Paris Climate Change Conference

Paris Universal Climate Agreement Final Draft Released

Fifth Dispatch: Here's betting that activists decry it as a "weak" accord.

|

GreenpeaceBear
Bailey

I am in awe. The presidency of the Paris climate change conference released, as promised, the final draft text of the proposed universal climate accord at around 10 p.m. on Thursday. This kind of diplomatic efficiency never happens at a U.N. climate change confab.

So what's in the pact that Chinese negotiator Gao Feng characterized as "a long-term agreement that will shape everyone's future?"

The apparently agreed upon objective of the accord is to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C. Climate activists who are eager for the agreement to contain a definite end to the fossil fuel era, say by 2050, will be infuriated by the provision that says that Parties will aim to peak greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible with the goal of reaching greenhouse gas emissions neutrality in the second half of the century. Neutrality means that countries will offset as much greenhouse gases as they emit.

Rich countries more or less got what they wanted with regard to having every country eventually submitting hard greenhouse gas reduction or limitation targets, although the poorest countries get some leeway. Of course, really poor countries don't emit all that much in the way of greenhouse gases anyway. In addition, each new target submitted under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is supposed to be tighter than the last.

There is a long section the agreement that is devoted to adapting to whatever consequences flow from future climate change. As far as I can tell, it basically says that governments should plan on adapting to climate change. They should also talk among themselves about their problems and offer each other advice. Of course, poor country governments "shall receive continuous and enhanced international support" from rich country governments to help pay for their adaptation efforts.

Poor countries and activists are also keen on getting some provisions into the agreement that dealt with the issue of climate "loss and damage." The idea is that some effects of man-made global warming cannot be adapted to and will be irreversible. Rich country governments are afraid that incorporating loss and damage provision into the accord could subject them to unlimited liability claims and open the floodgates to endless demands for compensation. The whole section remains wide open, but it there is an option that says that Parties will enhance action and support to address loss and damage, but "in a manner that does not involve or provide a basis for liability or compensation nor prejudice existing rights under international law." Activists and poor country representatives have been saying in the most sincere way all week that loss and damage provisions would not subject rich countries to liability and compensation claims. So they should be perfectly happy to accept the stipulation, but somehow I doubt that they will be.

Interestingly, most of the brackets have been taken off of the sections dealing with climate finance to be provided to poor countries. In addition, rich country governments have apparently agreed that $100 billion in annual climate finance by 2020 is a floor and that funding should increase during the next decade. On the other hand, the text seems to say that the money will only be handed over if poor countries can demonstrate that they are making good efforts to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Poor country governments were pushing to make climate finance essentially foreign aid grants, but have apparently now agreed upon provisions count private funds as well. Nevertheless, rich countries will have to account for how much public money they've forked over in climate finance every two years. Still, some brackets remain: "Developed country Parties shall provide [new,] [additional,] [adequate,] [predictable,] [accessible,] [sustained] and [scaled-up] financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation."

Rich country governments are keen to establish a unified and robust monitoring, reporting, and verification procedures in order to track how well each country is doing with regard to keeping its promises. Rich country governments point out that without this information it is impossible to tell if the accord is actually having an effect on the global trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions. Also it would be harder to tell if countries are reneging on their promises.  

The three options for establishing the transparency framework state that it is applicable to all Parties. Just how the information from the reports gets reviewed is still up in the air. One version wants the information provided by all Parties to be evaluated by an expert technical committee without interference from governments. In the alternative version the information from rich countries will be subject technical reviews which will then be "followed by a multilateral assessment process, and result in a conclusion with consequences for compliance." In other words, a kangaroo court consisting of poor country governments will decide if each rich country has done enough. Under the same alternative provision the technical review of information provided by poor countries will be followed by a "facilitative sharing of views, and result in a summary report, in a manner that is nonintrusive, non-punitive and respectful of national sovereignty." It will be interesting to see which of these gets adopted by this weekend.

The agreement also sets 2023 for a first global "stocktake" of how the agreement is working and how faithfully countries have fulfilled their climate change promises. The U.S. with the support of most environmentalist organizations had been pushing for some kind global stocktake to occur in 2018 or 2019. China apparently won this round. Activists will be furious with this decision.  

The ministers are supposed to finalize the agreement by the end of tomorrow (Friday).

Note: I am filing daily dispatches from the Paris climate change conference, and I will certainly report to readers if French diplomatic efficiency is sufficiently maintained that I can enjoy the weekend in the City of Light.

