The warning signs of this decisive moment are good, according to Laurent Fabius. Biden`s election to the United States means that it will move closer to the EU and China if it insists that net zero emissions be fully implemented. “We will have the link of the planets that made the Paris agreement possible,” Fabius told the Guardian. “Civil society, politics and the economy came together for the Paris Agreement. We consider the same connection of the planets with the United States, the EU, China, Japan — if the big ones go in the right direction, there will be a very strong incentive for all countries to move in the right direction. “Abandoning the Paris agreement is cruel for future generations,” said Andrew Steer, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, about the Trump administration`s decision to formally withdraw the United States from the agreement. The U.S. will lose much stronger jobs and economy that will bring a low-carbon future, Steer said in a statement. The failure of nations to deliver on the paris climate accord`s promises to drastically reduce emissions could cost the global economy as much as $600 trillion this century, as a new analysis showed on Tuesday. What can also be very worrying and a real danger to the environment is the inclusion of vague elements and concepts such as sinks to absorb carbon into the atmosphere, so that the door remains open to geoengineering and other technological approaches.
This belief in unlimited technological progress pushes us in the opposite direction of this agreement, especially when Co2 capture projects do not work or are halted due to inefficiency. It creates the illusion that we can continue to pollute the environment, because one day we will find solutions and delay concrete action. This situation is doubly ill-advised if lower renewable energy costs cost less to switch to renewable and decentralized energy production. But let`s take a closer look at this new universal climate agreement. Yes, there is broad consensus within the scientific community, although some deny that climate change is a problem, including politicians in the United States. When negotiating teams meet for international climate talks, “there is less skepticism about science and more disagreement about how to set priorities,” said David Victor, professor of international relations at the University of California, San Diego. The basic science is that the Paris climate agreement is a joke. And I should know that I was there when it was designed. Not only are countries lacking their ambitions, but emissions are also increasing.
Studies by the Global Carbon Project showed that emissions increased by 2.7% in 2018, mainly due to an increase in oil consumption. In 2017, 1.6% growth was also recorded, ending a three-year period during which emissions had slowed. In addition to the mitigation column of the agreement, the other pillars, Adaptation and Loss – Damage, are also weaknesses, notably L-D. One of the main demands of small island and least developed countries was to recognize the need to find solutions to forced displacement, cross-border migration and relocations planned in response to climate change and sea level rise. There is no longer any reference to this in the agreement, with the exception of an indirect reference to external UN bodies dealing with specific aspects of the DA, in reference to the UN ad hoc working group on climate-related migration. The United States also succeeded in concluding the accompanying decisions of the agreement with an exclusion clause on future liability related to L-D, while the G77 and China were already moving towards a compromise by removing any mention of compensation. According to U.S. administration negotiators, one of the key conditions for the Obama administration was to ensure that the deal was not rejected by a right-wing Congress.
