Overview
ofPublic
Issues
2016
The
Politics and
Policy
of Paris
Oren Cass, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
October 30, 2015
What are we arguing about?
Popular
Narrative
“There is
anthropogenic
climate change”
“No, there’s not”
Scientific Debate
“Climate
change is
catastrophic”
“No, it’s not”
Policy Debate
“U.S. action
will produce
global results”
“No, it won’t”
International
Negotiation
“Let’s pay
trillions of $ to
poor nations”
“No, let’s not”
2
The framework has already resolved the debate
To move toward an agreement, negotiators had to:
• Abandon premise of an enforceable agreement
• Abandon premise of objective standards / baselines / metrics
• Abandon premise of mandatory review and revision
“The purpose of this cycle is to enable an
upward spiral of ambition over time.” – Draft negotiating text
“History and the science of cooperation predict that quite the opposite will happen.” – MacKay et al, Nature
3
The developing world is what matters
80% of all emissions
4
The submissions compound the failure
Peak by around 2030 (as already predicted); 60-65% intensity reduction (<BAU)
33-35% intensity reduction (halving recent energy efficiency gains)
Too vague to assess, “does not allow for any accountability” — World Resource Inst
43% below 2005 level by 2030; but already 41% below 2005 level in 2012
No plan
No plan
+247% by 2030 instead of self-defined BAU of +261%
5
The narrative may bear little relation to reality
“U.S. action
will produce
global results”
• It worked! Countries are acting!
The U.S. has no excuse not to act.
“Under the terms of the plan, India’s
economy would grow roughly
sevenfold by 2030, compared with
2005 levels, while its carbon emissions
would triple. Yet if India took no
action, emissions would also grow
sevenfold.” – New York Times, 10/1/15
“No, it won’t”
• The structure of these
commitments is farcical; that we
had to go down this path already
proves the case against meaningful
collective action
• The plans themselves, even with no
credible enforcement, confirm no
interest in departing from a
business as usual trajectory
6
What are we arguing about?
Popular
Narrative
“There is
anthropogenic
climate change”
“No, there’s not”
Scientific Debate
“Climate
change is
catastrophic”
“No, it’s not”
Policy Debate
“U.S. action
will produce
global results”
“No, it won’t”
International
Negotiation
“Let’s pay
trillions of $ to
poor nations”
“No, let’s not”
7
What are they not negotiating about?
8
What are they negotiating about?
9
“Climate Finance” is a shakedown, not a solution
“Ecological Debt”
“Reparations”
“Investment”
Would be
fascinating if
this were ever
debated…
Rejected out of
fear for openended
commitment…
How to actually
implement?
What would we
be getting?
“Clinton emphasized that the money is only on
the table so long as fast-growing nations like
China and India accept binding commitments
that are open to international inspection and
verification. ”
YorkAgreement”
Times, 12/17/09
“The Price– New
of an
10
There are three possible outcomes
Developed
Countries
Walk Away
with Nothing
Vague
Agreement
with Enough
for Everyone
Developing
Countries Get
Firm Cash
Commitment
11
Realistic Expectations (& Rational Goals) for Paris
Realistic Expectations
• Weak agreement with vague
finance provisions, followed
by much applause, no action
• Claims of significant
achievement gradually giving
way to claims of urgent need
for action
• Continued push on U.S. to do
more to promote “spiral of
ambition”
Rational Goals
• Preemptively block climate
finance via congressional
resolution; “emperor has no
clothes”
• Cement the goalposts
(baselines) in the right place
• Focus public attention and
policy debate on climate
finance
12
Thank You
Overview
ofPublic
Issues
2016
The
Politics and
Policy
of Paris
Oren Cass, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
October 30, 2015