Climate Change

COP25: U.N. Climate Negotiations in Madrid Follow Traditional Dramatic Arc

Hope, despair, diplomatic equivocation

|

Open with transformational hope, sink into despair, and conclude at the last minute with sly diplomatic equivocation and obfuscation. That's the dramatic arc of negotiations and associated activist street performances that traditionally takes place during the annual two weeks of United Nations climate change conferences. The 25th Conference of the Parties (COP25) of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting now in Madrid is scrupulously adhering to that script. Currently, dark despair reigns.

"In the last ten years following the climate talks they have never been as bleak and disappointing as this conference," declared activist Mohamed Adow of the think tank Power Shift Africa in an emailed press release. "The science is staring us in the face and school children are taking to the streets in their millions, and yet at the global climate summit countries are blocking progress and watering down climate action. It's disgraceful and politicians are simply not doing their job of protecting the planet."

Specifically many climate activists are despairingly disappointed in part because the official climate negotiators from several countries are "watering down" Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Article 6 basically outlines the framework for setting up and linking carbon markets across the world. A majority of countries have committed to using carbon markets as one of the chief ways to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. COP25 negotiators were supposed to devise the rules that would make sure that trades between those markets were transparent and would actually produce emissions cuts.

So what's at issue? A big one is emission reductions double counting. Say a German company wants to offset some of its carbon dioxide emissions by buying Amazon forest carbon sequestration credits from Brazil. So far so good. The problem at the COP25 negotiations is that both Brazil and Germany want the reductions to count toward meeting their national climate goals. That double counting lowers the overall ambition to reduce global emissions.

Another issue is that some countries want to use emission reduction credits that they accrued through a program called Clean Development Mechanism under the failed Kyoto Protocol. It turns out that most of the CDM projects did not result in any additional emissions reductions and that allowing the use of such credits now would undermine the ability of future carbon markets to cut emissions.

One more Article 6 sticking point at COP25 is figuring out how to make sure that emissions credit trades between countries actually result in emission reductions that would otherwise not have been made. In other words, if Indonesia was going to build a wind power plant anyway, why should France be allowed to buy credits that would count toward its emissions reductions commitments?

And as always, money transfers from rich countries to poor countries is a central concern. Under Article 6, some sort of mechanism for skimming international carbon dioxide reduction emissions trades is supposed to be permanently set up to fund climate adaptation in poor countries.

Prediction: On Friday, diplomatic equivocation and obfuscation will reign and these thorny issues will be kicked down the road to be fought over again next year at the COP26 conference in Glasgow, Scotland.

NEXT: The Decade Populism Went Mainstream

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. I will believe climate alarmists when they accept nuclear power. Their refusal to take their own screeching seriously means I do too.

    The only true climate deniers are the alarmists who think that climate changes only under human control, that the Roman and Medieval Warming Periods were not warmer than now. I, on the other hand, do believe in climate change and have no doubt that it is changing as I type.

    1. I will believe climate alarmists when they accept nuclear power.

      I’m sure you could help them if you answer the following:
      1. What are you gonna do about the waste?
      2. What are you gonna do when some big powerful entity opposes – via violence – someone else from using energy cuz nuclear has other uses and they want to be the sole decision maker in the world as to what is acceptable?
      3. What are you gonna do when some group of say three countries (say Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia – 70% of uranium production) decides to cartelize the fuel source after a few trillion has been spent making everyone dependent on a single source of energy?

      1. Wind turbines and solar power panels have to be replaced every 10-15 years. What are you gonna do about the waste?

        Nuclear power plants have nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Educate yourself.

        Cartels never last. Your economics ignorance is begging for some education.

      2. On second thought, you don’t deserve even that polite an answer.

        If I truly deeply madly believed the human race would end in 12 years, or at least reach an irreversible tipping point in 12 years, I would move heaven and earth to implement nuclear power. Waste storage is an insignificant problem compared to extinction in 12 years. Nuclear power accidents are insignificant compared to extinction. Nuclear war would be no worse than extinction in 12 years.

        That’s what I mean when I say alarmists don’t believe in a climate crisis. They literally do not believe their own words, which means their own words are nothing but propaganda in service of a different agenda, and that agenda is statism, socialism, communism, whatever you want to call it — the extinguishing of individuality.

        Fuck them. Fuck you. Fuck off, slavers.

        1. “On second thought, you don’t deserve even that polite an answer.”

          Agreed. If there were ever an example of the result of the liberal indocrination going on in public schools, Jfree has to be it

          Fuck off lib

        2. Problem with you is that you actually believe your own kool-aid propaganda.

          For everyone else, it’s pretty easy to separate the actual climate stuff from the climate propaganda from the socialism. For those like you who are too stupid to do that, it is all just a way to fearmonger YOURSELF.

          Fat dumb and stupid is no way to go through life son.

          1. “Problem with you is that you actually believe your own kool-aid propaganda.”
            Changing the subject and ignoring the argument sorta proves his response of fuck off, slaver.

            “For everyone else, it’s pretty easy to separate the actual climate stuff from the climate propaganda from the socialism….”
            Bullshit and a lie besides.

            “Fat dumb and stupid is no way to go through life son.”
            And you keep right on doing so.

        3. “…That’s what I mean when I say alarmists don’t believe in a climate crisis. They literally do not believe their own words, which means their own words are nothing but propaganda in service of a different agenda, and that agenda is statism, socialism, communism, whatever you want to call it — the extinguishing of individuality…”

          I’ll repeat: When H’wood watermelons short their Malibu digs, I’ll start taking them seriously. Until then:
          ‘Fuck them. Fuck [JFree]. Fuck off, slavers.’

        4. It will be more than just a tool to beat up on capitalists when the price of ocean front property goes down, when any one of Al Gore’s hysterical predictions comes true, and when Obama sells the Martha’s Vineyard $15 million home he just bought because the island is disappearing under the rising waters of the Atlantic.

      3. Cool story. Now do lithium batteries.

      4. Thorium. Ask India.

      5. You really need to educate yourself about nuclear power. Tired old tropes. Learn something.

  2. The science is staring us in the face and school children are taking to the streets in their millions…

    “We were able to manipulate the children to champion our message and still countries won’t bend their economies to our will!”

    1. We were able to manipulate the children to champion our message

      I’ve been saying for years that the alarmism was going to lead to a backlash. I think this may be the last straw for a lot of people.

  3. Currently, dark despair reigns.

    Come now. The orange baboon is not that dark.

    1. “…The orange baboon…”

      Proggy ‘tards spend at least half their lives coming up with nick-names that embarrass 1st-grade kids.

  4. >>Open with transformational hope, sink into despair, and conclude at the last minute with sly diplomatic equivocation and obfuscation.

    expected different? by axiom diplomats don’t find solutions. this one doesn’t even have a fucking problem to solve.

    1. The problem is not climate change. The problem is individualism and individuals thinking they can think independently. They have plenty of proposed solutions.

      1. lol. i’ll keep running away.

        1. Just kick the can. It works with debt.

  5. Did they get treated to Greta’s trademark fingernails-on-blackboard screech?

    1. I hear she did a set of death metal.

      1. I heard GWAR runs in fear from that chick.

        1. Bah, GWAR is New Kids on the Block compared to the Norwegian black metal scene. Those people are nuts.

  6. If they truly believed they would get rid of credits for trees thats bogus and they would start by moving people from ocean front properties and it will take energy to do that. Windmill power will never be enough to build high rises for securing the hapless refuges

    1. If they truly believed, they’d be against the government underwriting fire and flood policies, but here we are.

  7. I was born and raised in north mid-west US. It was fucking too cold there so I moved to the southern US. I am personally in favor of climate change. I like the warmth and would like the temperatures in the north to raise so that maybe I can move back there some day. There is nothing good about cold weather, particularly the snow and the ice. As a matter of fact, I believe the cold temps are harmful. The number of productive days we lose due to the snow/ice, we can’t grow crops in the snow. I believe climate change will be good for humanity. Therefore, I go out of my way to pollute even more to counter-act all these “alarmists”, such as Mr. Bailey. My heart sinks a little every time I see a new article by Bailey because it is wasted space where we could actually be discussing something that really matters.

  8. Disband the UN and put these bureaucrats in gitmo

  9. “In the last ten years following the climate talks they have never been as bleak and disappointing as this conference.” That’s okay, just wait until next year. Isn’t that how it works, we continually try to outdo the prior claims of awfulness?

  10. Hilarious

  11. …and you can bet none of those rich ass wipes didn’t leave a carbon footprint when they flew there in their Leer jets, isn’t that right, Mr. DeCaprio?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.