{"id":8573,"date":"2015-12-13T21:10:53","date_gmt":"2015-12-14T02:10:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/?p=8573"},"modified":"2015-12-13T21:17:03","modified_gmt":"2015-12-14T02:17:03","slug":"post-paris-thoughts-the-beginning-of-the-end","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2015\/12\/13\/post-paris-thoughts-the-beginning-of-the-end\/","title":{"rendered":"Post-Paris thoughts: The beginning of the end?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The Paris climate talks were successful in that they resulted in an agreement that is both\u00a0better than nothing and better than most of us expected. They were a failure in that even if they are followed to the letter — and there’s no provision for enforcing whether anyone follows them or not — they would still likely result in changes to the world climate that will bring tremendous hardship to millions, possibly billions, of humans and countless other organisms.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Danny Chivers and Jess Worth,\u00a0writing in New Internationalist<\/em>,<\/a>\u00a0articulate the reasons why they should be considered a failure. The authors cite failures on four key objectives:<\/p>\n

1. Catalyze immediate, urgent and drastic emission reductions;
\n2. Provide adequate support for transformation;
\n3. Deliver justice for impacted people;
\n4. Focus on genuine, effective action rather than false\u00a0solutions.<\/p>\n

One of the interesting debates over the talks was whether Saudi Arabia or the US was the biggest “blocker” of success. \u00a0If, as Friends of the Earth seemed to think (in their panel of yesterday\u00a0morning), the US was the big culprit, then we’re still not sure if it’s the Republican Congress that is mainly to blame, or the lack of a stronger vision from the White House. (The Obama\/Kerry team knew they wouldn’t be able to pass anything by Congress, so they tried to avoid any language that would require it.)<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

In the end, one could argue that the fossil fuel lobby won out again.\u00a0<\/span>With its wealth (it is the wealthiest industry<\/a> on the planet), vested interests, and relationships of dependency — including\u00a0trillions\u00a0of dollars of subsidies<\/a> — with the governments of the world, that industry ought in the future to be considered the demon that needs to be extracted from the fossil-fueled Anthropocene machine and sent into orbit somewhere beyond Pluto. That machine is clearly not sustainable, and its dismantling and replacement will be the challenge of the next century.<\/p>\n

On the bright side, the agreement can be taken as signaling the beginning of the end — not for humanity (at least if we keep our fingers crossed), but for the fossil fuel era. Insofar as collective survival will require that era’s end and its replacement by something different, that’s a good thing. Insofar as we could hardly have predicted such a concerted effort by the world’s nations to acknowledge this very fact and to point to a way out — a decarbonized, post fossil fuel future\u00a0— it is unprecedented. And insofar as it took the work of thousands of individuals and groups — difficult work over many years — it should be celebrated as a real achievement. <\/span><\/p>\n

Humanity has\u00a0collectively turned a very significant corner. Stragglers (many of them) and old habits (all of ours) will continue to drag us back, but the agreement legitimizes, in a new and globally self-evident way, the struggles of all of those working for a post carbon future.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Where to, now? Plenty of work ahead of us.\u00a0Naomi Klein’s talk<\/a>\u00a0from last week lays out some\u00a0goals worth pursuing. The context of the quote is relevant to anyone who works in an educational institution:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

“Environmentalists don\u2019t usually mention it but teaching and caring for kids doesn\u2019t burn much carbon. Nor does caring for the sick. When we care for each other, we care for the planet. So it makes no sense that these are the very sectors under relentless attack by cost-cutting politicians.<\/p>\n

“Which is why we [writers of The Leap Manifesto<\/a>] felt that it was absolutely crucial to say something else in the Leap: That austerity is a manufactured crisis. That the money we need is out there \u2014 we just have to get at it. And we know exactly how to do it: An end to fossil fuel subsidies.\u00a0Financial transaction taxes. Increased royalties on fossil fuel extraction. Higher income taxes on corporations and wealthy people. A progressive carbon tax. Cuts to military spending.”<\/em><\/p>\n

At least three of these directly target the fossil fuel industry and our dependence on it. Another (financial transaction taxes) targets one of the problems that makes our global economic system both\u00a0unjust and prone to\u00a0massive instabilities. The others make great sense, too, but getting any of these goals accomplishment will take tremendous work.<\/p>\n

Much the same can be said of all the creative and inventive work it will take to build\u00a0the\u00a0infrastructure for a socially just, post fossil fuel society.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

So, here’s the multiple-choice question I’m left pondering. Your answer to it will identify\u00a0where you line up on the future of the world.<\/p>\n

Do you think the Paris climate summit will go down in history as the most important event of the fossil fuel era (i.e., the last 250 years and whatever’s left of it)?<\/em><\/p>\n