Paris climate deal on track for early start

[webfact]

Paris climate deal on track for early start
By KARL RITTER and CARA ANNA

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — About 160 countries are expected to sign the Paris Agreement on climate change Friday in a symbolic triumph for a landmark deal that once seemed unlikely but now appears on track to enter into force years ahead of schedule.

U.N. officials say the signing ceremony Friday will set a record for international diplomacy: Never before have so many countries inked an agreement on the first day of the signing period.

That could help pave the way for the pact to become effective long before the original 2020 deadline — possibly this year— though countries must first formally approve it through their domestic procedures.

"We are within striking distance of having the agreement start years earlier than anyone anticipated," Brian Deese, an adviser to President Barack Obama, said in a speech last week at Reed College in Portland, Oregon.

The U.S. and China, which together account for nearly 40 percent of global emissions, have said they intend to formally join the agreement this year. It will enter into force once 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of global emissions have done so.

"There's incredible momentum," former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, who heads the U.N. Development Program, told The Associated Press. "We're moving as quickly as possible to action."

She said her agency is working with more than 140 countries on climate change-related issues, and that financing to make the Paris Agreement a reality is "critical, and let's hope everyone lives up to commitments made."

The agreement, the world's response to hotter temperatures, rising seas and other impacts of climate change, was hammered out in December outside Paris. The pact was a major breakthrough in U.N. climate negotiations, which for years were bogged down with disputes between rich and poor countries over who should do what to fight global warming.

The mood was so pessimistic after a failed 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, that U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres said she thought a global deal wouldn't happen in her lifetime. Now she expects the Paris Agreement to take effect by 2018.

Under the agreement, countries set their own targets for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The targets are not legally binding but countries must update them every five years.

That's because scientific analyses show the initial set of targets that countries pledged before Paris don't match the long-term goal of the agreement to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), compared with pre-industrial times. Global average temperatures have already climbed by almost 1 degree C. Last year was the hottest on record.

"Even if the Paris pledges are implemented in full, they are not enough to get us even close to a 2-degree pathway," said John Sterman, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "I don't think people understand how urgent it is."

The latest analysis by Sterman and colleagues at the Climate Interactive research group shows the Paris pledges put the world on track for 3.5 degrees C of warming. A separate analysis by Climate Action Tracker, a European group, projected warming of 2.7 degrees C.

Either way, scientists say the consequences could be catastrophic in some places, wiping out crops, flooding coastal areas and melting glaciers and Artic sea ice.

Small island nations and other vulnerable countries managed in Paris to get others to agree to an aspirational goal of keeping the temperature rise below 1.5 degrees C, which many analysts say won't be possible without removing vast amounts of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

"In Paris they reached what was possible diplomatically and maybe went a little bit beyond it," Sterman said. "I think we should celebrate it. But the physics of the climate are relentless."

There is some good news. Global energy emissions, the biggest source of man-made greenhouse gases, were flat last year even though the global economy grew, according to the International Energy Agency. Some say that shows countries are finally driving their economies forward without burning massive amounts of oil, coal and gas.

Still, those fossil fuels are used much more widely than renewable sources like wind and solar power.

After signing the agreement, countries need to formally ratify it. Procedures for doing that vary among countries. The U.N. says about 10 countries, most of them small island developing states, will deposit their instruments of ratification on Friday and that the world body will have a better idea by the end of the day which other countries intend to ratify the agreement this year.

The Obama administration says the deal is consistent with existing U.S. law and doesn't require the approval of the Republican-controlled Senate, where it would likely face stiff resistance. The administration is expected to treat the deal as an executive agreement, which needs only the president's approval.

Analysts say that if the Paris Agreement enters into force before Obama leaves office in January, it would be more complicated for his successor to withdraw from the deal, because it would take four years to do so under the rules of the agreement.

Also, there would be "a strong negative reaction globally that any administration would have to take into account," said David Waskow of the World Resources Institute in Washington.

U.N. officials say most countries attending Friday's signing ceremony in New York will be represented by their head of state or government. Secretary of State John Kerry will represent the United States.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is encouraging countries to use the signing to announce timelines for implementing the agreement, U.N. officials say. Those who don't sign the agreement Friday have a year to do so.

The U.N. says the previous record for opening-day signatures for an international agreement stands at 119. That record is from the signing of the Law of the Sea Treaty in 1994.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-04-21

[chuckd]

There are more than a few roadblocks in the way to implementation of this executive agreement, particularly as it relates to US funding.

Here is just one little glitch:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Senators Target U.S. Funding for Kerry’s Prized UN Climate Change Programs

By Patrick Goodenough

April 20, 2016 | 4:19 AM EDT

(CNSNews.com) – Taking aim at one of Secretary of State John Kerry’s most cherished causes, a group of Republican senators is warning him that the administration will violate U.S. law if it does not cut off funding to the U.N.’s climate change agency and affiliated entities in response to its recent admission of the “State of Palestine.”

In a letter to Kerry, 28 senators pointed out that the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) decision to admit the Palestinians should trigger a funding cutoff in line with a 1994 law.

That’s what the administration – reluctantly – did in 2011 when the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization became the first U.N. agency to admit the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) as a member. The administration has been trying since then to obtain congressional waiver authority to enable it to restore funding to UNESCO, without success.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/gop-senators-target-taxpayer-funding-kerrys-prized-un-climate-change

[chuckd]

Then there is this teensy little glitch.

