Day 2

Many have waited for this conference, hoping to see it as a turning point in the climate crisis. It is the place that we as a world can stand up and overcome the climate crisis. With such an important agreement in the works, there is a lot of discussion of what will be in the agreement. Climate Action Network (CAN) International held a presentation called: “The Paris Agreement: Springboard for Transformative Change.” The presentation broke down many of the controversial pieces in the way of coming to a climate agreement in Paris.

Beginning with a financial perspective, funding for adaptation and mitigation is still far behind where it should be to prevent further warming. The source of funding this is another thing that needs to be decided, whether it is voluntary, a percentage of a nation’s GDP, or some other method. No matter the methods to finance these projects, the panelists agreed that there needs to be transparency in financial flows, a transition from this into adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damages. A representative from Nicaragua explained that the funding received has to be split between both mitigation and adaptation. We cannot focus on just one and ignore the other. With that in mind, she stated that mitigation is inversely related to loss and damages. As more money is spent on mitigation than adaptation, the loss and damages decrease. As less money is spent on mitigation than adaptation loss and damage increases. To decrease the additional amount spent on loss and damages more funding should be placed in mitigation, while not completely ignoring adaptation.

Next, there was a discussion on the gigatonne gap. With the INDCs submitted, simulations can show the atmospheric CO2 levels and resulting temperature increases. Business as usual leads to high CO2 emissions and increasing temperatures. Many other scenarios and their outcomes were shown. With the INDCs submitted so far, we are still far above the levels needed to keep warming at or below 1.5˚C or even 2.0˚C of warming. If current pledges are met, we would still be emitting 12-14 gigatonnes more carbon than what we can emit to meet the 1.5 to 2.0˚ goal. With this in mind, the panelists encouraged giving nations the annual opportunity to update their INDCs, allowing countries to set new goals as they pass previously set ones. This would gain positive momentum and encourage more positive change.

Lastly, there was a discussion of conditional emission reductions in some of the submitted INDCs. This raises the question of how goals would be defined in a legal binding agreement and whether or not those goals would have to be met. Not all countries are on the same page in regards to their willingness or ability to take action. Whatever the outcome comes from this conference, there needs to be clear and ambitious goals involving all nations.

So far there has been an overwhelmingly positive outlook on this conference. Many details still have to be worked out in order to make this agreement a reality. Some are motivated by hope of leaving a better world. Some are motivated by the fear of disaster to come. All know that if we are going to tackle this issue it has to be now. There is a lot of hope that an agreement can and will be made in Paris.