How diplomacy saved the COP21 Paris Climate Conference, but now, can we save ourselves?

Review Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

To solve a problem, three things are necessary: awareness, means, and will. The 2015 COP21 Paris accord was a masterful, perhaps even world-saving, diplomatic advance toward making the world aware of climate change. Some of that success may have been because publications from the IPCC and the National Academy of Science were made available, on line, as prepublication offerings, in order to be widely viewed before the Paris Climate Conference. This provided diplomats and negotiators with the latest information about climate change, its nearness in time, its consequences, and how well current mitigation technologies can succeed. Whatever the reasons, the Paris Climate Conference, was a success. Leaders of 195 nations agreed that climate change is a real and present danger to life as is known to all. This important understanding was accomplished despite the presentation of well established scientific facts which, without very diplomatic handling, could easily have evoked overwhelming political opposition to an agreement and thus another COP failure. In this paper, the fact that how some scientific truths, written specifically to be overlooked, were presented in order to prepare COP21 participants for the conference is explained. Besides, the effectiveness and efficiency of currently favored mitigation policies, the extent of ongoing progress to better ones, and finally, how a new appreciation of climate change consequences can strengthen the will of nation states and industries to work toward solutions are evaluated.

Keywords

COP21 Paris climate agreement offsets mitigation IPCC 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the following colleagues for their many helpful suggestions in this and earlier versions of the manuscript: Antonio Ciucci, Dennis Searcy, Karen Searcy, Randy O. Wayne. Most of all, we thank Gabriella B. Mulcahy for tireless and insightful editing and corrections. D. Nathaniel Mulcahy conceived and outlined the paper while David L. Mulcahy did literature research.

