Inicio > Mis eListas > lea > Mensajes

 Índice de Mensajes 
 Mensajes 7748 al 7777 
Fwd: Tercer encuen Jorge Hi
Re: Fwd: Tercer en Maria Pi
Direccion del ATEN Jorge L.
prueba Jorge Hi
=?UTF-8?Q?DIRECCI= Jorge Hi
Bancas de maestria Andrei J
Número 45 de la Ca Andrei J
change email- camb Eukarys
Nexo agua, energía Andrei J
Soluciones basadas Andrei J
Re: En marzo, siem Jorge Hi
Fwd: En marzo, sie Jorge Hi
El Nexo entre el a Andrei J
A 20 años de la Mu Jorge Hi
Relanzamiento de L Jorge Hi
CURSO: Agua, soste Andrei J
Número 46 de la Ca Andrei J
(sin asunto) Domingo
=?UTF-8?Q?Con_o_si Domingo
=?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=8 Jorge Hi
América Latina y e Andrei J
 << 30 ant. | 30 sig. >>
Lista Ecologia y Ambiente - VZLA
Página principal    Mensajes | Enviar Mensaje | Ficheros | Datos | Encuestas | Eventos | Mis Preferencias

Mostrando mensaje 8231     < Anterior | Siguiente >
Responder a este mensaje
Fecha:Martes, 20 de Diciembre, 2016  16:06:52 (-0300)
Autor:Emiliano Teran Mantovani <fighters1985>

The End of the Paris Prophecy
Donald Trump’s election win is bad news for the Paris Agreement and very bad news for the climate.
by Maxime Combes & Edouard Morena

Edouard Morena lectures in French and European politics at the University of London Institute in Paris and New York University-Paris. He is the author of The Price of Climate Action: Philanthropic Foundations in the International Climate Debate. Maxime Combes is an economist and the author of Sortons de l'âge des fossiles! Manifeste pour la transition.


Following an initial period of shock and horror, experts, stakeholders, observers, and journalists linked to the international climate process have energetically downplayed the consequences for the Paris Agreement of Donald Trump’s election victory.

Portraying him as a “pragmatic businessman,” some argued that Trump would come to his senses and see the economic benefits of climate action. Others questioned his capacity to actually push through his campaign promise of immediately “cancelling” the Paris climate agreement once inside the Oval Office.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon expressed his confidence that Trump would not undo the Paris Agreement. Ségolène Royal, the French environment minister and outgoing president of the Conference of the Parties, the yearly UN climate change meeting, declared that there was nothing to be worried about since it would take at least three years for a US president to exit the agreement (which came into force on November 4), and an extra year for an exit to actually happen.

Royal’s remarks are simply not true. Subparagraph three of article twenty-eight in the agreement stipulates that if a country unilaterally decides to opt out of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), it also automatically withdraws from the Paris Agreement. According to Michael Wara, environmental law expert at Stanford University, President Trump could unilaterally decide to do this, without consulting with the US Congress — as was already the case under Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush when they withdrew the United States from military treaties.

This option, which best reflects Donald Trump’s climate denialist campaign declarations, would produce the greatest damage to the international climate regime. By unilaterally withdrawing from the UNFCCC (launched over twenty-five years ago), the world’s second-largest emitter would permanently undermine the Convention’s legitimacy and future. Given the absence of a Plan B, the UN climate negotiations would likely be swept away by uncontrollable centrifugal forces.

As his recent “open mind” remarks suggest however, Trump could settle for a less “radical” option and choose to remain in the agreement. Yet even this option could spell the end of US climate action — which, as a group of NGOs have recently shown, is far from satisfactory given its historical responsibility.

The intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) that form the backbone of the Paris deal are non-binding. There is no way of forcing a country to fulfill its stated reductions pledge. Subsequently, Trump can simply ignore Obama’s pledge to reduce US emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2025 when compared to their 2005 level.

Worse, he can also dismantle the bodies and instruments in place to fulfill this objective (the Environment Protection Agency would be the most likely target) and cancel the existing — and limited — environmental regulations. At the end of the day, given the amount of climate deniers that are now buzzing around him — including Jeff Sessions, among others — and the pressures that will likely come from the segments of capital that have funded the entire infrastructure of climate change denialism in America, his stance on the Paris agreement is of little importance.

