UNFCCC Blog Post #6

Now that the meetings are finally over and an agreement has been released, I took the time to review the English version to see if I could make sense of all the information packed in there. The entire beginning of this agreement released by the Cop president uses words in italics like: acknowledging, emphasizing, agreeing, recognizing, etc. What surprised me a lot about the beginning was how they mentioned, “Agreeing to uphold and promote regional and international cooperation in order to mobilize stronger and more ambitious climate action by all Parties and non-Party stakeholders, including civil society, the private sector, financial institutions, cities and other subnational authorities, local communities and indigenous peoples” (2). A lot of this sort of mentioning of indigenous people makes it sounds like they will be considered when industrialized countries start making decisions and real action on climate change, but in my last post I talked about how people were upset that indigenous and underdeveloped countries felt upset that the agreements failed to prioritize them. In a lot of the interviews I watched they almost all mentioned how this could end up being and industrial country take over and how the agreement is only word, not action. This is a good point, we only really know that countries agreed to goals like keeping the temp below 2 degrees Celsius if not 1.5, but just like I mentioned in the previous post…they are only words. Time will tell whether or not we see progress.

Another interesting note was at the very end in article 28. It reads that, “At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary” (32). So from what I understand, countries can back out of this, but only after three years and another year after receiving a receipt from the Depository of the notification of withdrawal. This is good to know except I’m still skeptical as to what this will do to prevent countries from getting lazy. We’ve seen so much talk, but where’s the walk. Sure I suppose this encourages countries to stay in the game and at least try to collectively do things for at least half a decade or so. That means everyone stays in the agreement going through next years in Morocco as well as the following years wherever delegations will be held. Again, I want to stress the importance of holding people accountable for their word. I think it is up to the public to really do so and put pressure on our leaders (especially in the U.S.) to hold their word.

Google.images

UNFCCC Blog Post #5

UNFCCC Blog Post #5

Yay! MORE ANALYSYS OF THE PARIS AGREEMENT!!! One article about vegetarianism brought up a good point regarding agriculture. It says, “The scarcity of regulations and policies to address this endemic crisis means that proposed solutions tend to ignore these structural causes and instead encourage business as usual. For example, a typical response is to make resources more efficient, such as producing more carbon-efficient fertilizer. But studies show that efficiencies gained are often countered by increases in resource use—it’s the farming equivalent of having an extra piece just because the cake is low-calorie. Other measures have included encouraging consumers to go vegan or vegetarian. But these solutions fail to challenge the logic of industrial agriculture, which operates in a paradigm of economic growth at all costs”. Even though these diets sound better than meat production, one must not forget the challenges still facing agriculture in general. Even if we switched completely to these diets, it unfortunately still serves as just a first step (in the right direction at least).

In my reading of the Paris agreement I found this statement extremely relevant and important. It comes from article 5 as part of the conservation side of the agreement and reads, “Parties are encouraged to take action to implement and support, including through results-based payments, the existing framework as set out in related guidance and decisions already agreed under the Convention for: policy approaches and positive incentives for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries; and alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests, while reaffirming the importance of incentivizing, as appropriate, non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches” (23-24). Despite not directly mentioning livestock or the meat sector in this, I can assume as I have in previous blog posts that pasteurizing land will be considered when people start taking action. So much of deforestation and degradation comes from these issues, so I hope to learn more about the details behind this statement with further research and studying of the delegations.

I am really concerned how this agreement isn’t greatly concerning the rights of indigenous people because frankly they are the first ones effected by all of this. We see in interviews how people are upset with not only the lack of effort to keep coal in the ground altogether, but also to not put indigenous people at the top of the priority list. When forests get cut down, they are affected first and often get taken advantage of and don’t get much say in the whole thing, (not to mention their vulnerability to climate change effects already).

http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/08/cop21-big-ag/

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf

google.images

UNFCCC #4

UNFCCC Blog Post #

YAY! The Paris Agreement is out and countries like the US and China have come to contribute to the agreement! I have yet to read the full agreement, but I hope to find something useful regarding food and other things related to deforestation, since no one seems to think livestock and pasteurizing is important to discuss in Climate Negotiations…. (cough cough)…

