CLIMATE CHANGE: what does it mean?

Habemus Pactum

The long-awaited agreement on climate change has been finally signed and available for all to see.

As I had feared, it falls short of expectations. Carbon reduction is only one half of the agreement. The other half is CO2 capture.

Here is article 4 (1) of the agreement:

In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.

Developed nations are still playing games. They are not ready to reduce their dependency on fossil fuels. They will spend money on developing CO2 capture technologies (sinks of greenhouse gases), which will do nothing to improve the health of our biosphere, so that they can sell the technologies to other nations, including the less developed ones. It's a major victory for technology companies, which will receive taxpayer money for developing new technologies, but a major disaster for Mother Earth, which will continue to be suffocated by the pollution emitted by the continued burning of fossil fuels, and coal in particular because of its toxic and carcinogenic particulates.

Nothing is simple in the political world, where economic power takes precedence over reason and commonsense. As already noted, although I'm not convinced about the CO2 problem, I'm convinced of the need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels because they are contaminating our biosphere, and our health is suffering as a consequence. Those who consume the most are the ones responsible for the problem, and the ones who can reduce carbon consumption the most. Therefore, it makes sense that those consuming more carbon than the global average should be taxed accordingly. Because we consume more, we have the capability of consuming less. Those consuming less than the global average don't have that capability, and should thus be excluded from such taxes.

Our political and economic masters don't see it that way because they would be the biggest losers, and because they are the decision makers they call the shots contrary to reason and commonsense. The agreement that has just been reached falls far short of expectations. Once again, the rich and powerful have won the day. The rest of us will continue to eat contaminated crumbs while they feast on organically grown produce!

Our consolation prize is that this agreement is better than no agreement. Therefore, we should be happy. However, will our children and grandchildren be happy? They will be the ones paying for it and suffering the consequences!