viernes, 25 de diciembre de 2015

Fwd: Seven questions about the ‘successful’ Paris COP

---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
De: <gleckman@mindspring.com>
Fecha: 24/12/2015 12:46
Asunto: Seven questions about the 'successful' Paris COP
Para: "Climate Change Info Mailing List" <climate-l@lists.iisd.ca>
Cc:

Seven questions about the 'successful' Paris COP

 

A good number of commentators on the Paris COP have shared views that could be summarized as the "COP was a success-but-. . .". Others have appraised the COP as a complete 'success' or a fraud .


The 'success but' message depends heavily what criteria one has for judging a successful outcome of an international negotiation.


Clearly some countries, UN-system, and some media commentators  have domestic and international rationales for declaring a 'success' in Paris –even it is just the act of concluding an agreement irrespective of the contents of the agreement or whether it actually changes in the world for the better.


The following questions look at the definition of success but in different ways . They are  intended to challenge a number of the presumptions  behind the assessment of 'success but' advocates.

 

1.     Goals and reality : a profound gap – The COP formally adopted a below 2 degree goal and de facto approved a 3.7 degree package of intended nationally determined contributions.


 Why is so much post-COP attention on the goal and not on the planet instability of what Governments accepted ? Or put in another way should the outcome of the meeting be called the Paris 1.5 degree COP or the Paris 3.7 degree COP ?


2.     Free riders galore : - The intended nationally determined contributions are only promises about the future.


Based on the COP outcome, what arguments could be made to a Government that its best short-term economic and political interest is not to cut its emissions and quietly expand its existing industrial system and let everyone else make the GHG cuts ?


3.      Five year fictions :  Each year that mitigation cuts are postponed means that a higher and sharper level of cuts are needed to bring the carbon budget down to a less than 2.0 degree goal.

If governments in 2015 could formally adopt a below 2 degrees goal with the knowledge that the aggregate impact of the declared nationally determined contributions come to 3.7 degrees, what evidence is there that they would they have even greater political willingness for sharply increased mitigation cuts at five year stocktakings ?


4.     A fantastic non-enforcement system :  Under most bilateral investment treaties, MNCs can file complaints before a binding arbitration panel that an action taken by a specific Government  reduced their expected level of profitability and that the foreign investor should be compensated by that Governments for damages.


As the Paris Agreement invites voluntary national contributions, what arguments can a Government use to defend itself before a binding   arbitration panel from a MNC which seeks compensation for loss expected income ?      

  

Climate change does not exist in a vacuum – In the Paris negotiations a good number of important policy areas were deleted by the chairs and host government from the final text of the Paris Agreement.


Why did the Paris COP disconnect climate change from the management of oceans, human rights, gender, workers, mountains, health effects, oil and gas subsidies, international transport emission, climate migrants, carbon black, carbon budget, historical responsibility, the trade regime, agricultural destabilization, etc ?    


6.     Financial support – now you see it and now you don't -  One outcome of the Copenhagen process five years ago was a commitment to have $100 billion available for developing countries by 2020. Since Copenhagen Governments have recognized that annual costs from 2020 are likely to be 3-5 times larger than the $100 billion 'commitment'


Is there a greater commitment to have money available for developing countries to reduce GHG emission or prepared for the impacts of climate change in the Paris Agreement than in the 'failed' Copenhagen Accord ?


7.     Voluntarism, voluntarism – where is the rule of law -

Under the Paris Agreement (and under the Copenhagen Accord) Governments were authorized to submit their voluntary national goal posts and GHG reducing plans to the UNFCCC. Under the Paris Agreement Governments agreed to have a 5 year stocktaking of these plans without any process to adapt these plans to meet the less than 2 degree goal.


            Does the practice of voluntary national implementation included in the Paris Agreement enhance or undermine the future development of international rule of law in other environmental, social, human rights and economic regimes?

 

Comment and Replies can be sent to


Harris Gleckman


Director, Benchmark Environmental Consulting (Maine & New York)

Former, Senior Advisor to UNFCCC at the Copenhagen COP; and

Former, Chief of the Environment Unit, UN Centre on Transnational Corporations





Harris Gleckman  Principal  Benchmark Environmental Consulting  5 Kipp St,  Chappaqua, NY 10514  914-238-8072  914-330-1207 (c)



Harris Gleckman  Principal  Benchmark Environmental Consulting  5 Kipp St,  Chappaqua, NY 10514  914-238-8072  914-330-1207 (c)



If you are not ricardo.gorosito@gmail.com and would like to join the climate-l Mailing List, please click here to SUBSCRIBE


Account/Subscription Management - climate-l Mailing List 
You are currently subscribed to climate-l as: ricardo.gorosito@gmail.com
How often would you like to receive messages from climate-l?
[ Once-A-Day: As Attachments or Displayed In Email Body | Throughout the Day | Pause Messages ]
Manage Your Lyris Account?
[ Login | Reset Password | Unsubscribe | Your Settings | More Commands ]
Haven't received any messages from climate-l? [ Lately | Never ]

Visit climate-l | About climate-l | More IISD RS Mailing Lists | Help & Support





 

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario