Climate accord: ‘frayed life-line, vague promise’
Voices from Paris
AWARE News Network
Helen Szoke Oxfam International This deal offers a frayed life-line to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. Only the vague promise of a new future climate funding target has been made, while the deal does not force countries to cut emissions fast enough to forestall a climate change catastrophe. This will only ramp up adaptation costs further in the future.
Kumi Naidoo Greenpeace International We have a 1.5 degree wall to climb, but the ladder isn’t long enough. The emissions targets on the table aren’t big enough, and the deal doesn’t do enough to change that. The new goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the second half of the century effectively means we need to phase out fossil fuels – the easiest to cut – by 2050.
Naomi Klein Canadian environmental activist For the planet’s most vulnerable countries, there were two main concerns going into the Paris climate summit. One was where the money will come to pay for the impacts climate change is already having on their countries. The second was to lower the international consensus on how much the global temperature could safely rise. For vulnerable island nations, this second concern has been key: The internationally agreed upon rise of 2 degrees would essentially render their countries uninhabitable. So, much of the discussions in Paris have been about forcing concessions from these desperate countries. As Naomi Klein says in this video dispatch , “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a situation where countries are being negotiated to accept the terms of their own annihilation.”
Alberto Saldamando Indigenous Environmental Network “The Paris accord is a trade agreement, nothing more. It promises to privatize, commodify and sell forested lands as carbon offsets in fraudulent schemes such as REDD+ projects. These offset schemes provide a financial laundering mechanism for developed countries to launder their carbon pollution on the backs of the global south. Case-in-point, the United States’ climate change plan includes 250 million megatons to be absorbed by oceans and forest offset markets. Essentially, those responsible for the climate crisis not only get to buy their way out of compliance but they also get to profit from it as well.” Note: REDD stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, an effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development. “REDD+” goes beyond deforestation and forest degradation, and includes the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
Catherine McKenna Canadian Environment Minister We see in Canada the impacts of climate change. We have wildfires in B.C.; we have flooding in Alberta; Prince Edward Island is shrinking; and we see in our Arctic the permafrost is melting and hunters have shorter seasons… Now it’s time to do the hard work…. Every Canadian has to do their part.
Elizabeth May Green Party of Canada You will undoubtedly hear some denounce the Paris Agreement for what it does not do. It does not respond with sufficient urgency. It does not use the levers available to governments to craft a treaty that is enforceable with trade sanctions to add some teeth. Those criticisms are fair… Nevertheless, the Paris Agreement is an historic and potentially life-saving agreement.
350.org The deal in Paris includes an agreement to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, with an aim of 1.5 degrees, and achieve climate neutrality that will require phasing out fossil fuels in the second half of this century. That’s not what we hoped for, but this is still a deal that sends a clear signal: it’s time to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and time for investors to cut their ties with coal, oil and gas by divesting. This deal represents important progress — but progress alone is not our goal. Our goal is a just and livable planet.
Steve Breyman 100%RenewableNowNYS Naturally an adequate treaty would’ve been better than what we’ll end up with. The glass isn’t half empty either. Paris is not the last Conference of Parties (COP; there’s one every year). And it’s not realistic under the present circumstances to expect two hundred countries with deeply conflicting interests and grossly unequal power to hammer out a joint agreement on humanity’s future. Left to their own devices, leaders of the major powers (both North and South) would for a variety of reasons leave the planet on an accelerating vector towards climate catastrophe.
Leave a Reply