NEXT: Don't Even Think of Taking Kurt Russell's Guns

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. ” In addition, rich country governments have apparently agreed that $100 billion in annual climate finance by 2020 is a floor and that funding should increase during the next decade. ”

    Good luck getting one cent out of Congress for this….

    1. Congress? What’s that? We dictate by executive fiat now.

      Congress is just window dressing and/or a convenient political foil for when policies fail.

  2. I can enjoy the weekend in the City of Light.

    I daresay enjoying a…cocktail!!!!1!1!1!oneoneone!

    (a Kir Royale, no doubt)

    1. SS: I was thinking more along the lines of nice bottle of Gigondas.

  3. This has the markings of one gigantic fuck up.

    1. Especially bad for us up here Rufus.

      You don’t have an insane lesbian environmentalist as a premier at least.

      1. No but we have a climate change PM who made the cover of Vogue.

        Not good.

        1. Oh, hey, check out BC proving Bastiat right.

          Issue is funding the idiotic mega-sized transit company covering about 80% of BC population. Politicians are still butthurt plebs refused to eat a sales tax increase to fund it (in addition to roadzz money, gas tax money and carbon tax money it collects already).
          Mayor:

          Last month, Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson floated the idea that both the province and Ottawa should increase their stake, leaving the municipalities to cover just 10 per cent.

          Premier:

          Premier Christy Clark says the solution for Metro Vancouver’s transit concerns won’t be more money from provincial coffers, and instead is calling on the federal government to stump up more cash.

          Great fiction, something something, everyone else.

  4. “This kind of diplomatic efficiency never happens at a U.N. climate change confab.”

    Ron, they’ve been churning out this sort of feel-good, mean-nothing crap for long enough to get good at it.
    As far as I can tell from the reading, it looks like everyone promises to be good, get better and maybe hand out some dough?

    1. They’ve been churning it out, but usually with a lot more sturm und drang.

      1. They’ve been churning it out, but usually with a lot more Sturm und Drang.

        FTFY

        Ve Germans vill nefer gif up our Nouncapitalization!

        1. Or compoundwording.

      2. I’ve always thought it would be cool to be co-host of a morning radio chucklefest called “Sturm and Drang.” I’d be Chip Sturm, trading quips with my wacky partner Lazlo Drang. We’d riff on the current events of the day, make fun of the producer’s dating life, and do suggestive play-on-words about the latest slutty starlets.

        I figure we’d be in at least fifty major markets within three years, finally making it possible that no one will ever have to listen to Jonathan Brandmeier again.

      3. It’s funny how people keep falling into anti-rationalism without ever experiencing actual rationalism.

  5. Fantastic news! The global warming problem is finally solved! And here we were bitching and moaning for the last 30 years thinking the planet was screwed, and all it took to fix it was handing over $100 billion a year. All it took was the damn checkbook and maybe some bigger government.

    Mark my words: With this historic agreement for perpetual funds transfers coupled with President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, the climate would never dare change again.

    Now, the only concern is did we pick the right time to freeze the climate? Is this the climate we want to stay stuck with until the sun dies? Well, I guess we just have to assume that Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Leonardo DiCaprio know what they are doing here.

    1. Assume?

      BELIEVE.

      It’s all based on faith.

    2. Is this the climate we want to stay stuck with until the sun dies?

      If you like your climate, you can keep your climate…

      …unless the sun decides not to cooperate!

  6. I drove a weak Accord once, thankfully it wasn’t mine.

    1. I had an 85 Accord in the 90s, it was a great little car.

      1. The one I was driving had no acceleration. I was only borrowing it so I don’t know what the problem was and I didn’t complain because the owner helped me out of a jam.

  7. I mean, this is just a big circle jerk when the biggest economy/biggest CO2 emitter is never going to ratify right?

    1. And Obama gives a crap about ratification because…?

      Seriously, he’s got a pen and a phone and Trump on the horizon, why can’t he (and Clinton when she wins) just go ham with regulation that will cripple US economy, while environmentalists go on about how racist GOP wants brown people to fry?

      1. The Trump horizon is uuuuuuge! It’s a great horizon, it really is! So many people say so!

    2. the biggest economy/biggest CO2 emitter

      You mean China, right?

  8. You know, I’d have a lot more respect for greenies lecturing us about our future energy capabilities if they had actual degrees in engineering and science instead of various forms of “studies”.

    1. I read in a recent book on climate change* that a good percentage of the 97% consensus of IPCC experts were not scientists but were actually journalists. Now, I have nothing against autodidacts speaking as experts on a subject that they’ve studied extensively. But if the so-called consensus says experts, I expect that they have the prerogative scientific background.

