Paris misses on climate
The Paris Treaty promises to keep temperature rises below 2 C. However, t he actual promises made here will do almost nothing to achieve that. It is widely accepted that to keep temperature rises below 2 C, we have to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 6,000 gigatonnes.
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change estimates that if every country makes every single promised Paris Treaty carbon cut between 2016 and 2030 to the fullest extent possible and there is no carbon leakage, carbon dioxide emissions will be cut by 56 billion Gt by 2030.
The math is simple: in an implausibly optimistic best- case scenario, Paris leaves 99 per cent of the problem in place. To say that Paris will get us to “well below 2 C” is cynical posturing at best. It relies on wishful thinking. It’s like going on a diet to slim down, but declaring victory after the first salad.
Paris will be extraordinarily costly. It is likely this is the most expensive treaty in the history of the world.
Using the best individual and collectively peer- reviewed energy- economic models, the total cost of Paris — through slower gross domestic product growth from higher energy costs — will reach $ 1 trillion-$ 2 tril- lion every year from 2030.
The best thing to come out of Paris was the announcement of the Bill Gates- led green energy innovation fund with private individuals, and governments including Australia, the U. S., Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates. This is an excellent initiative. I have argued for greater spending on research and development for a decade. Even more funding is needed, the Gates- led fund is what is really going to make a difference to the climate.
Claims that carbon cuts will be free or even generate economic growth don’t stack up, given today’s technology. Every economic model shows real costs. The agreement to spend $ 100 billion on climate aid is a poor way to help the developing world. Their citizens clearly say, this is their lowest policy priority and climate aid provided by handing out solar panels has meagre benefits compared with the many better, cheaper ways to help. While billions lack food, health, water and education, distributing solar panels is simply immoral.