After multiple rounds of negotiation between China, India, USA, EU, Other Less Developed Countries, Other More Developed Countries, Climate Activists and Oil Companies. The result was better than the INDCs, but only slightly keeping temperature increase to 2.5°C.
Now comes the worrying part, we simulated what contributions each party would have to make to limit temperature change to 2°C. The measures required are huge. Along the lines of developed countries reducing emissions by 3.5%/year now, and developed countries stopping emissions rising by 2025 and starting to reduce by 2030.
Unfortunately, the likelihood of this seems slim. To expect developing countries to stop increasing emissions by 2025 seems unreasonable and unrealistic. Perhaps evidence towards why in my previous post academics have said a temperature rise of 2°C is completely unrealistic. So should we judge COP21 against such an aim? When we consider whether it's a success, maybe a higher target is more feasible? If we are to criticise COP21 for not meeting a 2°C temperature rise then I think the negotiations will only ever be seen negatively. If the countries were to reach a deal that kept temperature increase to 2.5°C, which involves huge contributions, I would see that as a success.
The seminar really illustrated the challenges of negotiation, and that was with 8 parties not 195! Furthermore, it showed to me that serious climate change is going to happen, but it is still up to us to keep it to a minimum.
I think it's really interesting that you've picked up on the challenges of negotiation and with this in light it does make me wonder whether leaders are perhaps too often criticised for not meeting the biggest challenges (like the ones you're blogging about) without much thought on the logistical hinderances. Do you think mass conferences are the best ways for our global leaders to tackle climate change?
ReplyDeleteA very good question. Requiring 195 countries to agree before a proposal can be passed has been as issue in previous COPs. However, everyone should get a say. The power clearly isn't equitably split though, each country doesn't have 1/195th of the total influence. USA dominate most proceedings with China closely behind. And then there's another issue of equality. China has a population of over 1.35billion, and has one vote, whereas Tuvalu has 10thousand people, and has one vote.
DeleteMass conferences and a vote clearly have shortcomings regarding reaching an agreement, and equality regarding making a decision. But I certainly can't think of a better alternative. Perhaps having scientists or the UN present at the debate might help, but they have had their voices heard before the debate began... we all know what the target is!
It's a tough one, previously the current system seems to have been ineffective, but if Paris has a positive outcome then I guess it's worked!
Really glad to see you managed to have an interesting discussion about the COP21 talks at UCL, really important to publicise these things, it's just not getting enough attention in the media. Unfortunately we tried to run our own COP21 'mock' student debate at Bristol but had to cancel on the day as not enough people turned up...
ReplyDeleteCompletely agree, some days it's been on the news some not... really it should be on almost everyday during COP21. Thats so frustrating! Ours was part of a few courses (3rd year undergraduate and masters) which obviously aided participation. Everyone got really into it though, just a shame I couldn't be there for the whole session!
Delete