Climate change: In 2015, the long march to Paris

December 30, 2014 by Richard Ingham
The Eiffel tower and Paris' roof tops are seen through a haze of pollution, March 11, 2014

Agreements on climate change—to paraphrase what the 19th-century German statesman Otto von Bismarck said about law-making—are like sausages.

It's best not to know how they are made.

On December 11 2015, 195 states are scheduled to strike a deal in Paris to curb the fossil-fuel gases imperilling Earth's climate system.

The outcome will be determined in the coming months by Bismarck-style sausage-making—a long, slow grind, and with many questionable ingredients.

What emerges will prompt future generations to either praise us for taming the carbon monster or curse us for short-sightedness and greed.

The stakes are "nothing less than the shape of the climate regime for the next several decades," says Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a veteran US climate monitor.

"2015 will set the stage for the living conditions of our grandchildren – and their grandchildren, too," believes Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany.

Elliot Diringer of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), a US think-tank, predicts "a tough year ahead" in what is already a notoriously troubled UN process.

Half a dozen negotiation phases take place before Paris, the climax of a four-year bid to seal a global deal to take effect by 2020.

The first will be in Geneva next month, when countries must slim down a sprawling blueprint for the Paris pact, the legacy of a just-finished marathon in Lima.

After that, countries have a rough deadline for the first quarter of 2015 for putting voluntary emissions-curbing pledges on the table.

Key dates in 2015 on climate talks

That's when the haggling starts in earnest, along with the toxic risk of finger-pointing and nit-picking.

Which countries are doing enough to fight , and which countries are failing to pull their weight?

Developing countries say rich economies must do most.

After all, goes this argument, they bear historic responsibility for , as they gorged on cheap and plentiful coal, oil and gas to power their prosperity.

Rich countries retort that the carbon division is out of date. It was based on the realities of 1992, when the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was born at the Rio Earth Summit.

Today, developing countries—led by China, the world's number one carbon polluter—account for around 60 percent of global emissions, thus making them the sources of tomorrow's warming.

The years-old "differentiation" row bedevilled Lima, but Diringer says there are hopes it may not be such a nightmare in 2015.

China has shown the way to other developing emitters by signing a bilateral deal with the United States, the number two polluter, while Europe is challenging other rich parties with its own 2030 pollution goals, he argues.

"What's most important now is for other countries to declare their contributions to the Paris agreement," says Diringer.

On December 11 2015, 195 states are scheduled to strike a deal in Paris to curb the fossil-fuel gases imperilling Earth's climate system

"As long as others follow the lead of the US, China and the European Union, we should have a decent shot at a meaningful global deal."

Political heat

After the summer break, the talks will be pressured by civil society and leaders such as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and, reportedly, Pope Francis. Mobilisation on this scale was last seen in the run-up to the ill-fated Copenhagen Summit in 2009.

By November 1, the UNFCCC will unveil a report that tots up the pledges to see how close they get to the coveted goal of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels.

If the tally falls badly short, that will set the scene for some frenzied work in Paris. What mechanisms can be added to ensure that the target is met?

Then there is money. For any kind of deal to emerge in Paris, poorer will demand that rich economies flesh out a vow to provide at least $100 billion annually in climate finance by 2020.

For the second time in six years, the nation-state system will be on trial to see if it can fix a global environment problem.

If it fails once more, interest will swing more and more to bilateral and regional action and carbon-cutting and adaptation measures by cities, businesses and individuals.

"You have to remember that these international negotiations do not represent everything that's happening on ," said Pascal Canfin of the World Resources Institute (WRI).

Explore further: What now for the Paris accord?

Related Stories

What now for the Paris accord?

December 15, 2014

Four years ago, the world's nations vowed to forge a pact by the end of 2015 that would tame climate change and bequeath a safer planet to future generations.

Climate march to set tone at Lima talks

December 10, 2014

Green groups hoped for a big turnout at a protest in Lima Wednesday aimed at heaping pressure on ministers haggling over a post-2020 deal to curb carbon emissions.

Fingers pointed as climate talks deadlock

December 13, 2014

Accusations flew at deadlocked UN climate talks in Lima on Saturday, as the United States warned that failure to compromise could doom the 22-year-old global forum.

Recommended for you

Diamonds show Earth still capable of 'superhot' surprises

September 22, 2017

Diamonds may be 'forever,' but some may have formed more recently than geologists thought. A study of 26 diamonds, formed under extreme melting conditions in the Earth's mantle, found two populations, one of which has geologically ...

