacy, or negotiating support for Pacific Island nations, can hide the fact that Australia’s domestic policies are part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. </p>
<p><em>Robyn Eckersley is attending COP21 in Paris as an accredited observer. This post originally appeared on the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute’s <a href="http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/cop21blog">COP21 blog</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51869/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Australia has made several climate-themed announcements since the start of the Paris talks, but nothing that cuts to the heart of the climate issue.Robyn Eckersley, Professor of Political Science, School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/519182015-12-07T09:59:58Z2015-12-07T09:59:58ZCOP21 is still on track as countries drop their more unfeasible ambitions<p>The first week of the COP21 Paris climate conference has drawn to a close, and the delegates have taken some brief and well-deserved time off before returning to the negotiations today. They are moving towards a final agreement by the scheduled adjournment on Friday – or more likely, by an extended adjournment on Saturday (or even Sunday).</p>
<p>The <a href="http://unfccc.int/files/bodies/awg/application/pdf/draft_paris_outcome_rev_5dec15.pdf">draft text</a> of what will become the Paris Agreement is now 48 pages long, with abundant bracketed insertions of suggested text. The eventual agreed text will likely be about half to two-thirds this length. </p>
<p>Progress is being made. In terms of my <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-five-point-scorecard-that-predicts-success-at-the-paris-climate-talks-51380">scorecard</a> previously posted on this blog, here is where things stand in regard to my five criteria of success for the Paris talks.</p>
<p><strong>Criterion 1: Include at least 90% of global emissions</strong> in the set of climate pledges (called <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/191/2f9207c6269c49724f77368618b19a7107ced0f3/site/index.html?&lat=-25&lng=-25&zoom=3">Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or INDCs</a>) that are submitted and part of the Paris Agreement (compared with 14% in the current commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol). </p>
<p>This has been achieved, with today’s <a href="http://unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/items/8766.php">total number of submitted INDCs</a> reaching 157, reflecting 184 countries (including the European Union member states), and covering about 94% of global emissions and 97% of the global population. An additional 3% of global emissions will be covered by separate international aviation and maritime transport regimes.</p>
<p><strong>Criterion 2: Establish credible reporting and transparency requirements.</strong> For many years, what Europe and the United States saw as the necessity for transparency regarding emissions and emissions reduction efforts was seen by China and some of the other large emerging economies as a threat to national sovereignty. But China, in various statements, has gradually moved closer to recognising the importance of transparency for monitoring, reporting, and verification.</p>
<p><strong>Criterion 3: Begin to set up a system to finance climate adaptation</strong> (and mitigation) — the famous US$100 billion commitment. A key question has been whether the accounting of these funds would include private-sector finance, in addition to public-sector finance (that is, foreign aid). It appears very likely that leveraged private-sector finance (that is, foreign direct investment) will be counted as part of the total, which is good news. Now, a key question is whether the final text will also include some reference to the US$100 billion being only a floor – a view favored by developing countries. </p>
<p>These finance issues could still upset the talks, but that appears unlikely. One way or another, agreement should be reached by the weekend.</p>
<p><strong>Criterion 4: Agree to return to negotiations periodically</strong>, such as every 5 years, to revisit the ambition and structure of the INDCs. </p>
<p>There is emerging agreement of the importance of providing for periodic review and revisiting of INDCs, but the exact timing is still up in the air. Anything less than 5 years is not feasible, and anything longer than 10 years looks problematic. I expect that the delegates will converge on text that specifies something within that range.</p>
<p><strong>Criterion 5: Put aside unproductive disagreements</strong>, such as on so-called “loss and damage”, which looks to rich countries like unlimited liability for bad weather events in developing countries, and the insistence by some parties that the INDCs themselves be binding under international law. </p>
<p>The loss and damage issue is difficult, because the interests of the wealthy countries, at one extreme, and the most <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-vulnerable-nations-bloc-looks-set-to-redraw-the-climate-politics-map-51536">vulnerable countries</a>, such as the small island states, at the other, are so divergent that negotiations can become polarised. But it is highly unlikely that even the most aggressive of the most vulnerable countries would want to bring down the whole house of cards just for the sake of this issue.</p>
