CLIMATE CHANGE THE DEBATE
T H E P E S S I M I S T T H E O P T I M I S T
KILLING SOMETHING ALREADY DEAD: TRUMP AND THE PARIS AGREEMENT THE PARIS AGREEMENT IS ALIVE AND KICKING...
Although some, right and left, think that UN Cli-
mate Conferences Of Parties (COP) are colour-
ful jamborees of people in suits/tailleurs piling
up air miles, and naïve tree-huggers putting up
stunts for the sole satisfaction of their own social
media stream, the 2015 Climate Conference in
Paris actually had a clear goal: bind all nations in
an Agreement to keep global warming below 2°
C (possibly 1.5). And the negotiators… well, they
actually did it. Paris gave us an Agreement where
all nations committed to the target (broadly and
technically speaking, to achieve “carbon neu-
trality”). I was in that plenary when it happened,
with my colleague Ed Perry. The never-ending
applause that embraced the announcement is
one of those moments you just do not forget.
Unfortunately with the US, the world’s sec-
ond largest polluter, withdrawing from the Paris
Agreement there is very little chance to achieve
the 2° C goal. But the truth is that even before
Trump went for the final killing, Paris seemed
moribund to many. When the Agreement was
signed in 2015 the world emitted some 52 bil-
lion tonnes of CO 2 equivalent (GtCO 2 Eq, one
of the ways used to measure the emissions of
greenhouse gases, GHG). Scientists estimated
that the path to “limit the damage” was to reach
a yearly figure of 44 GtCO 2 Eq by 2030. But
latest data (pre-Trump) suggest we’re on the
path to the high 50s instead. That is probably
because the only way of achieving the Agree-
ment was to allow a vast array of exceptions
and caveats. The negotiators’ priority was nec-
essarily inclusion over content, a fact that was
noted and criticised especially by development
NGOs, who were left with the desolating reality
of no cash for developing countries to grow in
a “clean” way. In order to get everyone’s signa-
ture the Agreement had to adopt often a rather
vague wording, without legally binding hard
targets (unlike the Kyoto Protocol).
The terrible blow to the Paris Agreement was
(accidentally?) choreographed exactly on the
25 th anniversary of the historic 1992 Rio Summit,
when the UN Conference on the Environment
and Development created the unpronounceable
UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change, the landmark agreement that launched
the war on climate change). Suggesting, some-
how, that both are doomed. Unfortunately, data
supports this thesis: since 1992 (when world
leaders solemnly agreed to REDUCE greenhouse
gases) the yearly amount of emissions have gone
up from 38 to 52 Gt (+37%). As a result, the con-
centration of GHG has risen from 352 ppm (parts
per million) to 410 ppm (+15%). A complete failure.
There are plenty of rea-
sons to be optimis-
tic. We couldn’t
have hoped for a
better response to
Trump’s an nouncement.
The world has rallied and made clear that the
Paris Agreement will not change as a result of
US withdrawal, and the climate movement in
the US is strong – only intensifying in response
to US withdrawal. Prominent businesses, gover-
nors and mayors in the US have all committed to
support the Paris Agreement independently of
the federal government.
Climate change is like no other man-induced
phenomenon: it will affect (meaning, starve
and kill) the poorest and most defence-
less on Earth. Most of whom have
done little or nothing to deserve
it, and in numbers never seen
before in global conflicts. It’s
an “oblique” tragedy: we, in
the richer economies, pollute
today, yesterday and tomorrow,
and someone in one of the poor-
est regions on the planet suffers. An
ethical paradox that makes global warming possi-
bly the most unacceptable of all “market failures”.
This externality, that’s how economists call
“costs not reflected in prices”, is particularly hard
to tackle because it affects a common good (our
atmosphere) and it offers unlimited chance to
free-ride any tax/incentives system. We see it
on a daily basis with environmental regulations:
countries chose to weaken them to give a
competitive advantage to their industry.
Today the literature that says we will fail on
The environmental movement however
mitigating (reducing) climate change is vast.
decided, in the end, to declare victory.
