Joe Romm was acting U.S. assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in the Clinton administration and is founding editor of Climate Progress, where he writes—In Historic Paris Climate Deal, World Unanimously Agrees To Not Burn Most Fossil Fuels. An excerpt:
The economic and environmental implications of this deal for Americans are staggering. In the near term, it will unlock an accelerating multi-trillion-dollar shift in capital investment away from carbon-intensive coal and oil, which were the cornerstone of the first industrial revolution, into clean technologies like solar, wind, LED lighting, advanced batteries, and electric cars. It means far less harmful carbon pollution will be emitted in the coming years.
The agreement “sends a very powerful message to the business and investment community that the age of fossil fuels is ending,” explained the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Alden Meyer. Thus, “continued investments in high-carbon assets conflicts with their fiduciary responsibility.”
The Paris Agreement means the world may avoid many of the most catastrophic impacts. That said, a quarter century of largely ignoring scientific warnings has left the world unable to stop a number of very dangerous impacts, including sea level rise, ocean acidification, extreme weather, and Dust-Bowlification.
“I’m optimistic within a pessimistic framework,” said David Doniger the Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Climate & Clean Air Program. His words summed up how many of the people I spoke to feel here after two long weeks of negotiations. [...]
Not everybody takes that view. Here’s an excerpt
from Danny Chivers and Jess Worth at the New Internationalist with Home › Features › Web exclusives › Paris deal: Epic fail on a planetary scale:
Today, after two weeks of tortuous negotiations – well, 21 years, really – governments announced the Paris Agreement. This brand new climate deal will kick in in 2020. But is it really as ‘ambitious’ as the French government is claiming?
Before the talks began, social movements, environmental groups, and trade unions around the world came together and agreed on a set of criteria that the Paris deal would need to meet in order to be effective and fair. This ‘People’s Test’ is based on climate science and the needs of communities affected by climate change and other injustices across the globe.
To meet the People’s Test, the Paris deal would need to do the following four things:
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;
Does the deal pass the test? The 15,000 people who took to the Paris streets today to condemn the agreement clearly didn’t think so. Here’s New Internationalist’s (NI) assessment.
Test 1. Catalyze immediate, urgent and drastic emission reductions: ‘In line with what science and equity require, deliver urgent short-term actions, building towards a long-term goal that is agreed in Paris, that shift us away from dirty energy, marking the beginning of the end of fossil fuels globally, and that keep the global temperature goal in reach.’
NI assessment: Fail.
The Paris Agreement aims to keep the global average temperature rise to ‘well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C.’ But the emission cuts contained in the agreement are based on voluntary pledges called ‘Intended Nationally Determined Contributions’ (INDCs) that governments drew up individually before the talks, based on what they were prepared to deliver, not what science or equity demanded. These cuts have now become an official part of the deal, but go nowhere near far enough to achieve a 1.5°, or even a 2° goal, and the agreement does not require these targets to be re-examined until 2020. [...]
TWEET OF THE DAY
BLAST FROM THE PAST
At Daily Kos on this date in 2005—Stuart Taylor's Credibility Gap on ScAlito:
In the Bush Administration pushback on ScAlito (he has taken some major hits already), the "outside the White House" pushback is being led by Conservative shill Stuart Taylor (I use "shill" deliberately here because too many people want to treat Stuart Taylor as some nonpartisan. His dishonest work on Monicagate, when he failed to disclose his ties to Kenneth Starr tells you all you need to know about his credibility).
It is important to understand who and what Stuart Taylor is because I suspect he will be leading the Conservative charge on ScAlito in January. And what line is Taylor shilling now for the Wingnuts? That the "liberal media" is unfairly labeling ScAlito as a conservative ideologue with credibility problems.
Of course, coming from a shill like Taylor, the facts have little room in his argument.
Monday through Friday you can catch the Kagro in the Morning Show 9 AM ET by dropping in here, or you can download the Stitcher app (found in the app stores or at Stitcher.com), and find a live stream there, by searching for "Netroots Radio."
High Impact Stories • The Week’s High Impact Stories • Top Comments