The classic case of signing an agreement while actually saying you only intend to join the agreement...only if it can be done in the next 273 days...and if the Oval Office successor agrees with it.

It ain't a Treaty folks. It is only an Agreement. An Agreement does NOT require Senate ratification.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

State: Climate deal signing doesn't mean it's a done deal

By JOHN SICILIANO

4/20/16 10:46 AM

Secretary of State John Kerry will join more than 100 countries in signing a climate change deal that the president agreed to last year in Paris, but it won't mean the landmark agreement is a done deal.

The State Department said on Wednesday that the Friday signing at United Nations headquarters, although a "big step," will not mean the agreement goes into effect.

A senior official described a provision in the deal that would allow for a country to withdraw, such as the next president of the United States.

More here: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/state-climate-deal-signing-doesnt-mean-its-a-done-deal/article/2589029?utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20News%20From&utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20News%20From%20-%2004/20/16&utm_medium=email

[pitrevie]

I hardly think anyone expects this anti science obstructionist Congress to ratify/confirm/agree with anything that has any mention of climate in it. After all as one of the anti science party said, "god has promised not to destroy the earth again", so there is no need for anyone to worry.

[Pimay1]

"a symbolic triumph"

Truer words were never spoken. The climate change nutters will take any kind of triumph as long as the millions of dollars keep rolling in. It's all about the money.

[chuckd]

I hardly think anyone expects this anti science obstructionist Congress to ratify/confirm/agree with anything that has any mention of climate in it. After all as one of the anti science party said, "god has promised not to destroy the earth again", so there is no need for anyone to worry.

You mean like the "anti scientific obstructionist Congress" treated the Kyoto Protocol from 1997 forward?

It was never ratified by any succeeding Congress.

[SgtRock]

160 Countries converging on UN HQ with all the lackies, non jobs and every other hanger on imaginable, spouting nothing but hot air.

Will do wonders for climate change.

These people never heard of email, or is all about the expenses ?

[pitrevie]

I hardly think anyone expects this anti science obstructionist Congress to ratify/confirm/agree with anything that has any mention of climate in it. After all as one of the anti science party said, "god has promised not to destroy the earth again", so there is no need for anyone to worry.

You mean like the "anti scientific obstructionist Congress" treated the Kyoto Protocol from 1997 forward?

It was never ratified by any succeeding Congress.

Yeah Bush refused to listen to his own scientific advisers preferring instead to listen to one Richard Linzden a man who says that the link between man and climate change is as weak as the link between smoking and cancer. When you listen to that sort of drivel you have to fall back on the promise that god will not destroy the earth again.

[chuckd]

I hardly think anyone expects this anti science obstructionist Congress to ratify/confirm/agree with anything that has any mention of climate in it. After all as one of the anti science party said, "god has promised not to destroy the earth again", so there is no need for anyone to worry.

You mean like the "anti scientific obstructionist Congress" treated the Kyoto Protocol from 1997 forward?

It was never ratified by any succeeding Congress.

Yeah Bush refused to listen to his own scientific advisers preferring instead to listen to one Richard Linzden a man who says that the link between man and climate change is as weak as the link between smoking and cancer. When you listen to that sort of drivel you have to fall back on the promise that god will not destroy the earth again.

Bush wasn't the President in 1997, 1998 or 2000.

Hillary Clinton's husband was.

[pitrevie]

I hardly think anyone expects this anti science obstructionist Congress to ratify/confirm/agree with anything that has any mention of climate in it. After all as one of the anti science party said, "god has promised not to destroy the earth again", so there is no need for anyone to worry.

You mean like the "anti scientific obstructionist Congress" treated the Kyoto Protocol from 1997 forward?

It was never ratified by any succeeding Congress.

Yeah Bush refused to listen to his own scientific advisers preferring instead to listen to one Richard Linzden a man who says that the link between man and climate change is as weak as the link between smoking and cancer. When you listen to that sort of drivel you have to fall back on the promise that god will not destroy the earth again.

Bush wasn't the President in 1997, 1998 or 2000.

Hillary Clinton's husband was.

Who said he was but his administration opposed the Kyoto accords on the advice of a man who thinks there is a weak link between cancer and smoking. Back to god keeping the planet safe.

[chuckd]

I see that one went over your head.

Never mind. Not worth the effort.

[pitrevie]

I see that one went over your head.

Never mind. Not worth the effort.

What you mean you do not have an answer. Clinton could not have ratified those accords for the same reason that Obama cannot ratify anything. The obstructionist party and of course he spent most of the time defending himself against such serious charges as having a blow job. His three main opponents being Gingrich Livingstone and Hastert but we had better not go into that can of worms. after all they were three upstanding memebers of the GOP accusing Clinton of behaving improperly.

Bush refused to ratify Kyoto because of the advice he got from one crank and ignored his own scientific advisers. Its what you get when members of a party can state in Congress that god has promised not to destroy the world again or that the Big Bang theory etc is from the pit of hell. So any hope of getting anything through on climate change runs up against the anti science obstructionist religious nut jobs that currently occupy congress, However I guess that probably goes straight over your head.