http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/why-2-degrees-celsius-is-climate-changes-magic-number/
After looking at these two cartoons and then the link that was within the Green IPE slides, I believe all three fit very well together. The Paris Agreement is certainly a big step in the right direction. It's a little bit more reassuring due to all parties being in agreement with it, especially the three biggest emitters, U.S., EU, and China. This of course appears to be a step up, due to this overall agreement, from the Kyoto Protocol and Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, which both went no where due to lack of cooperation by mostly the U.S. and China. Although, within the Paris Agreement, there are actually no legally binding provisions on the emissions. It is all voluntary, which is a pretty idealistic in terms of members actually complying to the provisions even though it might slow their economic growth. There are a few members within this Paris Agreement, including the U.S., that are proven to not always do what is right in the face of compromising their economic footprint.
Along with this, this agreement is using a "bottom-up" approach which is essentially relying on the member's political mobility within their own nation's borders to make a change in complying with the proper number of emissions that are allowed to be released in order to stay under the 2 degrees Celsius goal. There are issues within this particular part of the agreement because once again it isn't legally enforcing climate change protocols. Another issue, is that this portion implies that emissions stay within borders, which of course is not the case. Within the agreement they do emphasize on the differences between different countries emitting levels, but it does not enforce a differential index, like Kyoto did, of the division in emissions between developed and developing nations. As a last note, the goal of staying under or at 2 degrees Celsius is not really a promising goal, considering the amount we still will be losing to global warming within that range. Although, it is a goal nonetheless, which is better than no preventative global warming goals. It's just that when one actually looks at the agreement, it appears to be more of a fabricated fluffy agreement that actually makes not promises or assurances. It seems to just be trying to act as an idealistic reassuring measure for that polar bear above, when in actuality it is on the road to making no significant changes and will end up under water like the other two climate initiatives. This is a very pessimistic view of the agreement so please offer any disagreements with my position. Thank you!
~Marissa Jordan
Hi Marissa!
ReplyDeleteI agree with your conclusion that "no significant changes" will come from the Paris Agreement. True, the goals set in Paris are laudable but based on their calculations they will not be enough to save us from disastrous environmental consequences.
That being said, I think it's good there are no "legally binding provisions" as that would intrude upon national sovereignty. I believe the United Nations functions best when it encourages international dialogue and engages in peacekeeping efforts. It is difficult to enforce international law as there is not international military. In my mind it's almost like pitting the United States Olympic Basketball team against a rag tag team. You know who's going to lose and it's not going to be a close game. What do you think?
Hope you had a great Thanksgiving break!
-Hattie
Hey Hattie!
DeleteThank you so much more your comment! I agree, I think a legally binding provision would be an infringement on state sovereignty, but I think there should definitely be more of a push for an international dialogue that encourages countries to talk and team up in fighting and stopping their environmental degradation effects. It's great there was an agreement, but there needs to a continued and constant conversation about it. Every decision made by these countries needs to have consideration on how these decisions will effect the environment. The only way to effectively combat this issue is to have it under constant scrutiny, but I don't think voluntary agreement will enforce this. I agree that this is a very unfair fight because this issue is being spread by the richer nations and it's hurting the poorer ones, so unless the rich nations start to care, it's going to be a poor fight. Thank you!
Marissa Jordan
Hey Marissa!
ReplyDeleteI would agree,I'm not convinced we'll see significant changes from the Paris agreement, considering the failure of similar agreements in the past. It seems difficult to incentivize countries to decrease their emissions since this is often associated with economic costs.
I feel like the only way to get major countries such as the U.S., China, and the E.U. to significantly reduce their negative effects on the environment, is for a complete change in the energy industry. Although clean energy is starting to be invested in, it is not near as popular as other industries that deal with fossil fuels. Countries will be able to lower their footprint on the environment if citizens, corporations, and the government make a full commitment to investments in clean energy and technology. Countries now see reducing their emissions as a economic disadvantage at times and clean energy is expensive. I don't think we will see any major changes in this until countries feel that they are left with no other choice but to treat the environment better, in which case I hope it isn't too late.
But, say one of the major powers like the U.S. made a decision to commit to investing in clean energy only, do you think that other countries would follow? Would they U.S. really be at a disadvantage if no one else did follow?
Great post and cartoons!
-Julia
Hey Julia!
DeleteThank you so much for your comment! I completely agree with everything you've said. I honestly can't be certain that countries will follow the U.S. if they were to make that decisions, especially China. I think countries within the EU have already made strides towards cleaner energy and if the US did too, it would definitely be influential for both to be participating. I think there would have to be an economical incentive for some, like China, to participate. I think if the US put more of an emphasis on the issue of environmental degradation, more people would care and maybe more countries would too. I can't be certain though. Thank you!
Marissa Jordan