References

  1. 1.
    IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R K and Meyer, L (eds.)] IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 2014Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Academy of Sciences. Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration. Pittsburgh: National Academies Press (2015).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Feng K, Davis S, Sun L, Hubacek K. Drivers of the US CO2 emissions 1997–2013. Nature Communications, 2015, 6: 7714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kotchen M J, Mansur E T. Correspondence: reassessing the contribution of natural gas to US CO2 emission reductions since 2007. Nature Communications, 2016, 7: 10648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McGlade C, Ekins P. The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 C. Nature, 2015, 517 (7533): 187–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van der Ploeg F. Fossil fuel producers under threat. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 2016, 32(2): 206–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lowe J A, Huntingford C, Raper S C B, Jones C D, Liddicoat S K, Gohar L K. How difficult is it to recover from dangerous levels of global warming? Environmental Research Letters, 2009, 4(1), 014012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meinshausen M, Smith S J, Calvin K, Daniel J S, Kainuma M L T, Lamarque J-F, Matsumoto K, Montzka S A, Raper S C B, Riahi K, Thomson A, Velders G J M, van Vuuren D P P. The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Climatic Change, 2011, 109: 213–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Solomon S, Plattner G K, Knutti R, Friedlingstein P. Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2009, 28: pnas–0812721106Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meehl G A, Hu A, Tebaldi C, Arblaster J M, Washington W W, Teng H, Sanderson B M, Ault T, Strand W G, White J B. Relative outcomes of climate change mitigation related to global temperature versus sea-level rise. Nature Climate Change, 2012, 2(8): 576–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ruthven D M. CO2 capture: value functions, separative work and process economics. Chemical Engineering Science, 2014, 114: 128–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sanz-Pérez E S, Murdock C R, Didas S A, Jones C W. Direct capture of CO2 from ambient air. Chemical Reviews, 2016, 116(19): 11840–11876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Supekar S D, Skerlos S J. Reassessing the efficiency penalty from carbon capture in coal-fired power plants. Environmental Science & Technology, 2015, 49(20): 12576–12584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herzog H J, Rubin E S, Rochelle G. Plants. Environmental Science & Technology, 2016Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Supekar S D, Skerlos S J. Response to comment on “Reassessing the Efficiency Penalty from Carbon Capture in Coal-Fired Power Plants”. Environmental Science & Technology, 2016, 50: 6114–6115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vasudevan S, Farooq S, Karimi I A, Saeys M, Quah M C, Agrawal R. Energy penalty estimates for CO2 capture: comparison between fuel types and capture-combustion modes. Energy, 2016, 103: 709–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boot-Handford M E, Abanades J C, Anthony E J, Blunt M J, Brandani S, Dowell N M, Fernández J R, Ferrari M C, Gross R, Hallett J P, Haszeldine R S, Heptonstall P, Lyngfelt A, Makuch Z, Mangano E, Porter R T J, Pourkashanian M, Rochelle G T, Shah N, Yao J G, Fennell P S. Carbon capture and storage update. Energy & Environmental Science, 2014, 7(1): 130–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    U. S. Department of Energy. Initial CCS technologies estimated to increase wholesale electricity costs up to “70 to 80 percent”. 2015, https://energycommerce.house.gov/news-center/press-releases/doeofficial- initial-ccs-technologies-estimated-increase-wholesaleGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haszeldine R S. Can CCS and NET enable the continued use of fossil carbon fuels after COP21? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 2016, 32(2): 304–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    MIT Carbon capture and sequestration technologies. 2016–06–14, http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index_cancelled.htmlGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reiner D M. Learning through a portfolio of carbon capture and storage demonstration projects. Nature Energy, 2016, 1: 15011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Allen D, Brennecke J F, Scurto A M, Stang P J, Fairbrother D H. ACS virtual issue on carbon capture and sequestration. Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data, 2015, 60(8): 2187–2187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sandler S I. Chemical, Biochemical, and Engineering Thermodynamics. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2006Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Abanades J C, Grasa G, Alonso M, Rodriguez N, Anthony E J, Romeo L M. Cost structure of a post combustion CO2 capture system using CaO. Environmental Science & Technology, 2007, 41 (15): 5523–5527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liang Z H, Rongwong W, Liu H, Tontiwachwuthikul P. Recent progress and new developments in post-combustion carbon-capture technology with amine based solvents. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2015, (40): 26–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shi H, Naami A, Idem R, Tontiwachwuthikul P. Catalytic and non catalytic solvent regeneration during absorption-based CO2 capture with single and blended reactive amine solvents. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2014, 6: 39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pohlmann J, Bram M, Wilkner K, Brinkmann T. Pilot scale separation of CO2 from power plant flue gases by membrane technology. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2016, 53: 56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Adderley B, Carey J, Gibbins J, Lucquiaud M, Smith R. Postcombustion carbon dioxide capture cost reduction to 2030 and beyond. Faraday Discussions, 2016, 192: 27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Energy Institute of America. 