mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Limping to Paris
Scientists Say Climate Summit Structure Is Deeply Flawed

We’re just weeks ahead of a climate summit in Paris that’s been billed as a “once in a century” opportunity, and the knives are already coming out. The UN’s climate chief has previously all but admitted that the negotiations won’t aim to produce an enforceable treaty, but rather one based on “enabling and facilitating” countries to act to reduce emissions. And while the national pledges for said reductions—called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)—are now rolling in, a group of scientists are warning that this piecemeal approach is unlikely to produce satisfying results. The BBC reports:

Prof David MacKay, from the University of Cambridge, who was former chief scientific advisor to Britain’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), said: “The science of cooperation predicts that if all you are doing is naming individual contributions – offers that aren’t coupled to each other – then you’ll end up with a relatively poor outcome.

“We have the history of the Kyoto agreement as an example of this. Initially, the approach was to find a common commitment, but eventually it descended into a patchwork of individual commitments… and that led to very weak commitments and several countries leaving the process.” […]

The researchers admit that with the Paris climate conference just weeks away and the fact that global carbon pricing is not already on the table, their idea is unlikely to have much influence.

By their own admission, the scientists’ call for a different approach is going to be too little, too late, but even had they voiced their objection months or years ago, it’s hard to imagine us ending up anywhere but where we are now: lacking momentum ahead of an overhyped summit whose objective was likely doomed from the start.

The gap between the developed and developing worlds remains as wide as ever, and the bridge meant to assuage concerns of the world’s poor at the economic constriction green goals might induce—a climate slush fund paid in to by the world’s richer nations—remains underfunded. Mistrust hangs over the summit, as does a good deal of defeatism as officials reiterate that, regardless of Paris’s outcome, the world is sure to shoot past the 2 degrees Celsius warming limit scientists have set as a cautionary benchmark.

In that context, this latest warning that the aggregated national approach won’t produce a robust deal comes as no surprise.

Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    “Mistrust hangs over the summit, as does a good deal of defeatism as officials reiterate that, regardless of Paris’s outcome, the world is sure to shoot past the 2 degrees Celsius warming limit scientists have set as a cautionary benchmark.”

    What planet do these dimwits live on? Satellite temperature records (not human influenced) show there has been no “Global Warming” in over 18 years. What gives them the right to call themselves “Scientists” when all their climate models and their Hypothesis of “Global Warming” have all been proven WRONG? Real “Scientists” would have already admitted the failure of the Hypothesis of “Global Warming” and moved on to looking for a new Hypothesis. None of these yahoo’s is a Scientist, they are all Environmental Activists or they would be doing something else right now.

    • jburack

      All good points, Jacksonian_Libertarian. Even more ludicrous is this blather about some 2 degrees Celsius warming limit scientists have set. The hubris of these people in thinking they can turn the temperature up or down by precise calibration. EVEN IF we accept every single assumption of the warming alarmists – that CO2 from human activity is warming the atmosphere, that how much it does this can be accurately measured, and that we know how much it will increase in the decades ahead (none of which we really do know), it is still utterly unfounded to think we can fine tune any reversal of this. Natural systems do NOT simply restore themselves when a variable in their makeup is reversed. Drain a swamp (wetland if you prefer) and you will not restore it by filling it back up with water from a garden hose. By how much vastly more complex the entire weather system is than a swamp, by that much is there no basis for believing anyone knows what a reduction or complete shutdown of CO2 would do to the temperature. For all these fools know, some unforeseen mechanism might make the temperature go up even faster. Fools rush in, and these people are fools.

    • JR

      The boondoggle must go on!!! I would much rather have retards in a meeting discussing BS than actually doing stuff.

  • Arkeygeezer

    If the Scientists want to blame mankind for global warming, the only thing I can think of is the exponential explosion of radio, radar, wireless, and microwaves. If you shake up that many molecules in the atmosphere, you are bound to get some heat. But, they are hung up on “greenhouse” gasses because Venus has an atmosphere with a lot of CO2 in it. No one wants to finance a study on radio waves, because there is no money in it.

  • gabrielsyme

    the world is sure to shoot past the 2 degrees Celsius warming limit scientists have set as a cautionary benchmark.

    Whether you judge this as certain or not, this is more reason we need to plan for major geo-engineering efforts to moderate world temperature if and when warming hits. But the greenies, in their ideological purity are apparently more interested in collapsing industrial society than protecting the global ecosystem.

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