There seem to be meetings or summits of global leaders quite often. Well, there was another one recently. The United Nations Climate Change Conference was very recently held in Le Bourget, Paris. It ran from November 30 to December 12th. Obviously Mother Earth and how to make her last longer was the main topic of discussion. All the news stories I have watched this week have only shown pictures of the attendees all happy and smiling like they accomplished something great. But those same news stories only mention a ‘pact’ agreed on by the attendees. In my opinion, a pact seems a bit weak when you are trying to get countries to change their business habits. When I hear the word ‘pact’ I think it carries as much weight as a pinky promise. I had to dig a little deeper, of course. So this week I have been reading up on what the heck this conference was really about, who was there, and what is expected to come of it in future years.
The United Nations Climate Change Conferences are held yearly in different locations around the globe. It is a structured meeting to assess progress in dealing with climate change. The first meeting was in 1995 and held in Berlin, Germany. That first meeting’s focus was countries’ around the world and their ability to follow through with any commitments made at future meetings. Every year there is a new focus for each meeting.
So what was the big deal about this year’s meeting? The meetings ended with an agreement or pact from all parties to limit global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) between now and 2100. One of the biggest effects of keeping the temperature down will be on the 280 million people who’s homes will be underwater by the rising seas if the temperature is not kept down.
My biggest question with all this pomp and circumstance is who the heck do they expect countries to stick to a pact? After a few too many beers I made a pact with a friend too. We swore that if either of us weren’t married by the time we were 25 we would marry each other. Thank goodness I didn’t stick to that or I’d still be living in Pasadena. (I grew up there, I can bag on it!) What I am trying to get across to you is that my first take on this pact was that it is a joke, so I continued to read. There are a little bit of teeth behind the pact, I stress little bit.
This is the first pact to ask all countries involved in the U.N. to be part of the fight to curb global warming. In the past is has only been the leading wealthy nations to make these pact; the U.S., China, EU, Japan, Germany, Canada, you get the idea. Now they are asking for the entire 195 countries to be part of the pact to reduce emissions. Now, for this pact to become binding on the 195 countries in the U.N. there must be 55 countries that represent 55% of the globes emissions. On top of that this pact must be ratified by the involved countries.
The biggest strike to this whole pact is enforcement and punishment. There is not a U.N. emission police force. So if a country sets an emission goal reduction and date to have the reduction completed by, but they fail to meet it, nothing will happen. Maybe then a public shaming and some finger wagging by other U.N. nations but really nothing will happen.
In practical terms the United States and the other major industrial nations are going to have to completely change the way we get energy. Most people who have been critical of the Paris Agreement, are worried that the U.S. and our big friends are just not ready to make that drastic of a change. I agree. For us to “limit the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted by human activity to the levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally, beginning at some point between 2050 and 2100, “ seems pretty darn impractical. Wind and solar energy are only about 9% of the power used around the United States. That is a long way to go in 35 years.
So it seems to be a wait and see situation, as most things are with the United Nations.
If your company wants to cut it’s emissions from well site equipment, Croft Production Systems can make that happen. Our Passive Dehydration Systems has NO toxic emissions. It is so environmentally friendly it doesn’t even need an air permit to begin processing natural gas.
References:
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/future/index_en.htm
https://www.gouvernement.fr/en/cop21
http://unfccc.int/meetings/paris_nov_2015/meeting/8926.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference
