Tags

, ,

 

Dear Delegate.                                                               28/November/2015.

I am “cautiously optimistic” about the prospect of a global climate agreement emerging from negotiations in Paris.

 Image: Alfredo11

AS WE ALL KNOW International deal-making fundamentally hinges on assessments of national self-interest by the parties involved.

This is and will be the reason FOR THE PERSISTENT failure of the global climate change negotiations.

On the other hand it is also the best chance of offering a pathway to  THE WORLD for success.

Nations will  not be able to agree on who is to blame, on how to allocate emissions, or on projections for the future.

We don’t know how to allocate emissions among nations, the global economy makes this impossible anyway, and the early differentiation between developed and developing economies is no longer valid.

Fortunately, environmental transformation and technological change are not waiting for this paralysis of political agreement to end.

We are in the early stages of a global race to supply a set of new technologies and scalable systems — likely the largest economic opportunity of the 21st century.

I think the time has come for the international community to alter its collective climate strategy, cease the search for the impossible all-encompassing top-down agreement — described unattractively as “burden sharing” — and instead encourage an approach that builds on national self-interest and spurs a “race to the top” in low-carbon energy solutions.

A new agreement should recognize that a simple one-formula-fits-all framework is not feasible:

Instead, a new start is needed, based in part on what has been called “pledge and review”: but this has to be financed fairly by placing a WORLD AID COMMISSION ON GREED. (See previous letters)

Nations may will pledge concrete steps to reduce their carbon emissions and periodically submit their progress to the international community for review so what it will change nothing without the Capitalist World putting it hand in its back pocket.

 ” The debates that are likely to dominate the Paris talks will not be about emissions but about money.”

Higher emissions between now and 2030 would not inevitably take the world beyond 2 degrees, but they would certainly make the task more expensive and disruptive. It would probably leave the world requiring emissions cuts of more than 5 percent each year after 2030. Many technology analysts say that is next to impossible.

Most of the world’s major nations will pledge to make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. But serious doubts remain as to whether these promised cuts will be nearly enough to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change.

In Copenhagen in 2009, rich nations agreed to establish a Green Climate Fund to help poorer nations. They promised to collectively put $100 billion annually into the fund beginning in 2020.

Less than a fifth of this has so far been pledged from public funds.

Instead, rich nations are talking increasingly about topping up with private finance. A statement from the G7 leaders summit in Germany in June said that “mobilizing of private sector finance is crucial” to the fund, and would “unlock the required investments in low-carbon technology, as well as in building resilience.

This is pie in the sky.

”African countries, and others with little or no responsibility for climate change, want a separate fund to compensate them for “loss and damage” resulting from climate disasters such as extreme heat, wild weather, floods, and droughts.

This would be a 21st century equivalent of war reparations — for climate crimes rather than war crimes.

There are too many scientific uncertainties about exactly how sensitive the atmosphere is to growing concentrations of greenhouse gases. We could get lucky, but equally there might be tipping points that could suddenly accelerate warming.

Scientists say is probably the last realistic chance for the world to prevent global warming going beyond 2 degrees Celsius.

Some kind of deal will probably be done.

But will it be one more diplomatic fudge or a real triumph for the climate?

Pledged in so far to cut emissions cover more than 65 percent of current global emissions. The pledges vary. Some are absolute targets expressed as tons of carbon dioxide per year in 2030; others are targets measured against business as usual, or promises to reduce emissions for every dollar of economic activity.

Will they finalize and formalize a binding international agreement.

With as many as 40,000 officials and heads of different nations I doubt it.

The economic impact is too great.

We have to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution will take more than an agreement.

Economic self-interest is the key. With a World Aid Commission on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange transaction ( over $20,000) and on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions and new drilling licences we will have a perpetual fund to solve Climate change and all other inequalities in the World.

Even if the major industrialized economies were able to reduce their emissions completely, the prognosis for the earth’s atmosphere would still be grim if resource-rich developing countries do not change course.

Yours Sincerely.

Citizen of the Planet.

Afficher l'image d'origine

Advertisements