Most significantly, and regardless of his chosen course of action, Trump’s victory effectively annihilates the self-realizing prophecy upon which the Paris Agreement was built: the idea that, as Laurence Tubiana, lead negotiator for France in the run-up to Paris explained, by triggering “the convergence of rational anticipations,” “words contribute as much to change as the agreement itself.”

For its architects and supporters, the Paris Agreement’s function is to send “unambiguous signals that the world will shift its economic and social activity toward more climate-friendly and sustainable pathways.” It is the “momentum” generated by the agreement that is supposed to inspire transformational change by all stakeholders — states, local governments, businesses, investors, and NGOs. A priority after Paris was therefore to keep up the Paris “momentum” by highlighting — through an elaborate communications strategy — that the prophecy was being realized.

As one communications expert put it, this involves a savvy combination of one-third fear and two-thirds hope. For Christiana Figueres, former UNFCCC Executive Secretary, it was essential to “relentlessly [inject] optimism into the system, no matter what the questions from the press . . . and no matter what the evidence to the contrary.”

Questions of whether or not such a strategy could ever be sufficient to enforce and protect a global climate change pact aside, Trump’s election has brought down an already wavering Paris edifice. Over the course of 2016, it was confronted with a number of opposing signals and realities — from the reopening of coal mines to climate-averse free-trade agreements. Trump’s victory dealt it a killer blow.

Given the forces unleashed by this election, how can the Paris prophecy possibly survive?

Not only will the prophecy not be fulfilled, but it also risks turning against itself. As the sociologist Robert K. Merton explains, a prophecy can become self-defeating when confronted with an event that directly challenges its realization. Trump’s election threatens a core component of the orchestrated narrative in place since COP21.

It is because of its universal character and, in particular, the fact that the United States and China — the world’s two largest emitters — committed to reducing their carbon emissions that the Paris Agreement could be labeled and marketed as a “historic pact,” “historic deal,” “landmark climate accord,” “groundbreaking climate accord,” and “chance to save the world.” By dropping out of the equation, the United States turns the Paris prophecy into a nightmare.

At the Marrakech COP, one only had to look at the expressions on delegates’ faces to realize just how disastrous Trump’s victory was for the Paris Agreement and all that it stands for. In a last-ditch attempt to salvage the situation, the agreement’s die-hard supporters are now trying to reshape the narrative.

Given that it will be harder to mobilize countries — why should anyone still commit to ambitious climate action if the United States is backing out? — the Paris spin doctors are diverting the public’s and media’s attention towards subnational and non-state actors, particularly cities and businesses (especially in the field of energy).

The “spirit of Paris” is intact, they argue, since investors, local governments, and businesses, with or without government backing, are already fueling the transition towards a low-carbon economy. “Trump’s election,” they tell us, “will not slow the groundswell of climate action we see from cities, states and provinces, businesses, civil society groups, and other actors whose decisions are not governed by the Electoral College.”

In Marrakech, John Kerry expressed his confidence in the fact that the “marketplace will dictate [change], not the government.” Investing in clean technologies and infrastructures is presented as making good business sense. In fact, it makes so much sense that they are convinced that Trump will come to his senses, not for the sake of the climate but to preserve the United States’s global economic superpower status.

The problem is that the invisible hand of the market is neither green nor social.

Trump’s victory is a stark reminder that the fight against climate change is more than just a storytelling exercise. Climate change is a battleground where opposing interests — whether corporate or geopolitical — come into conflict.

We, as stakeholders in this battle, have a duty to tell the truth: No, corporate self-interest will not save the climate. No, the climate struggle is not on the right tracks. Pre-Trump global mitigation commitments place us on a path towards a dangerous 3°C increase in global temperatures. Only by acknowledging this can we, to paraphrase Murray Bookchin, do the impossible and prevent the unthinkable.

El 7 de noviembre de 2016, 11:21, Julio Centeno <> escribiĂł:

Acuerdo de ParĂ­s sobre cambio climĂ¡tico entra en vigor

En un texto conjunto con el canciller marroquĂ­ y presidente de la Conferencia de Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio ClimĂ¡tico (COP 22) Salaheddine Mezouar, coincidiĂł en que esta fecha serĂ¡ recordada como la que el mundo “comenzĂł con determinaciĂłn a caminar hacia un futuro sostenible”
PRENSA ONU 7 noviembre 2016

El Acuerdo de ParĂ­s sobre cambio climĂ¡tico entrĂł en vigor el viernes 4 de Noviembre, con un llamado de la OrganizaciĂłn de Naciones Unidas (ONU) para reducir las emisiones de gases efecto invernadero y construir sociedades menos contaminantes.

