Op-Ed: The UN Paris Climate Change Agreement: One World, One Climate?

This news article is a production distributed through Caribbean News Service. It is made freely available to your media and we encourage publishing and redistribution, giving credit to Caribbean News Service (CNS).  

 

By Rebecca Theodore – CNS Contributor

NEW YORK, Apr 24 2016 – The United   Nations Paris climate   agreement   was signed in New York   last weekend.  A turning point in reducing global warming was   ushered.  The world is now on track to avoid dangerous climate change by limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius.

But there are many gaps and caveats.

In an election year, Conservative static continues to cloud every dust of climate change reasoning.  With   evidence suggesting that   leading   Republican presidential   candidate Donald J Trump, and Senator Ted   Cruz are   in disagreement with the science of climate change   and hold   strong criticism to the Paris climate change agreement;  this simply means that a Republican victory for the White House in November will severely undermine the agreement.

At this point, it is also   good to know that according   to a senior US State Department official, “there is a difference between signing the agreement   and   joining. It is affirmed that the   Paris Climate change agreement is a signal of commitment   and not of reality.” Joining on the other hand, is purely intentional.

Whatever this means, it is clear that a universal climate change deal is far from over.

More significantly, while the Paris climate change agreement have   exceeded the 55 countries   needed for joining; it is also believed that the process of executing the agreement might be a lengthy one.  Many   countries   including   Mexico may have   to adopt new legislation and others may have to go through parliamentary debates before the agreement can be ratified.

It also follows, that if “one of the major objectives of policy makers is the orchestration of massive wealth transfer  from rich countries to poor nations,” then it stands to reason that   some   of the disadvantages of the agreement will not only be in rising sea levels, but also   over cash transfer targets as well.

While the   agreement echo a new dawn in climate change awareness, it is also  assumed  that  the agreement   will also   stop the economic advancement of many countries   and create arguments   over cash transfer between the developed   world and the developing world.

In   essence, the   Paris   climate change agreement pledges to expend billions of dollars in funding   to ease the shift from low carbon fuels and help developing nations cope with the problems of climate change.  Yet, it poses the serious   questions of what plans does the United Nations have in place to make sure that developed nations keep their promises?  Will the United Nations consider the suggestions to set up carbon auditors to verify nation emission reductions   as had been previously discussed in Paris?

Clearly, one of the key points of the Paris climate change agreement is “averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damages associated with the adverse effects of climate change.” As of now it is assumed that wealthy nations are still not held liable for the damage of climate change, neither   have they provided   a liability for compensation to poorer nations.

Moreover,  statistical  evidence continue  to confirm that  major   players  like  China, Germany,  India, Poland  and   Brazil are   building   more   fossil fuel power plants    and   increasing  their   dependence  on fossil  fuels.

Elaborating further, the US Supreme Court have halted president Obama’s Clean Power Plan.   Even  though the president affirms that the climate deal is consistent with existing   US laws, and does not require the   approval of a Republican controlled Senate, Republican majority leader   Mitch McConnell (K) is   urging   governors to refuse to comply with the plan.

It is also evident that all of this gives credibility that the ‘one world, one climate’ mantra enforces   a weakened climate change agreement that echo the same alarm  to that of the   Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and of the Copenhagen Summit of 2009.

The Paris climate change agreement is a   strong signal of political determination by world leaders, but according   to the director of strategy and policy for the union of concerned   scientist    Alden Meyer, “there is still a lot of work to do to nail these domestic actions.”

And while   all of this is taking place, climate change continues to pose a threat to human and economic development in the world at large. Rising   sea levels continue to increase threatening lives, property and livelihood.  Temperatures are increasing, ocean waters are warming and expanding and small island states are disappearing with   the impact of climate change.

The Paris climate change agreement   may be an ambitious and balanced plan and a historic   turning point in the goal of reducing   global warming, but according   to   French   ambassador to the United Nation,  Francois Delattre, – : “On espere, — One hopes.”