      * “Climate Change The Facts”

      1. The “97%” figure does indeed come from scientists, not journalists. However, it refers to abstracts of peer reviewed papers, not surveys of “scientists”. The criteria for rating abstracts were questionable, the raters were biased, and many abstracts didn’t express an opinion at all.

        http://iopscience.iop.org/arti…..8/2/024024

    2. I’d settle for having a bit-insignificant portion of them advocate for nuclear.

      You don’t need to be STEM. You just need to be not stupid.

  9. Will women be exempt from the draft? Will there be trans gendered bathrooms?

  10. So what’s in the pact that Chinese negotiator Gao Feng characterized as “a long-term agreement that will shape everyone’s future?”

    I for one am ecstatic to know that people I’ve never met before, nor voted for, nor authorized for… well, really any of this… are having such a profound effect on my future!

  11. The agreement also sets 2023 for a first global “stocktake” of how the agreement is working and how faithfully countries have fulfilled their climate change promises.

    Let’s say for a moment that I believe that Global Climate change is the worstest thing to happen to humanity ever.

    I would never trust any official ‘measurement’ of greenhouse gas emissions on a national, let alone global scale.

    I’ve seen what government actors are willing to do to paint a rosy picture on a particular program, process or system put in place or maintained by those same government actors.

    I’ve seen them place literally hundreds of millions in tangible medical benefits– even attached specific dollar amounts to my healthcare costs by me simply riding a battery powered bicycle around the block. Literally, just riding it around the block. Once. A specific dollar amount of “healthcare savings” that I reaped from doing that.

    1. I would never trust any official ‘measurement’ of greenhouse gas emissions on a national, let alone global scale.

      Oops! We’ve been underreporting our emissions by 17% this whole time.

  12. Can we have an accord that says the last post of the night is sufficiently controversial to create a 1000-1200 post monster thread?

    1. That would have to involve Syrian immigration or Flexible Identity issues. I’m a little soft on the second issue because I think fewer (less?) people care about #2 than #1.

      1. Flexible Identity issues

        Hey! I’m double jointed, and I got no issues whatsoever.

        1. Do you identify as a pretzel? Salted or unsalted?

          1. I identify as unassaulted.

            1. This joint is making me thirsty.

  13. In addition, rich country governments have apparently agreed that $100 billion in annual climate finance by 2020 is a floor and that funding should increase during the next decade.

    Oh, well, that’s great!

    By the way, I am not going to ask any one in the rich countries’ governments to negotiate my cable bill for me.

  14. Maybe Trump just hates groups that start with M.

  15. Choose one for the sex having:

    Flo from the Progressive commercials

    Jan from the Toyota commercials

    1. Jan.

      Although Flo strikes me as a possible screamer, and I’ve always found that screamers encourage me to greater effort, so it’s kind of a win-win.

      1. Jan looks good in those tartan skirts, she has nice legs. Flo is dumpy, to be kind.

    2. How about the AT&T lady? I can’t remember the character name, but the actress is Milana Vayntrub.

      1. Lily. The actress is an anti-gun loon so you’d have to fuck her hard enough to harm her emotionally.

        https://twitter.com/mintmilana

        1. That is disappointing. I’ve looked at her tumblr and she was awesome in the College Humor video, “Lesbian Mountain”, but I had no insight on her politics.

  16. Accidental…

    Shooting happens at 1:00 or so.

    1. Yeah, ‘oops’. Paralyze a guy for life and then conveniently forget it happened til someone calls you on it. What the actual fuck.

      Additionally, officers normally train to fire a minimum of two shots. There was no second shot..

      Whew, what a relief! …wait, I thought they were trained to empty the magazine??

      1. From the video I am pretty sure I saw ‘pop pop’, classic double tap. The second shot missed, thats all.

        1. Just one pop. That fat fuck’s finger isn’t that fast.

          From that video alone, he’s guilty of several crimes.

    2. One of the comments sounds like what a prosecutor should be saying.

      This looks like outright attempted murder to me. (apparently, the guy hasn’t died as of yet) The cop didn’t take a second shot (or did he?)because the driver dropped like a sack of potatoes. It is obvious that he knew that the driver was instantly incapacitated and no longer a threat or he would not have reholstered as was shown. Feaster flat out lies to the dispatcher claiming that the driver refuses to exit the vehicle. I suspect he was hoping to stage a second shoot; but the other cops arrived too soon. He sure took his time looking around to find his expended shell casing though, instead of rendering aid and putting out a “shots fired” notification.

    3. the gun discharged

      Really? All by itself?

  17. The agreement also sets 2023 for a first global “stocktake” of how the agreement is working and how faithfully countries have fulfilled their climate change promises.

