Dispatch — December 16, 2015, 6:24 pm

Disagreement in Paris

“The treaty is miraculous and horrible. It neither gives enough to the most vulnerable nor takes enough from the profligate, but it shifts the arrangement between them for the better.”

Photograph by Darren Aronofsky

Photograph by Darren Aronofsky

It depends on whom you ask. Quite a lot of people are excited about the Paris Agreement, as the treaty announced last Saturday at the close of the United Nations’ Paris climate summit will be known. “This marks the end of the era of fossil fuels,” said May Boeve, executive director of 350.org. “There is no way to meet the targets laid out in this agreement without keeping coal, oil, and gas in the ground.” Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann sounded a similar note: “Though the resulting agreement is modest in scale, by bringing the world together, it sends a clear signal to global energy markets: The age of fossil fuels is ending, and a new clean global energy economy is taking its place.”

An equal number of people seem to be disappointed with the outcome of the summit. “Someone please tell me what’s new and compellingly worthy of jubilation in this agreement,” tweeted Yeb Saño, the former Philippines climate negotiator. The Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, a coalition of U.S.-based advocacy groups, was harsher, releasing a statement that the accord had “failed humanity.” Former Bolivian climate negotiator Pablo Solón called it “a death sentence for many people.”

Neither the champions nor the critics were entirely sure what to make of the treaty. “The final text still has some serious gaps,” said Boeve. After airing his criticisms on Twitter, Saño added, “The Paris Agreement is not bad. But we were not rooting for ‘not bad.’” Mann, meanwhile, saw the accord in a more sanguine light: “While the commitments made in Paris aren’t on their own enough to stabilize greenhouse-gas concentrations at safe levels . . . Paris is a beginning of a process.”

The treaty is miraculous and horrible. It neither gives enough to the most vulnerable nor takes enough from the profligate, but it shifts the arrangement between them for the better. Many of its ingredients are the result of hard-fought battles by the Climate Vulnerable Forum and by the High Ambition Coalition, the latter an ad hoc group of nations that reached across the developed-developing divide to push for both the long-term goal of keeping warming within 1.5 degrees Celsius of preindustrial levels and five-year check-ins on emissions-reduction achievements. That Tony de Brum, the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands and leader of the High Ambition Coalition, became an influential force at the conference is amazing.

The Paris Agreement recognizes that profound change must occur—and it codifies some of that change. I don’t know how radical a treaty people imagined, but that Saudi Arabia and Russia, among other petro-states, signed an agreement that essentially requires zero emissions in the second half of the century is astonishing. The agreement specifies that:

Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century.

Carbon neutrality by 2050 is a truly transformational goal; by some calculations, the United States will have to reduce emissions by 80 percent in the next thirty-five years to meet its commitments.The deal is, in part, the result of the extraordinary growth—in scale, sophistication, and effectiveness—of the climate movement worldwide, as well as the rapid rise of new energy technologies. (It is also, less happily, the result of many climate-driven disasters.) The climate movement was ineffective and fragmentary a decade ago; what it will be a decade hence is impossible to know but crucial to our fate. A document can help shape the future, but it cannot determine it.

Al Gore was a prominent figure at the conference, and it’s hard not to daydream of an alternative history in which the coup of 2000 didn’t put Bush Junior in the White House for eight years of blood and oil. But once you go down that road, you might as well go back to the late Seventies, when Exxon knew everything we really needed to know about the scale and urgency of climate change and decided to suppress the truth for the sake of profits. The mainstream U.S. media for decades largely underreported or, playing along with the likes of Exxon’s disinformation campaigns, misreported as a controversy the reality of climate change. Building public engagement in the United States has been made profoundly more difficult because of this dereliction of duty. Even this month, the New York Times buried much of its climate-conference coverage while giving a prominent podium to Trump’s verbal eruptions. In ten thousand years, what we do about the climate right now will matter. (The mock trial of ExxonMobil, with Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein as prosecutors, was one of the high points of the 300-ring circus that was Paris during the talks; the American media could be seen as an unindicted co-conspirator.)

Documents are not revolutions, any more than marriage contracts are marriages, but this one gives us something to hold governments to in the future—and in the present, with the nearly 200 national plans for carbon-emissions reduction that are supposed to be ratcheted up regularly. (“Each Party’s successive nationally determined contribution will represent a progression beyond the Party’s then current nationally determined contribution and reflect its highest possible ambition.”) The agreement is revolutionary for acknowledging what so many have said over these past two weeks in Paris: The age of fossil fuel must end.

The transformation is already underway. Bloomberg News reported this week that the Stowe Global Coal Index, which tracks the stock performance of more than two dozen major coal producers, is down 59 percent this year. MarketWatch recently ran a story titled “Five reasons crude-oil prices are facing an ugly death spiral,” which included this line: “The historic climate-change deal reached in Paris can be another nail in the coffin for future demand for fossil fuels, analysts at Morgan Stanley said in a note Monday.” Elsewhere those Morgan Stanley analysts used the phrase “left in the ground” in quotes, a paraphrase of the activist slogan “keep it in the ground.”

