mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Green Dreams
Looks Like We’re Ditching a Key Climate Goal in Paris

When greens speak of 2C, they aren’t referring to some acronym for climate change, but rather to 2 degrees Celsius. That’s the level of warming, compared to pre-industrial averages, that many scientists have picked as a conveniently round-numbered target we ought to avoid if we know what’s good for us. But as we head into the final stretch before December’s climate summit in Paris, it looks like 2C is all but dead. Reuters reports:

“Paris will be a funeral without a corpse,” said David Victor, a professor of international relations at the University of California, San Diego, who predicts the 2C goal will slip away despite insistence by many governments that is still alive.

“It’s just not feasible,” said Oliver Geden, of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. “Two degrees is a focal point for the climate debate but it doesn’t seem to be a focal point for political action.”

The UN’s own climate chief Christiana Figueres admitted in February that the Paris meeting would “not get us onto the 2C pathway,” perhaps trying to deflate expectations for what many greens hope will be a historic moment for the movement to craft a Global Climate Treaty (GCT). Her comments, along with those reported above, follow a pattern of scrupulous hedging in the Paris run-up. Figueres followed up her 2C comments with a promise that the summit will focus on “enabling and facilitating” as opposed to some kind of “punitive-type” deal, envisioning a kind of toothless GCT reminiscent of the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact.

As host of this seemingly inevitable disappointment, France hasn’t held back in expressing its dismay at the current state of play. Last week French president Francois Hollande lamented the fact that only 37 of the 196 UN member states had submitted the required national-level climate action plans—called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). French environment minister Ségolène Royal added her voice to the swelling chorus of discontent shortly thereafter, criticizing the structure of the climate negotiations as the “main obstacle” to their success.

Greens were able to build hype for Paris when it was some far-off idea, but as negotiators prepare to descend on the French capital and attempt to reach consensus, the breathless enthusiasm is falling victim to the enormity of the task being undertaken. Momentum is stalling at the worst—and unfortunately most predictable—time.

Features Icon
show comments
  • Rick Johnson

    But we have already bettered the 2C goal. For the past 20 years, the increase in global temperatures has been close to ZERO. We have stopped global warming without having to shut down civilisation. It’s time to rejoice and all the Green activities don’t need to go to Paris to be tempted by all that nasty consumerism.

    Unless of course shutting down civilisation while enjoying all its benefits is the whole purpose of the exercise.

    • Corlyss

      You just don’t get it, Rick! There’s a CRISIS OF BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS out there and we have to DO SOMETHING! NOW! YESTERDAY WAS TOO LATE! O the humanitity! (Here you have to remember[dot]com/watch?v=lf3mgmEdfwg)

      • Rick Johnson

        I’m well aware of the CRISIS, I’m just pissed off that I haven’t been invited to join the gravy train. It’s just so unfair. Why do I have to be stuck at home. I want to go to Paris at taxpayer’s expense and lord it over everybody else. I want to get my nose firmly planted in the public trough. It’s not fair I tell you. It’s just not fair. 🙂

        • Corlyss

          If you get an offer, please let me know. 😉

  • Corlyss

    Won’t matter if the collective dumps it. Stupid in the WH will double down on whatever he’s committed us to in the past.

  • FriendlyGoat

    They can always reconvene in a decade or two and put up 4C for discussion (and no action).

  • stan

    The 2 degree number has zero scientific evidence to support it. As in none. Zilch, nada. It’s a PR number chosen for political reasons. Seriously, do some research on where the number came from.

    Academics should join those of us who live in the real world and celebrate when the politicians edge even slightly back in the direction of real, intellectually defensible science.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service