Climate Agreement

The twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties has adopted an agreement to "[hold] the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above preindustrial levels and [pursue] efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C".

It's being called a landmark that applies to 195 countries of which 186 have submitted voluntary emissions reduction pledges. This agreement isn't the end of the process, but there is an intent to stop the consumption of fossil fuels. According to Bill McKibben

This agreement won't save the planet, not even close. But it's possible that it saves the chance of saving the planet -- if movements push even harder from here on out.

Update (December 13):  Joe Romm seems optimistic that the agreement is a good start.

The pledges by 186 countries big and small, developed and developing, in the months leading up to the Paris conference are an enormous first step. But these intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) will need to be reviewed and ratched up every 5 years for the rest of the century to preserve a livable climate — and that review and ratchet is a key part of the deal.

But James Hanson criticizes the lack of a carbon tax.

It’s a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.

Also, New Internationalist says the agreement fails four criteria.

1. Catalyze immediate, urgent and drastic emission reductions
2. Provide adequate support for transformation
3. Deliver justice for impacted people
4. Focus on genuine, effective action rather than false solutions

Update (December 14):  Rebecca Leber says, "The world is a little less doomed now."

Update (December 22):  This is perhaps the harshest criticism.

Another climate conference has once again come and gone, echoing hollow promises and ugly unspoken realities.

Also, Naomi Oreskes writes about the need for government intervention in the form of a carbon tax.

Update (December 26):  Michael Klare shows how the future belongs to renewables.

Update (May 2, 2016):  In his monthly roundup, Dahr Jamail reiterates a warning from the U.N., "The future is happening now".

Update (October 5, 2016):  The Paris Agreement has now reached the threshold needed to go into effect.

Update (April 2, 2017):  A report from International Energy Agency and International Renewable Energy Agency examines the policy and investment requirements for implementing the Paris Agreement.

Update (June 1, 2017):  In one of the most short-sighted moves in the history of civilization, the United States has announced its intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

Update (September 18, 2017):  Despite some noise about getting "pro-America" terms in the Paris Agreement, Joe Romm points out that the US always had the right to change our voluntary pledge.

Bottom Line: In the global deal to save a livable climate, America had committed to do the least we could possibly do, and [von Clownstick] won’t even do that. [Fuckface] is content with America the villain — the greedy and myopic rogue nation that killed humanity’s best hope of avoiding catastrophic climate change.

Update (November 20, 2017):  Curtis Doebbler reports on the latest climate talks.

Virtually no progress was made on taking action. Both the provision of resources and the mitigation of greenhouse gases must come from developed countries, but they showed no willingness to live up to this responsibility. ... Most delegates and the two dozen or so world leaders who attended are probably starting to wonder whether the climate action we need will ever be taken.

Update (February 17, 2018):  A draft report from IPCC suggests that meeting the 1.5 degree Celsius target is "extremely unlikely".