Climate talks begin in Peru Monday, and some diplomats are expressing optimism, according to the
Guardian:
UN climate negotiations opening in Lima on Monday have the best chance in a generation of striking a deal on global warming, diplomats say.
After a 20-year standoff, diplomats and longtime observers of the talks say there is rising optimism that negotiators will be able to secure a deal that will commit all countries to take action against climate change.
The two weeks of talks in Peru are intended to deliver a draft text to be adopted in Paris next year that will commit countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions without compromising the economic development of poor countries.
Diplomats and observers of the UN climate negotiations said recent actions by the US and China had injected much-needed momentum.
“I have never felt as optimistic as I have now,” said Tony de Brum, the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, which are sinking as sea levels rise in the Pacific. “There is an upbeat feeling on the part of everyone that first of all there is an opportunity here and that secondly, we cannot miss it.”
The
New York Times also spots the optimism and emphasizes the stakes:
After more than two decades of trying but failing to forge a global pact to halt climate change, United Nations negotiators gathering in South America this week are expressing a new optimism that they may finally achieve the elusive deal.
Even with a deal to stop the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, scientists warn, the world will become increasingly unpleasant. Without a deal, they say, the world could eventually become uninhabitable for humans."
"Unpleasant" is an uneasy euphemism for what may already be on the way. Besides the long term goal of saving planetary life as we know it, an agreement on attacking the causes of global heating has another crucial purpose: it makes it more possible to openly acknowledge and deal with these effects that have already begun, and which will increase from now on.
Michale Oppenheimer, a Princeton professor geosciences and international affairs is quoted in the Times piece setting forth what is now the generally accepted future.
“What’s already baked in are substantial changes to ecosystems, large-scale transformations,” Mr. Oppenheimer said. He cited losses of coral reef systems and ice sheets, and lowering crop yields.
Still, absent a deal, “Things could get a lot worse,” Mr. Oppenheimer added. Beyond the 3.6 degree threshold, he said, the aggregate cost “to the global economy — rich countries as well as poor countries — rises rapidly.”
People can extrapolate from the changes they see to what could come in the far future, but increasing attention is inevitably going to be focused on dealing with the effects as they happen. So it is important to deal with the causes now, for a couple of reasons.
First, because there is not yet an overwhelming clamor to deal with effects that could drown out any attempt to attack causes. Second, because opponents of attacking causes (fueled by reactionary titans of the fossil fuel industries) cannot acknowledge effects if they deny the phenomenon of global heating caused by greenhouse gases emissions. An international treaty is a broad acknowledgement of the climate crisis. It could at least gradually sap the power of deniers, and especially the attention they are afforded by a somewhat captive media.
Effects are already on the agenda in Lima. Peru is already experiencing effects of their diminishing glaciers, vital to fresh water supplies.
A
Reuters story focuses on these issues, which go by the name of adaptation.
"From the Andes to the jungles, communities are doing what they can, but their efforts will never be enough without ambitious global action to tackle climate change,” said Milo Stanojevich, CARE International's Peru director. He advocates help for poorer countries to deal with effects as part of the international agreement.
