& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Climate Change Conference in Paris, 2015: A progress report

Abdullah Shibli
The UN Climate Summit started with a call from its Secretary General Ban Ki Moon for "all hands on deck," to combat climate change, a reference to the practice in the navy to order all crew to join the fight. The one-day conference in New York City (NYC) on September 23 was but a warm-up exercise for the 2015 Climate Change Conference in Paris. We expected no less from the head of UN, since he is the symbolic leader of the countries on this planet. It was also a laudable effort since, even if it sounded hollow, the call will echo around the globe on the need for all nations to join the effort to combat climate change, and the immediacy of the effort.
However, the appeal from the Secretary General notwithstanding, the conference achieved very little, or to put it in slightly less skeptical terms, it did not advance the cause very much. Not that it was expected to. Since we have been debating the issue for at least two decades at the international level, the effort to reduce carbon emissions has made some progress but not as much as needed. The failures can be seen in the data on the level of CO2 discharge, the effort to raise funds for the effort to mitigate the effects, and the number of countries that have made a quantitative target to reduce emissions.
There were, albeit, some notable developments that could be notched as winners. China and USA both reaffirmed their commitment to reduce emissions and promised new quantitative targets to scale back the level. And, while the pronouncements from India are not encouraging, there are signs that the vocal and active civil society is making a dent on official policy.
So, why did the Climate Summit achieve so little? There are some symptomatic factors, and many others that are more substantive. First of all, there were some significant no-shows. China, the world's biggest producer of carbon dioxide producer, in per capita as well as total terms, was represented by Vice Premier Zhang Caoli, while President Xi Jinping was attending to prior commitments. India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi had scheduling conflicts, and his seat was filled by Prakash Javadekar, Minister of Environment and Forests. India is not only the world's third biggest polluter and soon expected to be ranked right behind China in per capita terms, these two countries with a total of 2.5 billion, which account for more than one third of the global population, will be growing at a fast clip over the next decade and be the primary contributors of GHG emissions. There were other notable absentees at the Summit including Australia and Canada, which was represented by Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq, while Prime Minister Stephen Harper was in New York but did not attend. The other reason, again a short term factor, were the distractions that vied for our attention during the last week of September. A study, commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences and published on September 22, disputes the link between GHG emissions and the recently observed rise in warming in the Pacific east coast, including California.
There were, albeit, some notable developments that could be notched as winners. China and USA both reaf-firmed their commitment to reduce emissions and promised new quantitative targets to scale back the level. And, while the pronouncements from India are not encouraging, there are signs that the vocal and active civil society is making a dent on official policy. This is not coming too soon, since data just published show that the world's emissions had grown 2.3% last year to 39.8 billion tons - their highest level ever - largely because of China, the US and India.
The Summit could also have been a major milestone if the leaders had declared their support and demonstrated their appreciation of the urgency to reframe the Kyoto Protocol before next year's Climate Change Conference in Paris. USA, Russia, Japan and Canada are among the developed countries are yet to announce they will sign on to a new agreement.
The more substantive factor behind the limited impact of the Summit is the failure of leaders to address the role of policy in reducing carbon emissions. We have had the facts, and carbon emissions targets needed to keep global warming within a 2 to 4 degrees F range. However, the most important missing element in the debate is a lack of consensus on the science and economics of carbon reduction. In the scientific world, there are still issues that are "contentious." For example, are current episodes of drought or variability in weather patterns due to onset of global warming? Unfortunately, politicians, such as President Obama, have attempted to tie all instances of natural disasters such as Hurricane Sandy and forest fires in California to global warming. In many countries this lack of understanding of the science has backfired. In Australia, Carbon Tax that put a price on GHG emissions has just been repealed. The lesson to take from these is that the public mood changes with election, party in power, and economic crisis. So, as we head into the year 2015 and plan for the Paris Conference, we need to pay attention to building up public support in each country, particularly in the USA, European Union, China and India. There has been backsliding in these countries, except for the European Union. Unfortunately, the reduction in EU's emission has come at a big price. European consumers are able to source their products from Asian countries which now bear the "white man’s burden.” A study by Prof. Corinne Le Quere from the University of East Anglia, finds that 20% of China's emissions are for producing clothes, furniture, and solar panels that are destined for European and American markets. She adds: "If you look at the emissions in Europe with that perspective, they would be 30% higher if we accounted for those goods that are produced elsewhere."
The picture that emerges from NYC is not as gloomy as the previous paragraphs might portray. First, the call for "all hands on decks” is a powerful one, particularly for once again identifying the need for unity in combating climate change. There is still a sizable segment of US policymakers who are not on board as can be seen from the mood of the US Congress which has so far failed to take up any legislation to reduce CO2 emissions. The call for "all hands" also points to the impact of climate change on littoral countries, with rising sea levels and heightened atmospheric turbulence. Second, this is the first time that world leaders were put on the spot and challenged to show their cards. The average citizen and activists now can work towards the goal to bring the industry and recalcitrant leaders to see the need to take concrete initiatives to lower emissions. Finally, the summit, while symbolic, also managed to put climate change back on the front page and helped to refocus our attention to the long-term and important issues, in parallel with the immediate and urgent maters at hand - Ebola, ISIS, and politics.
The writer lives and works in Boston, USA.