24 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

philstacy9
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 30, 2014
zz5555
4.1 / 5 (13) Dec 30, 2014
philstacy9,
You might want to actually look at that "study" of yours. It only looks at extent and only one day for that - a day near the peak ice freeze. Every year the ice freezes back to nearly the same extent. But the loss of so much multi-year ice means that ice disappears quickly in the spring. Meanwhile, the loss of Arctic sea ice volume has been continuing and the trend shows a huge loss in sea ice (http://psc.apl.uw...V2.1.png ). The small gains in Antarctic sea ice don't come anywhere close to offsetting the loss of Arctic sea ice - and those gains are related to global warming. Yeah, Arctic sea ice has grown a bit over the last two years. That would be interesting except for the facts that this is happening even though temperatures continue to warm in the area, this temporary growth has occurred previously during the current melt, and surrounding glaciers continue to melt.
ReduceGHGs
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 30, 2014
We may finally be on the cusp of meaningfully addressing climate change pollution. The fossil fuel interests have been misinforming and confusing the public for many years while they fund candidates who are willing to turn their backs on the overwhelming evidence.
Please join the efforts. Our future generations will suffer unless we change course. It's immoral to force them to live in a more dangerous world.
ExhaustingHabitability(dot)org
RobPaulG
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2014
Sea Ice has set a record all time high for today's date, December 30.

Global Sea Ice Breaks Record High For The Day – Antarctic Sea Ice Also Breaks Record High For the Day
http://www.climat...rd-high/
ReduceGHGs
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 30, 2014
Human caused climate change and the resulting deterioration of habitability is reality. Some are still propagating nonsense to the contrary. Here's a link to some of the most silly things they've been saying.

Google: The 11 Dumbest Things Conservative Media Said About Climate Change in 2014
zz5555
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 30, 2014
Sea Ice has set a record all time high for today's date, December 30.

Global Sea Ice Breaks Record High For The Day – Antarctic Sea Ice Also Breaks Record High For the Day
http://www.climat...rd-high/


This was nonsense when philstacy9 said it above. Your repeating it doesn't stop it from being nonsense. Cherry picking a date when extent doesn't change much and ignoring the massive ice volume loss is an embarrassing display of your inability (or refusal) to think.
Bill589
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 30, 2014
A former White House advisor has taken the brave step of coming forward to affirm that global warming–or as they are calling it this month, "climate change"–is the "greatest scientific fraud in history."

Casey, the author of "Dark Winter: How the Sun is Causing a 30-Year Cold Spell," contends that significant change in temperature is caused by changes in the activity of the sun, not by mankind.

He finds it hard to believe "why so many people believe in a theory that has been proven to be so unreliable versus models that are very reliable," while saying that the models he uses, which rely on solar cycles, are over 90 percent accurate.
Bill589
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 30, 2014
Here's a pertinent scientific fact missing from Global Warming 'scientists' proclamations: "Global Warming" programs benefit big government and their corporation cronies, and they are the ones paying these university scientists.

From what I studied, both poles have been growing for several years. Glaciers other places are growing or stagnant. Should we believe our eyes or the government paid university 'scientists'?

The 'Eyes' have it. The planet getting cooler, while CO2 levels still rise, show that CO2 is not the significant cause.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 30, 2014
Here's a pertinent scientific fact missing from Global Warming 'scientists' proclamations: "Global Warming" programs benefit big government and their corporation cronies, and they are the ones paying these university scientists.

From what I studied, both poles have been growing for several years. Glaciers other places are growing or stagnant. Should we believe our eyes or the government paid university 'scientists'?

The 'Eyes' have it. The planet getting cooler, while CO2 levels still rise, show that CO2 is not the significant cause.


You posted the same lying bullshit before. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
JoeBlue
2 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014

You posted the same lying bullshit before. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.


Yet, you alarmists still persist on doing just that.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2014
He finds it hard to believe "why so many people believe in a theory that has been proven to be so unreliable versus models that are very reliable," while saying that the models he uses, which rely on solar cycles, are over 90 percent accurate.


Well that's OK then as I find it hard to believe why so many people (always of the same ideological/political persuasion) believe in a theory that is proven wrong despite the "models" he (?) uses ... just by looking at the observed data makes it obvious....

http://www.skepti....php?g=5

Err, the Sun's output has overall been falling (minutely) for several decades.

Now if you'd like (LOL) to see the above plotted with global CO2 content as well ....

https://ourchangi...co22.png
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2014
Bill589
From what I studied, both poles have been growing for several years. Glaciers other places are growing or stagnant. Should we believe our eyes or the government paid university 'scientists'?


Well - I have never been to either pole - or visited a glacier - so I will have to depend on the data gathered by others. The data says that your eyes are wrong. Both poles are not growing, and on balance - glaciers are shrinking.

So what is it that encourages you to post such blatant false information on a science site?
psychosalmon
1 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2014
The long march...more like "The Long Buffet Table"
dev_dangol
1 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2014
Talking pollution or CC? Pollution is health hazardous nothing to do with CC.Foggy, smoggy, and cloudy days are colder than bright sunny days.
Bongstar420
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2015
I still do not see why an Ice House planet is preferable.

Can someone tell me why its "better?"
zz5555
5 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2015
I still do not see why an Ice House planet is preferable.

