THE CARBON WAR

The absurd thing is we know exactly what needs to be done 297
to testify in Congress that man-made greenhouse-gas emissions were almost
certainly causing global warming. That was way back in 1988. Today, his contrast
between the 2°C and 1.5°C targets is graphic. Two degrees would see the
planet warmer than the Eemian, an interglacial period between 130,000 and
115,000 years ago, he says. Then, global sea level was between 6 and 9 metres
higher than today. There is no question that 2°C is too high to avoid danger.
1.5 should be the target.
The UN High Commission for Refugees follows him. Climate change is
already creating refugees, their representatives observe. They do not use caveats.
Refugees from Syria and other conflict-torn countries who have made it
to Europe this year now number around a million. I wonder what a 2°C world
would look like, refugee wise, with soaring levels of drought, land-based icesheet
melting accelerating and global sea levels rising accordingly. I wonder
what that would do to our world and its fragile social cohesion.
Back in the media centre, I try to take stock, pooling my conversations,
the Todd Stern press conference, and press reports from journalists I trust and
know to have good inside information of their own.
The big picture is that world leaders have been gone only a day or so, and
their negotiators are already struggling. Dan Reifsnyder, one of the co-chairs
responsible for editing down the text, has this to say: “We are not making
anywhere near the progress we need to at this point.”
The global-warming target is predictably contentious. The notion of a
1.5°C target is “beyond sensitive,” a Saudi negotiator says. The island nations
and their supporters respond that without it, they have no future.
Mention of decarbonisation is also therefore under dispute. The G7 countries
are pushing their agreement that fossil fuels should be phased out this
century, and they have many supporters, consistent with the requirements to
keep global warming below 2 degrees. India, China and many oil-rich countries
are resisting.
It is also not clear that there will be a ratchet in the agreement, whatever
the temperature or carbon targets set, much less one with potential to be
effective. Many countries are happy with the idea of a five-year review, regular
reporting, transparency, and collective intent to tighten the ambition of national
emissions commitments from 2020 on. But India, China and several countries in
Latin America and the Middle East want to wait until up to 2030 to strengthen
their targets. Too distant, say others: no sense of urgency.
Finance continues to be contentious. A newcomer to the negotiations
would doubtless be pulling their hair out that the rich nations would hesitate