    That is bullshit. Most of the negotiators will still be alive.

  18. I’m in the mood for Midnight Oil’s Red Sails In The Sunset album, perhaps the group’s finest record. Thank you Youtube.

  19. The UN should get back to doing what it does best: having its Peacekeepers rape African children and issuing ineffective resolutions that countries with real armies use as pretext to invade other countries, two competencies they’ve shown themselves to have expertise in.

    “Gender inclusive” global warming policy that respects “indigenous knowledge centers”? Not so much.

    1. The UN should get back to doing what it does best

      Spreading Cholera?

    2. I hope indigenous knowledge isn’t volcano related. They’d probably sacrifice an entire Star Trek convention to avert the disaster.

      (see, because you throw virgins into volcanoes)

      1. Yeah, but anyway I’m glad to see the Party of I F______ Love Science endorsing such evidence-based policies. /sarc

  20. Regarding loss and damages…

    If you make it profitable to suffer damages from climate change, you will get lots of damages from climate change.

    1. You get more of what you subsidize. This whole law has all of the look of rackateering and governmental theft to “equalize” nations

  21. OT:

    Rapist cop Daniel Holtzclaw convicted of rape and sentenced to 263 years in prison.

    They should actually make the fucker do 263 years. Let his corpse rot in a cell.

    1. Good news. It took the jury longer than expected, and I was a little concerned.

      1. The CNN article starts out with a discussion of the racial angle – race of the defendant (Asian), of the victims (black), race of the jurors (white), then quotes from Community Leaders about their Deep Concern for the all-white jury.

        Halfway through, the article gets to the actual facts of the case.

        Message: It’s really the jury that was on trial, but we can acquit the jurors of racism because they voted to convict. Because it would be really unfortunate if they voted the other way, due to the risk of civil disturbances spontaneously breaking out.

        I would presume that the jurors convicted the cop because he committed crimes, not to further a narrative or avoid riots.

        I would further presume these were crimes of opportunity – “I can rape these hookers and addicts because nobody will believe them.” Who knows, maybe he was a racist as well as a rapist, but that would mean he left the white bookers and addicts alone, focusing on the black ones, as opposed to just raping women in the neighborhoods he patrolled.

        CNN should have started by reviewing the evidence, *then* quoting the lawyers and families, then quoting, if space permitted, the activists – the Concerned Community Leaders *and* the cops’ supporters. And maybe they should have avoided the “wouldn’t it be unfortunate if he was acquitted” stuff.

        Anyway, thank God they put a rapist away.

        1. Good luck with getting CNN to report the actual news aspects of a story. That ship sailed a long time ago.

        2. The racial angle is questionable. Isn’t it sad that they put “racism” before rape?

          It appears that the facts were never in question. GPS tracking put him EXACTLY where the victims said he was, which he lied about. See my video link below. He knows what he did.

          1. Yeah, suits the SJW narrative, but they look stupid here. An all white jury put this piece of shit in prison for life. He’s worse than a random rapist as he used his position of authoritah to abuse helpless people.

            What are the odds he gets shanked in the near future? Can’t say it would upset me.

    2. Oh, and according to an article I read, it’s his birthday today. That’s mighty tasty.

  22. Why is pot illegal again?

    1. It causes global warming?

    2. I seem to remember it has something to do with white wemmenz and jazz playing negroes. I don’t remember what exactly.

    3. Because Gao Feng says so.

  23. OT: Plessy v Fergusson Wikipedia page appears to be vandalized to include Scalia as a member of the majority opinion. On the mobile version right now so I’m not sure if it’s showing up correctly.

    Just visited the site of the arrest today. Interestingly, the railroad was opposed to segregated cars because they would force them to buy more cars. However low the motivation, free markets once again arrived at the best outcome except for the meddling of politicians.

  24. “So what’s in the pact that Chinese negotiator Gao Feng characterized as “a long-term agreement that will shape everyone’s future?”

    Yeah, that’s exactly what I want: some guy from the Chinese Communist Party I’ve never heard of making “agreements” that will shape my future.

    We should all be free to make our own choices. Fuck Gao Feng.

    If the people of China ever overcome their oppressive authoritarian single-party vicious dictatorship of a government, Gao Feng’s head will end up on a pike, and we’ll all celebrate.

    The biggest joke about the UN and these conferences is that they try to pose as a representative body–as if that’s about to give them an air of legitimacy. How can you have a representative body when 1.3 billion Chinese people are being “represented” by a government that throws its own people in prison if they demonstrate for democracy?