Game theorists have contributed to the
Blame it on the “communicators”
debate and concluded: climate change
who chose, strategically, to pro-
mitigation is destined to be sub-op-
mote a positive narrative, to gather
timal (not enough). The dramatic
Luca Bonaccorsi
interest and support. The message
truth is that we must accept this fact
Chief Editor
we went for was: “We’re winning,
and run for cover. Adaptation might
BirdLife International
momentum is with us”. One year
soon be the only viable solution.
8
...and don’t let a pessimist convince you oth-
erwise! When Trump announced in June that
the US was “getting out”, it hurt. It was a kick
in the teeth to vulnerable communities world-
wide who already suffer the impacts of climate
change, to those who invested years of their lives
to negotiate the Paris Agreement, and to 62%
of the US public who wanted the US to remain
in the Agreement. It hurt, but it did not cripple,
let alone “kill” the Paris Agreement. Much to his
chagrin, the Agreement does not need Trump.
later US citizens elected a climate-sceptic Presi-
dent, the cruellest of reality checks.
While Trump may repeal environmental regula-
tions to bolster the fossil fuel industry, it will ulti-
mately be market forces, not government policy,
that drives investment. Renewable energy con-
tinues to drop in cost and is becoming increas-
ingly attractive vis-à-vis dirtier fuels – even with-
out accounting for the negative externalities.
Countries will not withdraw from Paris, nor will
they renegotiate. Too much political, human and
financial capital has been spent to walk away
now. And too much is at stake. Developed and
developing countries are stepping forward to
reaffirm their commitment to Paris. Paradox-
ically, Trump’s decision appears to be cata-
lysing nations to accelerate their efforts.
PARIS AND RIO ARE
FAILING TO DELIVER.
ADAPTATION
IS THE ONLY
VIABLE SOLUTION
BIRDLIFE • JUNE 2017
THE GLOBAL
MOMENTUM
OF CLIMATE
ACTION CANNOT
BE STOPPED
JUNE 2017 • BIRDLIFE
low-carbon future. China is committed to cut its
own emissions because of the deadly levels of air
pollution in its cities. Free-riding on other coun-
tries’ emission reductions will not address this.
The Paris Agreement was not already “dead”
nor “moribund” before Trump. The Agreement –
signed by 195 parties – was a huge diplomatic
success. It establishes a framework with clear
goals to help all countries move together in
the right direction. It sends a powerful signal to
investors and businesses to move towards more
sustainable patterns of production and con-
sumption. Countries are making progress, albeit
slow, to translate the Agreement into action
nationally. Regular reporting and stock-taking
under the Agreement provides an opportunity to
review progress and ramp-up ambition.
We should not downplay the progress we have
made since the Rio Summit. Once the purview
of a handful of scientists and diplomats, cli-
mate change is now a mainstream issue that has
mobilised civil society, scientists, governments
and businesses. New pacts and coalitions have
emerged, and hundreds of thousands of citi-
zens across the globe have taken to the street to
march for climate action. We have deepened our
understanding of climate change, its impacts,
and our response options. Low-carbon invest-
ment has increased significantly, and national
policies have been strengthened to promote
low-carbon, climate-resilient growth.
There’s no doubt that we have to do more,
and do it faster, but we are making progress.
We’re bending the emissions curve, and we’re
enhancing the resilience of human and ecolog-
ical systems. The UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change has been instrumental: it
has provided visibility to climate change,
established a shared agenda, formalised
financial and technical support for devel-
oping countries, and provided a space to
share knowledge, exchange views and
report on progress.
Trump may have abdicated US leadership
on climate change, but China is all too
happy to fill the void, and strengthen
its political and economic position.
Edward Perry
As the world’s largest investor in
Global Climate Change
renewable energy, China stands to
Policy Coordinator
profit from the global transition to a
The global momentum of climate
action cannot be stopped. The
Agreement stands strong, and our
resolve unyielding.
9