Can someone tell me why its "better?"

This article is about the planet earth where there's no chance for an "Ice House planet" anytime soon.
greenonions
5 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2015
Bongstar - the fact is that we are currently involved in a planet scale experiment. We are drawing vast quantities of fossil fuels out of the ground, and burning them. We are increasing the C02 content of our atmosphere, as well as adding vast quantities of pollutants such as nox and sox. As a result - millions are dying from respiratory illness; the oceans are becoming more acidic, the ice sheets are melting, the ocean levels are rising.

All of these things are facts. It seems to me to be prudent that we study the climate - and try to understand the dynamics of this complex system. The people best qualified to answer our questions regarding this experiment - are the experts who have spent their lives collecting, and analyzing the data on this complex system.

Do you disagree?
Eddy Courant
1 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2015
How come they meet over and over every year only to reschedule? And never at a dump? Always large carbon footprint, high taxpayer expense venues?
Caliban
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2015
How come they meet over and over every year only to reschedule?


Probably because of the intense coordination of resources, time, and scheduling of participants required to put these conferences together. Are you familiar with the US Congress?

And never at a dump?


Dumps are notoriously dusty, smelly places, with irregular, malleable, topography, that don't easily admit of such a purpose. Besides --have you ever tried to concentrate on the work in front of you with the loud calls of seagulls/crows in your ears and their droppings in your hair? With rats rustling and darting about, climbing up your leg? Flies in your eyes? How about all three, all at the same time?

Always large carbon footprint, high taxpayer expense venues?


Sadly, these are the resources, technologies and facilities currently and most commonly available, thanks to our consumerist, BigCarbon-shaped world infrastructure.

Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2015
philstacy9 offered a link
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/12/30/global-sea-ice-breaks-all-time-record-high-antarctic-sea-ice-also-breaks-all-time-record-high/
Contradicted by:-
http://arctic.atm...osphere/

Not clever to ignore details because "Details matter as the truth often hides in there"...

This also of interest:-

http://nsidc.org/...nce.html

Elsewhere you claimed
After this revelation I can no longer believe in global warming
Science is not about belief, understanding of the climate system along with all its imponderables demands an education in Physics & Mathematics.

Because then, with the benefit of knowledge you are resistant to political manipulation. Without such education you are at the whim of emotions, easily manipulated by any group with an agenda to avoid change !
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2015
runrig offered a great link I hadn't seen before
Err, the Sun's output has overall been falling (minutely) for several decades.

Now if you'd like (LOL) to see the above plotted with global CO2 content as well
https://ourchangi...co22.png
Excellent

And interestingly from a site favoured by AGW deniers there is this graphical data of temps & CO2:-
http://www.woodfo...ormalise
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2015
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/12/30/global-sea-ice-breaks-all-time-record-high-antarctic-sea-ice-also-breaks-all-time-record-high/


philstacy inadvertently sheds some light upon both the suspect nature of Goddard's logically-, ideologically-, and factually- challenged blogsite(readily apparent to anyone with a firm grounding in science and math), and the quality of the thinking abilities of his followers(or, at least, those who comment upon his drivel), among whom we are left no choice but to number philstacy.

If one scrolls down a bit in the comments following Goddard's screed, who will appear but the infamous "our sun, the neutron star, has a solid iron core" troll , O. Manuel.

Guilt By Association, or Birds Of A Feather?

Not to be too sarcastic.
Caliban
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 06, 2015
Sorry.

In case any of you were tempted to have a look, the omanuel sighting appears in a previous blogpost linked below the main post "read full article"link, specifically:

http://www.climat...ars-ago/

Which also includes this laughter-inducing bit of pseudoscientific data manipulation: the second graph utilizes a "two-year average" to force the global average sea ice area to conform a very short term(= two years, definitely not a trend with any meaningful CLIMATE implications) "trend" of rapidly increasing sea ice area.

I say --why stop there? Why not reduce the interval even further, to a single-year average, so that the "Trend" is exactly matched by the observation --and thereby completely eliminating any need to differentiate "climate" from weather.
Caliban
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 06, 2015
Lastly, for those of you masochistic enough to visit Goddard's blog, it should be immediately apparent --to anyone with even a LITTLE scientific literacy-- that every single graph which the omniscient goddard provides shows --incontrovertibly-- the one pertinent fact in all this, namely, that these record-breaking, AGW-busting, Climate Science Conspiracy-confirming ice area extents all fall well within the observed variation(anomaly) which has historically existed around the TREND LINE, which is relentlessly NEGATIVE.

Goddard may as well say that since the toilet bowl filled a millimeter higher than average this flush, that it was going to overflow with the next flush.

The fact that so many people are taken in by such preposterous hucksterism --philstacy, RobPaulG, Bill589, et al-- for example, is a sad commentary regarding just how far our standards of inquiry have fallen in recent years.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.