Also, I think it’s important to point out this week how big of a step that we have taken on climate change with this agreement. Tracing the previous years of negotiations, I am sooooo pleased to see that finally the U.S. and other countries like China and India have come to become not just a part of the deal, but a great leader in negotiations. With that said, it is also so very important that we acknowledge this agreement is only the beginning to a larger process. A quote from this grist article I read sums this idea up pretty well highlighting some of President Barack Obama’s words. It read, “We met the moment,” Obama said in his address. The Paris agreement on its own would not end climate change, he said, but “this agreement will help delay or avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change, and will pave the way for even more progress, in successive stages, over the coming years.” This is really important to keep in mind because a lot of people may feel great about how Paris turned out, yet nothing is stopping us, the U.S.A. from simply not complying with the agreement. It’s not like there is really a penalty on us as a country from others if we don’t abide. Many people fear, rightfully so, that we may end up giving in to our previous habits just like we did with the KYOTO protocol and others. I look forward in the coming years to see how we actually apply this agreement. Another notable thing is the schedule meetings nect year in Morocco that will hopefully discuss action planning. Part of me wishes that we wouldn’t just wait a year because it follows an annual agenda just becayse. Rather I wish they would already start doing something now like next month or something if possible. Given the current stress and urgency of the matters at hand, it only makes sense to me for them to really start applications now.

http://grist.org/politics/how-u-s-negotiators-made-the-paris-climate-deal-republican-proof/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=sailthru-post-notifications&utm_source=notification&utm_term=u%28How%20U.S.%20negotiators%20made%20the%20Paris%20climate%20deal%20Republican-proof%29

google.images

UNFCCC #3

Blog Post #3

I have been slightly disappointed with the way that the negotiations have ignored the meat industry thus far. It seems silly with all of the evidence that this happens, yet nonetheless a lot has been discussed regarding deforestation issues, According to one article I found that, “Nearly three-quarters of all dry lands in Africa — 1 billion hectares (3.86 million square miles) — are affected by desertification, while a quarter of African agricultural land is seriously damaged, costing an average of 3 percent of GDP each year due to the loss of soil and nutrients on farmland. In sub-Saharan Africa, nearly half the population, 47 percent, earns less than $1.25 a day” (Mathai). As seen by these African countries, they have been taking matters into their own hands especially because so much of the deforestation happens on their continent. Despite not directly being associated with the meat industry, this effort greatly impacts a positive future. So much of deforestation and desertification seems to stem from all the land we pasteurize for grazing animals.

            Specifically, It’s good to see groups like the African Forest Landscape Restoration Initiative. “This new pan-African, country-led effort aims to restore 100 million hectares (386,000 square miles) of degraded and deforested landscapes in Africa by 2030. It’s an ambitious goal, but within reach — at the initiative’s launch in Paris during COP21, African countries committed to restore more than 30 million hectares (116,000 square miles), an area larger than the nation of Gabon or the United Kingdom. And AFR100 partners are earmarking more than $1 billion in development finance and $600 million in private sector investment to support restoration activities”. It’s one thing plan on restoration, but things like these take money. Thus far in delegations it seems to me that more and more countries are making financial commitments. It started slow, but I think as more and more drafts and decisions get made as this week progresses we will see others follow suit to commit funding for programs. Furthermore, I remember from class today that someone mentioned growing fears of countries not taking enough risks financially. These timid responses demonstrate and give the impression of little ambition. There has to be some risk taking in these negotiations for sure, otherwise I fear that we won’t make enough pushes for progress at least in time to save us from some devastation.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/this-new-initiative-out-of-paris-will-help-fight-climate-change-with-trees/

google

blog post #2 UNFCCC

Blog Post #2 (UNFCCC)

            I took a glance again at what seems to be happening in the delegations. There seems to be a lot of cool things happening, yet another grist article I read summarizes some of the concerns from environmental justice groups. Overall, they say that the negotiations being had often focus on the wealthier countries and gives cause for great concern by environmental justice groups who represent the front lines of the communities affected by climate change (the non-wealthy countries). In fact they are their own delegation group in attendance called It Takes Roots. According to the article, most of the negotiations mentioned about the overall picture of this thing tend to not attack the source, but still act as bandages. If anything they are encouraging us to burn more because they claim the solutions they are offering actually offset what we burn. The article highlights that, “The delegation’s demands are brief, but impactful: Mandatory, community-driven emissions cuts, serious commitments to keep fossil fuels in the ground, strong human rights protections, and rejection of false solutions, such as fracking and “clean” coal” (Rakia). They have a very good point with this because not only do some of these cause more environmental trouble, but they allow fossil fuel companies to continue to act as they are and make little to no changes. My hope is that within the next week of the Paris negotiations that they start to consider the hard details that thus far have been ignored.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/environmental-justice-groups-are-not-impressed-with-expected-paris agreement/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=daily-horizon

http://grist.org/climate-energy/whats-the-best-way-to-protect-forests-thats-a-big-question-at-the-paris-climate-talks/