Let's Talk Paris UN Summit on KWMR

Henry Miller wrote “it is no accident that propels people like us to Paris. Paris is simply an artificial stage, a revolving stage that permits the spectator to glimpse all phases of the conflict. Of itself Paris initiates no dramas. They are begun elsewhere. Paris is simply an obstetrical instrument that tears the living embryo from the womb and puts it in the incubator.”

Many nations want a Paris agreement that will signal a long-term goal of net zero emissions in the second half of this century. That doesn't mean actually producing zero greenhouse gas emissions. But it does mean producing no more than the planet can absorb without raising temperatures. Doing this would mean a dramatic transformation of the world's entire energy system, turning away from fossil fuels to other options like wind, solar and nuclear power. Is it an exaggeration to say that what happens in Paris will affect the future of the planet?

Allen Ginsberg said “you can’t escape the past in Paris, and yet what’s so wonderful about it is that the past and present intermingle so intangibly that it doesn’t seem to burden.” Some UN watchers say the stars are aligned like never before. Before the summit, all countries, rich and poor, were asked to come forward with their own voluntary pledges for how they would aid the global fight against climate change. Over 150 countries have done so.

Some nations say how they'll cut emissions, while others pledge to do things like preserve forest cover or use more clean energy. Independent researchers have calculated that if the world is currently on track for warming of about 4.5 degrees Celsius, these pledges would reduce that to about 2.7 to 3.7 degrees. Is this a good sign? Is it ambitious enough to make a difference?

Thomas Jefferson observed, “a walk about Paris will provide lessons in history, beauty, and in the point of Life.” The goal of Paris now is to produce an agreement, currently at 48 pages, that will satisfy nearly 200 nations. Will countries agree to come back every few years to increase their pledges and keep doing more and more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Must the UN have a rigorous system of accountability and transparency to make sure nations will actually keep their promises? Do the poorest countries of the world need financial support to both adapt to a warming world and to adopt new, low-carbon energy technologies?

The UN has been trying to rein in greenhouse gas emissions for two decades. Past efforts have had serious shortcomings. Top emitters like the United States refused to join the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and it didn't include any developing countries, like China. Then the 2009 Copenhagen summit ended with only a weak agreement thrown together at the last minute by politicians who didn't want to leave the talks with nothing. But nothing is what we got. Are things are different this time?

Besides arguing over how much rich nations should pay the poor, there are some nations that simply are not excited about a zero carbon future. Oil- and gas-producing countries don’t want to leave their assets in the ground. There’s also the idea of some mechanism to compensate the citizens of places that simply cannot adapt to climate change, as with small island states that are disappearing under rising seas. Indigenous representatives in Paris say the agreement must lead us away from the commodification of Mother Earth, which places our lives and our future on an unstable foundation based on money, greed and power.

Historical responsibility seems to have been forgotten. There is little acknowledgement in Paris of how closely energy is linked to economic growth. Rich countries continue to be eager to outsource their responsibilities. We are receiving cheap consumer goods without recognizing the responsibility for the embedded carbon emissions that come with them. Is this carbon colonialism? Is it time to bring back the guillotine? Was it wise for the authorities to cancel protest marches in the street after the terrorist attacks or was that merely an excuse?

The reality of continuing demand growth is such that fossil fuels will be used for decades to come. The talking will continue until we admit climate change is a failure of a system, which, on the back of “cheap” fossil fuel, is geared towards exponential economic growth. Capitalists seem to see the climate crisis as yet another opportunity for maximizing profits, with a carbon tax and market trading of carbon credits as the ultimate answer. Nobody who sits at the negotiation table in Paris has the mandate or the inclination to ask fundamental, systemic questions of the logic of the dominant economic system and the way we consume the resources of this planet.

We would like to hear what you think needs to happen in Paris this week? Tune in on Thursday, 12/10, from 11 to noon, and then call us on 415-663-8492 to join our conversation.