<p>There has been more progress on discussions in the corridors, if not in the negotiations, regarding the eventual <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-the-paris-agreement-be-legally-binding-48759">legal status</a> of the agreement. The French have now recognised publicly that their previous position arguing that the entire agreement, including the numerical contributions in the INDCs, be binding under international law is simply not feasible. Among other things, it would mean that the Paris Agreement would require Senate ratification in the United States, which means that the United States would not be a party to the agreement. No one wants to repeat the Kyoto Protocol experience. </p>
<p>Finally, there is more and more talk about stating in the agreement some aspirational target that is more ambitious than the frequently discussed 2°C limit for temperature increase this century (relative to the average pre-industrial temperature). Despite the passion with which many countries, particularly the most vulnerable ones, have spoken on this, the final text is unlikely to enshrine a new global objective, given how difficult it was to reach agreement on the current one. </p>
<p>So my fundamental prediction for Paris continues to be – according to my specified criteria – eventual success when the talks adjourn. Again, for those of you who would like to keep up on the work of the <a href="http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/project/56/harvard_project_on_climate_agreements.html">Harvard Project on Climate Agreements</a>, here is a <a href="http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/26041/cop21_the_pathway_to_paris.html?breadcrumb=%2Fproject%2F56%2Fharvard_project_on_climate_agreements">web page</a> describing our activities in Paris and related to the Paris climate talks here.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51918/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<h4 class="border">Disclosure</h4><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert N. Stavins receives funding from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the Enel Foundation.</span></em></p>Progress is being made at the Paris climate talks, as negotiators being to accept the limits of what can and can’t be delivered.Robert Stavins, Professor of Business and Government, Harvard Kennedy SchoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/518702015-12-06T15:42:44Z2015-12-06T15:42:44ZDespite the climate talks, French media are still focused on terrorism<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/104546/original/image-20151206-30590-6z4l96.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=6%2C6%2C2020%2C1431&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">French papers have a range of views on COP21, but even more views about terrorism.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Cathy Alexander</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>France was prepared to be on the world stage in late 2015. But not like this.</p>
<p>As the Paris climate summit reached its halfway mark on Saturday, the local media was still largely preoccupied with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/paris-attacks-2015">terrorist attacks</a> of 13 November. 130 people were murdered in the worst attacks on French soil since World War II; France remains in a state of emergency and is essentially at war with Daesh. While people go about their business, filling bars and restaurants and Metro stations, these attacks have deeply shaken France. One result is that the United Nations climate summit has been somewhat pushed to the side in the media.</p>
<p>The media did focus heavily on the opening of the COP21 climate summit a week ago, particularly on the world leaders who spoke. There was a hint of “French pride”, perhaps a post-imperial hankering, in being the centre of such an important global meeting. Media coverage has since tailed off and stories now sit in the middle of the newspaper, behind many stories about terrorism and militant Islam, and behind extensive coverage of France’s regional elections, which happen today (Sunday local time). In the wake of the Paris attacks, the right-wing, anti-immigration Front National is polling very highly, panicking the mainstream left and right alike.</p>
<p>One striking feature of the French media coverage of the COP21 summit is the consensus that human-induced climate change is real; scepticism about this is barely even covered. Similarly, there is no real debate around France’s climate change policies or emissions targets. Opposition parties are not criticising the government’s climate policies. The general theme is that the issue is settled; climate change is real, and the next challenge is to land a global deal to sort it out by the time the summit finishes on December 11. (France has relatively low greenhouse gas emissions because 78% of its electricity comes from nuclear power, which might help explain why the issue doesn’t seem politicised.)</p>
<p>Here is what four French newspapers said about the COP21 summit in their editions for Saturday December 5.</p>
<h2><em>Le Figaro</em></h2>
<p>This is a right-leaning daily (the Saturday paper costs a cool A$7.30). The <a href="http://www.lefigaro.fr/">paper</a> points to the problems around the two rival draft climate change agreements being debated at COP21, and concludes “the negotiations seem to have got off to a very bad start”. Stories quote French government ministers saying progress so far has been insufficient. Finance (how richer countries will help fund poorer countries to develop in a low-emission way) is a particular problem, as is the issue of how these funds will actually be transferred. Progress has been made on adapting to climate change, and there’s agreement that countries’ emissions targets will be reviewed every five years (although there’s disagreement on when reviews would start). “Advances have been very limited,” is how <em>Le Figaro</em> summed up the first week of the negotiations. </p>