From now on all of our actions—how we produce and consume, farm and build and travel—will have to be viewed with their cumulative impact in mind. If we make this conceptual shift, it will be more than a revolution in energy; it will be a revolution in consciousness and worldview.

Share
Single Page

More from Rebecca Solnit:

From the March 2018 issue

Nobody Knows

From the January 2018 issue

Strandings

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

May 2018

Driven to Distraction

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Dinner Party

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Exiled

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Church and State

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Seven Years of Identity Theft

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Drinking Problems

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Exiled·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

It has become something of a commonplace to say that Mike Pence belongs to another era. He is a politician whom the New York Times has called a “throwback,” a “conservative proudly out of sync with his times,” and a “dangerous anachronism,” a man whose social policies and outspoken Christian faith are so redolent of the previous century’s culture wars that he appeared to have no future until, in the words of one journalist, he was plucked “off the political garbage heap” by Donald Trump and given new life. Pence’s rise to the vice presidency was not merely a personal advancement; it marked the return of religion and ideology to American politics at a time when the titles of political analyses were proclaiming the Twilight of Social Conservatism (2015) and the End of White Christian America (2016). It revealed the furious persistence of the religious right, an entity whose final demise was for so long considered imminent that even as white evangelicals came out in droves to support the Trump-Pence ticket, their enthusiasm was dismissed, in the Washington Post, as the movement’s “last spastic breath.”

Illustration by Andrew Zbihlyj
Article
Church and State·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Just after dawn in Lhamo, a small town on the northeastern corner of the Tibetan Plateau, horns summon the monks of Serti Monastery to prayer. Juniper incense smolders in the temple’s courtyard as monks begin arriving in huddled groups. Some walk the kora, a clockwise circumambulation around the building. Others hustle toward the main door, which sits just inside a porch decorated in bright thangka paintings. A pile of fur boots accumulates outside. When the last monks have arrived, the horn blowers leaning out of the second-floor windows retire indoors.

When I visited Lhamo in 2015, most monks at Serti attended the morning prayers, but not Ngawang Chötar, the vice president of the monastery’s management committee, or siguanhui. Instead, he could usually be found doing business somewhere on Lhamo’s main street. Like all Tibetan monks, he sports a buzz cut, and his gait, weighed down by dark crimson robes, resembles a penguin’s shuffle. When he forgets the password to his account on WeChat, China’s popular messaging service—a frequent occurrence—he waits for the town’s cell phone repairman at his favorite restaurant, piling the shells of sunflower seeds into a tidy mound.

Illustration by Simon Pemberton
Article
The Pictures·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

As he approached his death in 1987, the photographer Peter Hujar was all but unknown, with a murky reputation and a tiny, if elite, cult following. Slowly circling down what was then the hopeless spiral of ­AIDS, Peter had ceaselessly debated one decision, which he reached only with difficulty, and only when the end drew near. He was in a hospital bed when he made his will that summer, naming me the executor of his entire artistic estate—and also its sole owner.

The move transformed my life and induced a seething fury in lots of decent people. I can see why. Peter did not make me his heir for any of the usual reasons. I was a good and trusted friend, but he had scads of those. I was not the first person he considered for the job, nor was I the most qualified. In fact, I was a rank amateur, and my understanding of his art was limited. I knew his photographs were stunning, often upsetting, unpredictably beautiful, distinctively his. I also knew they were under­rated and neglected. But I did not then really grasp his achievement.

Photograph by Peter Hujar
Article
Drinking Problems·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The friendly waitress at the Pretty Prairie Steak House delivers tumblers of tap water as soon as diners take their seats. Across Main Street, the Wagon Wheel Café offers the same courtesy. Customers may also order coffee or iced tea, but it all starts at the same tap, and everyone is fine with that. This blasé attitude about drinking water surprised me: everyone in this little farm town in Reno County, Kansas, knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that the liquid flowing from the municipal water tower was highly contaminated with nitrate, a chemical compound derived from fertilizer and connected to thyroid problems and various cancers. At the time I visited Pretty Prairie, last fall, nitrate levels there were more than double the federal standard for safe drinking water.

Illustration by Jen Renninger.
Article
Nothing But·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The truth—that thing I thought I was telling.—John Ashbery To start with the facts: the chapter in my book White Sands called “Pilgrimage” is about a visit to the house where the philosopher Theodor Adorno lived in Los Angeles during the Second World War. It takes its title from the story of that name by Susan Sontag (recently republished in Debriefing: Collected Stories) about a visit she and her friend Merrill made to the house of Adorno’s fellow German exile Thomas Mann in the Pacific Palisades, in 1947, when she was fourteen. It seemed strange that the story was originally …
Photograph by Augusta Wood

Percentage of US college students who have a better opinion of conservatives after their first year:

50

Plastic surgeons warned that people misled by wide-angle distortion in selfies were seeking nose jobs.

Trump fires missiles at Syria, a former FBI director likens Trump to a Mafia boss, and New Yorkers mistake a racoon for a tiger.

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

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today