Henny Penny lays an egg in Paris

Over 40,000 diplomats, delegates, and the leaders of 195 nations and other luminaries, transported in a multitude of atmosphere polluting planes and motor vehicles, descended on Paris in the past two weeks to decide “the planet’s last best hope to stave off the worst consequences of climate change”; or as French President Francois Hollande put it, “the planet’s future and the future of life”.

Frightening stuff ! Enough it seems for the panic button to be pressed in the diplomatic and political ‘chicken coup’ and Henny Penny was off and running in every direction, with world leaders each vying to be the most convincing in their persuasion and reassurance of each other that we are all doomed unless the world can at least prevent the average global surface temperature from increasing by more than 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial revolution (circa 1760) average.

But the conference has done better. The unanimous agreement of all 195 nations provides not only to limit and neutralise carbon emissions to bring the average global temperature increase “well within” the 2°C objective, but to also strive to reduce that average to 1.5°C.

So finally, all the scaremongering which climate scientists have had to engage in to bring about the hastening of the incremental shift in global political will which began with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, has paid off. The chickens have come home to roost in Paris. Henny Penny has finally laid an egg and we will now see how it hatches out.

Once the self-congratulatory applause dies away in Paris and the 40,000 participants return home, the optimism of COP21 (as the accord is referred to) needs to be translated into positive results and, if the science is right, the respective nations have to be convinced that the situation is urgent and that there is no time to waste. The yet to come treaty based on the accord has to be signed and implemented with real, immediate and transparent carbon emission-reducing action. 

So let’s look at what has been agreed to in this 31 page accord because, as the saying goes, the dirt is in the detail.

Leaving aside the first 20 pages of introductory, preliminary and contextual statements of intentions and understandings, the ‘active’ clauses are to be found starting on page 21: the Articles of the agreement.

It is not all that surprising to find that these articles allow for a number of self-interpretive provisions should any country wish to legitimately cheat or ‘go easy’ on the agreement. In particular, the fundamental objective to neutralise and (hopefully) reduce carbon emissions is prescribed within “the context of sustainable development and the effort to eradicate poverty” and “will be implemented to reflect equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances” (Art.2).

That is “lawyer speak” for: do your best but if your economic capability is not up to it and if your social disadvantage and limited stage of development is of greater priority, then you’ll be excused.

Also, there is no fixed time for the optimum purpose of the agreement (“peaking”) to be achieved (presumably because success and co-operation is not assured). That task is prescribed on the basis of parties aiming “to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible [with] rapid reductions” thereafter, and with the long term aim extending over “the last half of this century” (Art.4).

Consideration and concession is also given to “developing countries” (unnamed, but which we are all supposed to know) by “recognising that [the objective] will take [them]longer” to achieve, and again within “the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty” and having regard to “different national circumstances” (Art.4 et seq).  

There is also much use and differentiation throughout the Articles of the words “shall” and “should” (one instance of which caused a last minute flurry of concern to the US delegation in regard to the setting of economic wide targets for the cutting of greenhouse gas pollution). This makes many provisions advisory at best rather than imperative, so that discretion in their implementation becomes permissible at law.

This is especially the case in regard to the application of resources needed to meet the objective and in the respective financial assistance to be given by the well-developed countries to the “developing countries”.

Many stimulating words are also used in the Articles to shore up the sense of commitment and resolve hopefully to maintain the enthusiasm and belief that we are all in this together and that the cause is both noble and achievable. Words like “encourage”, “urge”, “resolve”, “strengthen”, “ambitious”, “engaging”, etc, flow freely throughout the text.

Many clauses are so obscure that their purpose is lost (assuming there was one). Other oblique clauses are designed to mention sensitive political but peripheral issues such as the taking of “a country-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach” with consideration of“vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems… based on and guided by…traditional knowledge, knowledge of indigenous peoples…with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant socioeconomic and environmental policies and action, where appropriate” (Art.7).

But whether any of this will diffuse the persistent lack of consensus within the sciences (although a majority view has prevailed) and which continues to foster a healthy scepticism amongst the public as well as a modicum of ratbaggery, remains to be seen. For what we are dealing with here is an issue that started with nature being to blame, which then moved on to mankind being a contributor, and ultimately now to mankind being almost the sole offender.

Indeed, there are not many solid and entirely indisputable facts to be relied upon in this continuing debate, notwithstanding some advocates who tend to speak with absolute certainty. From what can be taken as truth it can be said, that Yes, climate changeis real. The climate has been changing ever since the Big Bang. Sometimes dramatically and perversely from hot to cold and back again. With or without humans it will continue to do so.

And Yes, mankind is contributing significantly to the greenhouse effect (which has been known about since 1896) with an estimated 108bn people having lived on Planet Earth so far and over 7bn of us (about seven time more since the Industrial Revolution) being presently alive, and increasing at an accelerated rate.

Perhaps the most important concern is the fact that greenhouse gas, once created, can take more than a hundred years to dissipate.

So, the hope of mankind it seems is for either the (majority of) climate scientists to be wrong in their predictions, or if not wrong, that the good intentions and determined efforts of us all, worldwide, to mitigate the effect of greenhouse gas, will succeed.

It is all a matter of being better safe than sorry. Had the ingenuity of humans been such that we had found out how to harness and use the energy of the sun before we discovered fossil fuel, then…well, we have not been that smart. We can only hope we get it right this time.