<h2><em>Le Monde</em></h2>
<p>The left-wing <em><a href="http://www.lemonde.fr/">Le Monde</a></em> says there have been some good discussions at COP21, including on the agreement’s long-term goal on climate change. Options for this include a carbon peak at a date still to be determined, a goal of zero emissions, or a principle of carbon neutrality (this will be a major issue in the coming week). Finance for poorer countries is a critical issue at this point. Negotiations have been running very late at night – the paper refers to “nuit blanche” (white night). </p>
<p>The summit is summed up like this: “For the moment, it’s about above everything finding spaces of compromise in very restricted times.”</p>
<p><em>Le Monde</em> says a major public march on climate change scheduled for December 12, the day after the summit finishes, may go ahead (an earlier march was <a href="https://theconversation.com/security-climate-mutes-environmental-activists-voice-in-paris-51445">cancelled for security reasons</a>). </p>
<p>In its culture section, <em>Le Monde</em> has an interesting story called “The environment, I think of it then I forget”, which asks why people are not very active on climate change despite the risk of a global ecological catastrophe. The article suggests this passivity is because climate change is a difficult and complex subject, an enormous problem, and people feel powerless.</p>
<h2><em>Le Parisien</em></h2>
<p>This is a <a href="http://www.leparisien.fr/#xtref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.fr%2F">popular, centrist paper</a> in a tabloid format. It likens COP21’s progress to a snail, a “casse-tete” (a head puzzle) and a poker game in which negotiators posture and keep their cards close to their chest. </p>
<p>“There are still numerous tensions … a deal is a long way away,” the paper says. The biggest problem is that poorer countries are not happy with what rich countries have offered on climate finance; plus there are deep concerns about how countries’ emissions promises will be independently monitored to stop cheating. </p>
<p><em>Le Parisien</em> contains plenty of practical tips for people to reduce their emissions, and notes that train tickets show the carbon footprint of the journey. It has a story on nuclear power which says there’s a growing push for France to move away from nuclear towards renewable energy. But the paper warns that without big drops in electricity use this “energy revolution” would be “long and complex” – and expensive for consumers. It claims wind and solar power cost more per unit of electricity than nuclear power (although this may refer to existing sources rather than new-build). </p>
<p>In a sign of how serious the risk of terrorist attacks is being taken, the paper has a story on this new <a href="http://www.gouvernement.fr/reagir-attaque-terroriste">government guide</a> to what to do in the event of an attack: flee, and if that’s not possible, barricade yourself away or hide behind a solid object. Put your mobile phone on silent.</p>
<p>There’s room for lighter stories in <em>Le Parisien</em>: the national cup for table football (“baby-foot”) is happening this weekend, and entry is free. Also an enigmatic gentleman is selling his collection of meteorites. </p>
<h2><em>Charlie Hebdo</em></h2>
<p>This is a far-left <a href="https://charliehebdo.fr/">satirical weekly newspaper</a> which became well known when 12 of its staff were murdered by terrorists in Paris earlier this year, apparently for publishing cartoons about the prophet Muhammad.</p>
<p>Perhaps surprisingly, it argues strongly against the dominance of terrorism-related coverage in the French media. In an editorial called “AK47 versus COP21”, the paper argues the media is obsessing about terrorism – “horrors” and “nightmares” – to sell papers, while brushing aside important issues like climate change. </p>
<p>“Terrorists are much stronger than climate change,” the editorial says. “We don’t care about the climate because the terrorists kill us faster than swarms of Asian insects.”</p>
<p>Amid some unreproducible cartoons and headlines, <em>Charlie Hebdo</em> strongly criticises France’s climate policies as inadequate, unlike the mainstream media. One article claims France doesn’t declare half its emissions because goods are made overseas and imported (under UN rules, emissions are counted at the point of source, not based on where the product is consumed). France pretends to be virtuous on climate change but that’s based on lies, the paper claims.</p>
<p>The COP21 summit is an “immense pantomime”, according to <em>Charlie Hebdo</em>. People who really understand the issue know that COP21 will be a failure, but this will be hidden as President Francois Hollande rides high in the polls. “Have confidence in the PR: it will be a triumph,” the paper concludes.</p>
<p><em>This post was originally published on the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute’s <a href="http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/cop21blog">COP21 blog</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51870/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
France was prepared to be on the world stage in late 2015. But not like this. As the Paris climate summit reached its halfway mark on Saturday, the local media was still largely preoccupied with the terrorist…Cathy Alexander, Research Fellow, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.