La secretaria ejecutiva de la ConvenciĂłn Marco de Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio ClimĂ¡tico y ex canciller mexicana, Patricia Espinosa, considerĂł que se trata de un punto de inflexiĂłn en la historia de los esfuerzos colectivos de la humanidad.

En un texto conjunto con el canciller marroquĂ­ y presidente de la Conferencia de Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio ClimĂ¡tico (COP 22) Salaheddine Mezouar, coincidiĂł en que esta fecha serĂ¡ recordada como la que el mundo “comenzĂł con determinaciĂłn a caminar hacia un futuro sostenible”.

“El tiempo apremia frente al aumento continuado de las emisiones causantes del cambio climĂ¡tico y de sus impactos. La conferencia de Marrakech debe tener este dato muy presente, como su principal fuente de preocupaciĂłn y aliciente de la voluntad comĂşn de actuar”.

El informe de la OrganizaciĂłn MeteorolĂłgica Mundial confirma que en 2016 se alcanzĂł el rĂ©cord de concentraciĂłn de diĂłxido de carbono tras superar 400 partes por millĂłn. “El mundo estĂ¡ lejos del objetivo del Acuerdo de ParĂ­s de limitar el calentamiento global muy por debajo de 2 grados centĂ­grados y lo mĂ¡s cerca posible de 1.5 grados”, advirtieron Espinosa y Mezouar en el texto.

Pidieron asegurar el acuerdo con polĂ­ticas, tecnologĂ­a y financiamiento para lograr estos objetivos, y hacerlo rĂ¡pido en medio de un “movimiento sin precedentes para construir una industria mundial de energĂ­as renovables, descontaminar sistemas de producciĂłn energĂ©tica, construcciĂłn y agricultura”.

Asimismo, para “rediseñar las economĂ­as y las sociedades para hacerlas mĂ¡s resilientes a los impactos que el cambio climĂ¡tico ya estĂ¡ causando”.

Recordaron que los gobiernos deben tomar medidas para implementar el acuerdo y antes de 2018 terminar el reglamento sobre mediciĂłn, contabilidad y anĂ¡lisis de las acciones mundiales a favor del clima, que es necesario para la transparencia en la acciĂłn global.

Con el Acuerdo de París se debe “reforzar el apoyo tecnológico y financiero a los países en desarrollo para que estos puedan construirse sus propios futuros sostenibles a partir de una energía limpia”.

AdemĂ¡s, la sociedad, los ciudadanos, las ciudades, las empresas y los inversionistas tambiĂ©n tienen el compromiso de “reducir las emisiones de carbono y apoyar a los gobiernos en su lucha contra los peligrosos efectos del cambio climĂ¡tico”.

Espinosa y Mezouar expresaron su interés en que la COP 22 el presente mes en Marrakech, sirva para acelerar el reglamento, se avance en el financiamiento de 100 mil millones de dólares anuales para el año 2020 necesarios para esta lucha en países en vías de desarrollo.

“La ONU estima que para lograr un desarrollo sostenible se necesitan entre cinco y siete billones de dólares anuales, y que buena parte de ese dinero debe servir para financiar la transición a una economía mundial baja en carbono y resiliente”, destacaron.

Por ello pidieron ir “mĂ¡s allĂ¡ de los mĂ©todos tradicionales de financiamiento” entre el sector pĂşblico y privado, de los que se esperan inversiones cuantiosas en los prĂłximos años en esta materia.

“Los pilares del Acuerdo de ParĂ­s son sĂłlidos y ya empezamos a ver nuevas partes del que serĂ¡ el nuevo hogar de la humanidad. Sin embargo, no podemos y no debemos descansar hasta llegar al techo”, sostuvieron Espinosa y Mezouar.



PaĂ­s que se declare minero ¡EstĂ¡ muerto!  
Juan Pablo PĂ©rez Alfonso  
Bailadores. 1976.