2016. Frequently asked questions. What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id = 427&t = 3Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    von der Assen N, Johannes J J, Bardow A. Life-cycle assessment of carbon dioxide capture and utilization: avoiding the pitfalls. Energy & Environmental Science, 2013, 6:2721–2734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Klein D, Luderer G, Kriegler E, Strefler J, Bauer N, Leimbach M, Popp A. The value of bioenergy in low stabilization scenarios: an assessment using REMIND-MAgPIE. Climatic Change, 2014, 123: 705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sanchez D L, Nelson J H, Johnston J, Mileva A, Kammen D M. Biomass enables the transition to a carbon-negative power system across western North America. Nature Climate Change, 2015, 5(3): 230–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bauer N, Mouratiadou I, Luderer G, Baumstark L, Brecha R J, Edenhofer O, Kriegler E. Global fossil energy markets and climate change mitigation–an analysis with REMIND. Climatic Change, 2016, 136(1): 69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kemper J. Biomass and carbon dioxide capture and storage: a review. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2015, 40: 401–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fuss S, Canadell J G, Peters G P, Tavoni M, Andrew R M, Jackson P C R B, Jones C D, Kraxner F, Nakicenovic N, Le Quéré C, Raupach M R, Sharifi A, Smith P, Yamagata Y. Betting on negative emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2014, 4: 850–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    van der Meer JWM, Huppert H, Holmes J. Carbon: no silver bullet. Science, 2014, 345: 1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sanchez D L, Callaway D S. Optimal scale of carbon-negative energy facilities. Applied Energy, 2016, 170: 437–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Socolow R, Desmond M, Aines R. Direct air capture of CO2 with chemicals: a technology assessment for the APS panel on public affairs (No. EPFL-BOOK-200555). American Physical Society. 2011Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Smith P, Davis S J, Creutzig F, Fuss S, Minx J, Gabrielle B, Kato E, Jackson R B, Cowie A, Kriegler E, van Vuuren D P, Rogelj J, Ciais P, Milne J, Canadell J G, McCollum D, Peters G, Andrew R, Krey V, Shrestha G, Friedlingstein P, Gasser T, Grübler A, Heidug WK, Jonas M, Jones C D, Kraxner F, Littleton E, Lowe J, Roberto Moreira J, Nakicenovic N, Obersteiner M, Patwardhan A, Rogner M, Rubin E, Sharifi A, Torvanger A, Yamagata Y, Edmonds J, Cho Y. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2016, 6(1): 42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lackner K S, Ziock H J, Grimes P. Carbon dioxide extraction from air: is it an option? In: 24th Annual Technical Conference on Coal Utilization & Fuel Systems. Clearwater, USA, 1999Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wang T, Lackner K S, Wright A. Moisture swing sorbent for carbon dioxide capture from ambient air. Environmental Science & Technology, 2011, 45(15): 6670–6675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lackner K S. The thermodynamics of direct air capture of carbon dioxide. Energy, 2013, 50: 38–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Romano M C. Modeling the carbonator of a Ca-looping process for CO2 capture from power plant flue gas. Chemical Engineering Science, 2012, 69(1): 257–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shackley S, Thompson M. Lost in the mix: will the technologies of carbon dioxide capture and storage provide us with a breathing space as we strive to make the transition from fossil fuels to renewables? Climatic Change, 2012, 110(1–2): 101–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sanchez D L, Kammen D M. A commercialization strategy for carbon-negative energy. Nature Energy, 2016, 1: 15002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sanchez D L, Callaway D S. Optimal scale of carbon-negative energy facilities. Applied Energy, 2016, 170: 437–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wang T, Liu J, Lackner K S, Shi X, Fang M, Luo Z. Characterization of kinetic limitations to atmospheric CO2 capture by solid sorbent. Greenhouse Gases. Science and Technology, 2016, 6(1): 138–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Smith P. Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. Global Change Biology, 2016, 22(3): 1315–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pacala S, Socolow R. Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science, 2004, 305(5686): 968–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jakob M, Hilaire J. Climate science: unburnable fossil-fuel reserves. Nature, 2015, 517(7533): 150–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    McGlade C, Ekins P. The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2°C. Nature, 2015, 517 (7533): 187–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hardy R D, Nuse B L. Global sea-level rise: weighing country responsibility and risk. Climatic Change, 2016, 137(3): 1–13Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Dietz S, Bowen A, Dixon C, Gradwell P. Climate value at risk of global financial assets. Nature Climate Change, 2016, 6(7)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Fuss S. Climate economics: substantial risk for financial assets. Nature Climate Change, 2016, 6(7)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    World Bank. State and trends of carbon pricing 2015. 2015, http:// documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2015/09/25053834/statetrends- carbon-pricing-2015Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    International Energy Agency. World energy outlook 2015. 2015, http://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2016/october/iea-raises-itsfive- year-renewable-growth-forecast-as-2015-marks-record-year. htmlGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    MacDonald A E, Clack C T, Alexander A, Dunbar A, Wilczak J, Xie Y. Future cost-competitive electricity systems and their impact on US CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2016Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Fay M, Hallegatte S, Vogt-Schilb A, Rozenberg J, Narloch U, Kerr T. Decarbonizing Development: Three Steps to a Zero-carbon Future. Washington: World Bank PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Treadgold W. The persistence of byzantium. Wilson Quarterly, 1998, 22(4): 66–91Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations