Dispatch — December 2, 2015, 1:34 pm

Calculated Risk

Rebecca Solnit reports from the Paris climate summit

Russian president Vladimir Putin speaking at the Paris climate summit

Russian president Vladimir Putin speaking at the Paris climate summit. Photograph by Darren Aronofsky

On Monday, the twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—also known as COP21, or the Paris climate summit—kicked off in a grand conference hall in Le Bourget, France. Through a lot of running around, a little pleading, and the special skills of the Brooklynese—in this case, filmmaker Darren Aronofsky, moonlighting as my Harper’s photographer—I was among the few reporters allowed inside to watch half the world’s leaders give their opening statements. It was amazing to be in that room with Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Angela Merkel, and Barack Obama—quite possibly the four most powerful people on earth—along with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Framework Convention Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres, and dozens of other world leaders.

It was amazing and often also boring. The statements were largely positive, predictable, vague, and repetitious. Of course, world leaders have to be graded on a curve. Putin’s statement at least recognized the reality of climate change and suggested that we should do something about it, which is an improvement over his record of denying and dismissing the problem. Obama spoke of his summer trip to Alaska, whose melting permafrost and burning tundra are “a preview of one possible future”—though it’s the present, not the future, for Alaska. Still, Obama did acknowledge one of the central facts of the day: “We know the truth that many nations have contributed little to climate change but will be the first to feel its threats.”

Given this fact, it’s no surprise that things got real when some of the less famous world leaders took their turns. Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi noted that Africa is both the continent that emits least per capita and the one that faces the gravest consequences. Ismaïl Omar Guelleh, the president of Djibouti, itemized the ways his region would be destroyed, and is being destroyed now. “It is clear that if nothing is done,” he said, “the peoples of East Africa will find it impossible to survive.”

Later, in a much smaller room, with far less fanfare, members of the group of climate-vulnerable nations met. These included places like Nepal and Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Afghanistan, as well as the forty-four-nation Alliance of Small Island States. As Philippines president Benigno Aquino III noted, “vulnerable countries bear more than half the economic impact and 80 percent of the health impact” of climate change and are “losing 2.5 percent of GDP to climate [change] each year.” Few places are more imperiled than the archipelagos of the Philippines; he mentioned 50,000 deaths per year since 2010 in climate-related incidents and 40 million people facing displacement in the foreseeable future.

While the official goal of the conference is to keep climate change within 2 degrees Celsius of preindustrial levels, the vulnerable nations have called instead for a goal of 1.5 degrees. The same demand for 1.5 degrees was made at the failed Copenhagen climate conference six years ago. Since then the Philippines has been racked by brutal storms. The glaciers of the Andes and Himalayas have accelerated their melting, as have those of Greenland and Antarctica, contributing to sea-level rise. All those climate events mean suffering, death, and the transformation of long-inhabited places into uninhabitable ones.

The 1.5-degree manifesto came with a proposed hand signal—a pinky finger (one) jutting from a fist (the degree point) and five fingers on the left hand outstretched—that participants can hold up during the deliberations. It’s painful that little solidarities and signals like this are being looked upon to save people from, to put it baldly, burning and drowning. The manifesto, to which every participant nation in the room agreed, may play a major role in the conference: either by helping to push other nations to make an ambitious commitment, or by setting a goal that others are unwilling to meet. “We refuse to be the sacrifice of the international community in Paris,” said Bangladesh’s environment minister.

The difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees may seem academic; however, while even the latter is a goal we will have to work hard to achieve, the former means the difference between apocalypse and survival in many parts of the world.  What is needed is for all nations to commit to substantial emissions reductions now and to ratchet up those commitments in the future. This seems viable as both climate science and climate engineering grow more precise—knowledge of how, for example, farming can become a means of carbon sequestration (pulling it out of the atmosphere and putting it back in the ground, where we’ve been taking it from these last 200 years) seems to be a promising indicator that we will be able to make increasingly good and sophisticated decisions. On this front, the European Union has made a dramatic commitment—cutting emissions by 40 percent, to below 1990 levels. Russia and the United States have chosen 2005 as their benchmark instead. For a framework that began in 1992, 2005 is a lousy benchmark; it’s like a person who’s gained a hundred pounds deciding that losing the last fifty will get the job done. But the United States seems to have made the calculated decision that getting back to its 1990 weight would just be too painful.

Many Americans first learned of the kind of cold-blooded cost-benefit analysis the powerful routinely make with our lives in 1977, when journalist Mark Dowie revealed that Ford Motor Company had been knowingly selling exploding Pintos for nearly a decade. The company had done some calculations and determined that it made more financial sense to pay out damages on several hundred fiery deaths than to spend an additional $11 per car to prevent them. A new round of investigative journalism has revealed that ExxonMobil is prepared to accept vast long-term loss—not in terms of quarterly returns, of course, but in terms of a large percentage of all species, millions of people, and several dozen nations. That corporation, through its research scientists, knew in detail about climate change decades ago and decided first to keep quiet and then to run campaigns to discredit that science. When it comes to climate change, we are all—carbon companies, world leaders, and, to a lesser extent, you and me—making similar calculations, doing the moral equivalent of continuing to manufacture death traps.

The passionate Figueres spoke toward the end of the vulnerable-nations meeting to remind all of us what this conference means. She said, “The countries around this table are going to determine whether we have an ambitious agreement or just have an agreement. And that difference is a key difference. The quality of the Paris agreement equals the quality of life for the most vulnerable.” Or the quantity of death.

Share
Single Page

More from Rebecca Solnit:

From the July 2018 issue

Unmusical Chairs

From the March 2018 issue

Nobody Knows

Get access to 169 years of
Harper’s for only $23.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

December 2019

Make Way for Tomorrow

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Red Dot

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Gimme Shelter

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Body Language

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Trash, Rock, Destroy

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Gimme Shelter·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

I.

That year, the year of the Ghost Ship fire, I lived in a shack. I’d found the place just as September’s Indian summer was giving way to a wet October. There was no plumbing or running water to wash my hands or brush my teeth before sleep. Electricity came from an extension cord that snaked through a yard of coyote mint and monkey flower and up into a hole I’d drilled in my floorboards. The structure was smaller than a cell at San Quentin—a tiny house or a huge coffin, depending on how you looked at it—four by eight and ten feet tall, so cramped it fit little but a mattress, my suit jackets and ties, a space heater, some novels, and the mason jar I peed in.

The exterior of my hermitage was washed the color of runny egg yolk. Two redwood French doors with plexiglass windows hung cockeyed from creaky hinges at the entrance, and a combination lock provided meager security against intruders. White beadboard capped the roof, its brim shading a front porch set on cinder blocks.

After living on the East Coast for eight years, I’d recently left New York City to take a job at an investigative reporting magazine in San Francisco. If it seems odd that I was a fully employed editor who lived in a thirty-two-square-foot shack, that’s precisely the point: my situation was evidence of how distorted the Bay Area housing market had become, the brutality inflicted upon the poor now trickling up to everyone but the super-rich. The problem was nationwide, although, as Californians tend to do, they’d taken this trend to an extreme. Across the state, a quarter of all apartment dwellers spent half of their incomes on rent. Nearly half of the country’s unsheltered homeless population lived in California, even while the state had the highest concentration of billionaires in the nation. In the Bay Area, including West Oakland, where my shack was located, the crisis was most acute. Tent cities had sprung up along the sidewalks, swarming with capitalism’s refugees. Telegraph, Mission, Market, Grant: every bridge and overpass had become someone’s roof.

Article
Body Language·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

I am eight years old, sitting in my childhood kitchen, ready to watch one of the home videos my father has made. The videotape still exists somewhere, so somewhere she still is, that girl on the screen: hair that tangles, freckles across her nose that in time will spread across one side of her forehead. A body that can throw a baseball the way her father has shown her. A body in which bones and hormones lie in wait, ready to bloom into the wide hips her mother has given her. A body that has scars: the scars over her lungs and heart from the scalpel that saved her when she was a baby, the invisible scars left by a man who touched her when she was young. A body is a record or a body is freedom or a body is a battleground. Already, at eight, she knows it to be all three.

But somebody has slipped. The school is putting on the musical South Pacific, and there are not enough roles for the girls, and she is as tall as or taller than the boys, and so they have done what is unthinkable in this striving 1980s town, in this place where the men do the driving and the women make their mouths into perfect Os to apply lipstick in the rearview. For the musical, they have made her a boy.

No, she thinks. They have allowed her to be a boy.

Article
Trash, Rock, Destroy·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The writer and filmmaker Virginie Despentes lives in a nondescript modern building in the Belleville neighborhood of Paris. I know it well: it has a Bricorama—like a French Home Depot—on the ground floor, where we sometimes had cause to shop back when we lived in the neighborhood. The people who work there seemed to hate their jobs more than most; they were often absent from the sales floor. In the elevator to Despentes’s apartment, I marvel that while I was trying to get someone to help me find bathroom grout she was right upstairs, with her partner, Tania, a Spanish tattoo artist who goes by the name La Rata, like someone out of one of Despentes’s novels.

In an email before our meeting, Despentes asked that we not do a photo shoot. “There are so many images available already,” she explained. Much had been written about her, too. A Google search yielded page after page: profiles, interviews, reviews, bits and bobs—she read from Pasolini at a concert with Béatrice Dalle; someone accused her of plagiarizing a translation; a teacher in Switzerland was fired for teaching her work. The week I met her, she appeared in the culture magazine Les Inrockuptibles in conversation with the rapper-turned-actor JoeyStarr. The woman is simply always in the news.

Article
Burning Down the House·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Discussed in this essay:

Plagued by Fire: The Dreams and Furies of Frank Lloyd Wright, by Paul Hendrickson. Knopf. 624 pages. $35.

Frank Lloyd Wright isn’t just the greatest of all American architects. He has so eclipsed the competition that he can sometimes seem the only one. Who are his potential rivals? Henry Hobson Richardson, that Gilded Age starchitect in monumental stone? Louis Sullivan, lyric poet of the office building and Wright’s own Chicago mentor, best known for his dictum that form follows function? “Yes,” Wright corrected him with typical one-upmanship, “but more important now, form and function are one.” For architects with the misfortune to follow him, Wright is seen as having created the standards by which they are judged. If we know the name Frank Gehry, it’s probably because he designed the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, in 1997. And Gehry’s deconstructed ship of titanium and glass would be unimaginable if Wright hadn’t built his own astonishing Guggenheim Museum on Fifth Avenue some forty years earlier.

Article
The Red Dot·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

That night at the window, looking out at the street full of snow, big flakes falling through the streetlight, I listened to what Anna was saying. She was speaking of a man named Karl. We both knew him as a casual acquaintance—thin and lanky like Ichabod Crane, with long hair—operating a restaurant down in the village whimsically called the Gist Mill, with wood paneling, a large painting of an old gristmill on a river on one wall, tin ceilings, and a row of teller cages from its previous life as a bank. Karl used to run along the river, starting at his apartment in town and turning back about two miles down the path. He had been going through the divorce—this was a couple of years ago, of course, Anna said—and was trying to run through his pain.

Cost of renting a giant panda from the Chinese government, per day:

$1,500

A recent earthquake in Chile was found to have shifted the city of Concepción ten feet to the west, shortened Earth’s days by 1.26 microseconds, and shifted the planet’s axis by nearly three inches.

Shortly after the Regional Council of Veneto, in Italy, voted against climate-change legislation, its chambers were flooded.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Jesus Plus Nothing

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

At Ivanwald, men learn to be leaders by loving their leaders. “They’re so busy loving us,” a brother once explained to me, “but who’s loving them?” We were. The brothers each paid $400 per month for room and board, but we were also the caretakers of The Cedars, cleaning its gutters, mowing its lawns, whacking weeds and blowing leaves and sanding. And we were called to serve on Tuesday mornings, when The Cedars hosted a regular prayer breakfast typically presided over by Ed Meese, the former attorney general. Each week the breakfast brought together a rotating group of ambassadors, businessmen, and American politicians. Three of Ivanwald’s brothers also attended, wearing crisp shirts starched just for the occasion; one would sit at the table while the other two poured coffee. 

Subscribe Today