    1. “Yeah, that’s exactly what I want: some guy from the Chinese Communist Party I’ve never heard of making “agreements” that will shape my future.”

      Flo or Jan?
      Obo or some faceless Chi Com agent?
      Gimme a minute…

  25. Maybe *NOT* OT:

    “Obama’s executive actions could open a door for successors”
    […]
    ” While the White House has condemned Donald Trump’s call for a ban on Muslim immigrants as “disqualifying” and “toxic,” President Barack Obama may have only himself to blame if a President Trump ever succeeds in putting his plan, or some version of it, into action.
    In his efforts to work around Congress, Obama has made the aggressive use of executive power, particularly on immigration, an increasingly effective and politically accepted presidential tool. While legal scholars are divided on whether Obama has accelerated or merely continued a drift of power toward the executive branch, there’s little debate that he’s paved a path for his successor.”
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics…..s-35701172

    We already know about “toxic”; we’ve had one lying piece of shit in the WH for more than 6 years, and “toxic” doesn’t begin to describe what he’s done.
    I’d hate to see Trump as pres, but Obo deserves at least that and ‘way more.

    1. S: politically accepted =/= constitutional – also “Obo deserves at least that” – but we sure don’t

      1. Constitutional is becoming noticeably less relevant at an increasing rate.

        I am somewhat confident that the unconstitutional banning of guns for people arbitrarily placed on secret government lists will not survive a court challenge. As for a Trump’s banning of Muslims, not so much. Our inalienable right to defend ourselves is recognized and explicitly protected by the constitution but allowing immigration is a discretionary act by the government and does not enjoy the same constitutional protection.

        Whether or not Carter’s banning of Iranians coming to the US during the hostage crisis is a sound precedent for Trump to use, it is the one he will use. After all, we are at war with Eastasia.

      2. unconstitutional =/= not allowed, so long as no one does anything about it; C.f. O-care “tax” originated in the Senate.
        Agreed on the penalty; my nose should stay where it is…

    2. Both teams ignore this inconvenient truth and the congresscritters have a circle jerk while going nananana.

      We deserve the hairbot or the Hildebeest.

  26. OT: Be glad, most of you, that you don’t live near Berkeley like we do. There’s a letter-to-the-editor from some foaming Berkeley know-it-all every day that’s something like this — here’s a particularly good example from today:

    Some are fanning the flames of hatred

    When I see the harsh terms with which Republican presidential candidates talk, and learn of the venom in Fox News, I suspect that the recent uptick in domestic terrorism is due to an “axis of evil” in America — sociopaths who can count on Fox News to amplify their message.

    Fox News is like an American ashram. We can descend into terrorism just like the Middle East if we give hatemongers free rein to stir the emotions of feeble-minded and deranged gun-toting white men.
    The main problem is that some politicians find power in their ability to fan the flames of hatred. Slobodan Milosevic comes to mind; Joseph McCarthy; Adolf Hitler. Dare we be passive bystanders?

    Curtis Manning
    Berkeley

    1. An Ashram is a Hindu religious retreat / monastery.

      WTF. I presume this genius meant “Madrassa” or something like that. even that fails to make any sense. Aren’t Berkeley types supposed to be culturally-hip?

      Naturally “Fox News” is widely understood as a mouthpiece of hyperbolic bigotry and hate by people who openly confess to never actually watch it. Its projection all the way down. they can imagine a “fox news” 1000X worse than any real one that might exist. They’d probably be disappointed in the fact that Neil Cavuto doesn’t spend the day riling up anti-Muslim Lynch Mobs.

      They remind me of the way Arab newspapers talk about Israelis. All their own hatreds are projected onto people who most of them have likely never seen or spoken to.

      1. In addition, while McCarthy was ham handed, he didn’t kill anybody. And, at least to some extent, he was right that the Soviet Union was spending large amounts of money trying to influence American public opinion. And, some in govt.

    2. The main problem is that some politicians find power in their ability to fan the flames of hatred. Slobodan Milosevic comes to mind

      Not to mention Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Diane Feinstein, supported by people like Curtis Manning. Sociopaths indeed.

  27. Sounds like a very good plan dude, I mean like seriously.

    http://www.GoneAnon.tk

  28. to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2?C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 ?C.

    The point-five is impressive, no?

    He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.

    He who controls the decimal places controls the present.

  29. In other words, a kangaroo court consisting of poor country governments will decide if each rich country has done enough.

    Seems legit. What could possibly go wrong? /sarc

  30. The great mountain labored, and it brought forth a mouse. But that will be enough for the Fascist Messiah to claim justification for his goal of wrecking the American economy — as long as the red states suffer most.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.