By Simon Lewis, UCL
The UN climate talks in Paris have ended with an agreement between 195 countries to tackle global warming. The climate deal is at once both historic, important – and inadequate. From whether it is enough to avoid dangerous climate change to unexpected wins for vulnerable nations, here are five things to help understand what was just agreed at COP21.
1. This is a momentous, world-changing event
The most striking thing about the agreement is that there is one. For all countries, from superpowers to wealthy city-states, fossil fuel-dependent kingdoms to vulnerable low-lying island nations, to all agree to globally coordinate action on climate change is astonishing.
And it is not just warm words. Any robust agreement has to have four elements. First, it needs a common goal, which has now been defined. The agreement states that the parties will hold temperatures to “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”.
Second, it requires matching scientifically credible reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. The agreement is woollier here, but it does state that emissions should peak “as soon as possible” and then be rapidly reduced. The next step is to:
Achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity …
Third, as current pledges to reduce emissions imply a warming of nearly 3°C above pre-industrial levels, there needs to be a mechanism to move from where countries are today, to zero emissions. There are five-year reviews, and “the efforts of all parties will represent a progression over time”, which means at each step countries should increase their levels of emission cuts from today’s agreements.
Top Comments
"For some poor people climate change is already beyond dangerous, it’s deadly."
Ok, so how about some evidence of even one single person in the world who has died purely because of "climate change"?
Admittedly, 'deadly' is a little polemic, but if you're thinking that there have been no impacts, here's an economic one:
http://phys.org/news/2015-1...
I think deadly was probably the wrong word but jump on a plane to Kiribati or the Republic of Marshall Islands and you will meet thousands of individuals who are badly affected by king tides and flash flooding and yes I think the damage to the little crops they can actually grow or the damage to their homes is probably cause for grief, malnutrition and illness. I was lucky enough to visit Kiribati and the tides are coming more frequently. In Marshall Islands, they have had to build their homes higher to combat the flooding which is washing over the island.
The Murdochian press are rattling their chains and such credible scientists as Bjorn lomberg and other "credible" columnists are following the dictates of Mr murdoch who wants coal coal coal for Australia.They have limited vision do the conservatives and they pull their hair shirts even tighter as they see Malcolm Turnbull pulling Australia into the real world,as we try to stop the trashing of our atmosphere
Agreed. We should built dams and nuclear power stations to do our part like other countries do. It's true China has plans for another 350 coal fired power stations, against the 11 we have in Australia, but that's the real world.
Oh, and the sixth thing you need to know, you'll be paying more and it will make no difference to the global temperature. Money for nothing.
Well then you should stop using coal, or anything made from coal immediately otherwise you're a huge hypocrite.
Yep sitting round twiddling our thumbs is sure going to achieve a lot
But coal will run out. So making the switch to renewables while we can is a really, REALLY good idea. If we don't start putting real research into alternatives soon, we'll be struggling when the coal and the petroleum run out.