Opinions of Peter Belmont
Speaking Truth to Power
| The World is Awash Not Only in CO2 But Also in CO2-Maker-Protection-Treaties (Such as NAFTA and TTP) |
|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2015-12-02
The Atmosphere is Awash in CO(((SB₂SB))) The 11/2015 international Paris climate talks are responses to the fact (and desperate problem) that the world is awash with greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as CO(((SB₂SB))) and is quickly getting more so. Paris means to get governmental agreements to limit and quickly to reduce to zero all anthropogenic GHG emissions. Great! Good show! Bravo! I wish them all the best! The World is Awash in Multi-Nation Agreements to Derail Paris However, even as the world leaders meet in Paris, the world is also awash in multi-national agreements, often called “free trade treaties” but in actuality “investor protection treaties” such as the existing NAFTA treaty and the proposed TPP agreement, which effectively oppose efforts to create limitations on GHG emissions. Just how these treaties defeat Paris is discussed by the Sierra Club analysis of TPP. So, one thing that’s needed to make Paris agreements more than mere “pieces of paper” is a way to defeat the investor protection provisions in the investor-protection (“free-trade”) treaties at least to the extent that they purport to guarantee the reasonable investor expectation of profits by allowing investors to sue national governments (via private pro-business tribunals) to recover lost but reasonably anticipated profits—at least where those profits were lost because of laws, regulations, etc., relating to GHG emissions. After all, if nations should prohibit some uses of fossil fuels, or tax those uses, or otherwise regulate those uses, the net effect (intended to discourage use of fossil fuels) would be to increase costs and reduce profits of enterprises which plan to use fossil fuels. And the prohibition, taxation, or regulation of such uses would lose much if not all of their “punch” if enterprises protected by investor-protection treaties could simply demand that their nation-hosts repay whatever profits they might claim to have lost due to such prohibition, taxation, or regulation. Removing the Guarantee of Profits In Regard to Use of Fossil Fuels It would be a good start for each nation (“The Nation”) participating at Paris 11/2015 to agree that: [1] every investor-protection treaty The Nation has so far entered into or shall subsequently enter into [2] is modified to disallow, retroactively as necessary, in its entirety, [3] any claim against The Nation by any investor (“The Investor”) otherwise protected by such investor-protection treaty for reduction in profits reasonably anticipated by The Investor [4] where such reduction in profits was occasioned by application to or against either The Investor or any other enterprise of any one or more laws (including any tax laws) or regulations or administrative findings or administrative or judicial determinations made by The Nation dealing substantially with the “fossil fuel subject matter”, where such law or regulation is formally applicable equally to all enterprises including but not limited to The Investor and all enterprises associated with The Nation; [5] where the term “the fossil fuel subject matter” shall mean and embrace all activities connected with or regarding any “carboniferous fuel” including but not limited to research or engineering, exploration for, extraction or taking of, transportation of, refining or transforming of, import or export of, or use of for any purpose; and where the term “carboniferous fuel” shall include but not be limited to peat, petroleum, coal, or natural gas, wood, and other bio-fuels. And to Avoid the Race to the Bottom After this good start, the nations should further agree to fight the “race to the bottom” by agreeing that every nation now or in future a party to a multi-nation investor-protection treaty (such as NAFTA or TPP) agrees to impose the most restrictive environmental, administrative, and tax rules from among all the nations party to said multi-nation treaty as they relate to “the fossil fuel subject matter”. Lastly, the Nations Should Formally Acknowledge Uncertainty and Urgency Last on my list here, today: the nations should formally acknowledge that their required effort to reduce GHG emissions from now until 2030 and from then until 2050 and from there until 2070, etc., is explicitly subject to revision—by way of stricter and more burdensome GHG emission reduction goals—as the climate changes and future assessments are made. For several things must be admitted: [1] Both scientific observations of nature and also climate computer models may become better at giving bad news as the years go by. [2] Not all nations will keep the promises they make (or should make) in 2015. [3] Methods initially thought likely to meet national GHG reduction goals may prove chimerical, such as the very “cheap-today” method of replacing coal-firing of electric generation plants by gas-firing which, however, does not deal with the ultimate need to replace even the gas-fired plant with actually-green electric generation methods. [4] The earth may make GHG emissions (or other contributions to an out-of-whack climate) of its own—say from: melting of frozen methane deposits today trapped in permafrost and frozen seabeds; from forest fires, fires in peat beds, and unanticipated decay of trees killed by drought and/or warming-encouraged insect pests; from faster than anticipated melting of polar and other glaciers and other snow and ice cover; from unanticipated soot deposits on ice, snow, and other white surfaces of the earth; and (catchall) from other unanticipated climate-changing mechanisms that have not yet been anticipated. [5] Lastly, political folks should think about a variety of communications problems they may get into. They should realize that they are not themselves scientists and may well have failed to understand the scientists who they have communicated with. They are not used to listening to scientists, and scientists are not used to talking to political folks. Surprises due to missed communication and misunderstanding are no-one’s fault, exactly, but can lead to costly surprises. Political folks should design strategies and techniques for making sure they understand what scientists wish to convey. By the same token, political folks are not engineers and may well fail to understand what engineers tell them about what’s possible to do to forestall Global Warming. Again, there may be surprises. Again, care is to be recommended. Lastly, both the general public and the CEOs of the business community are also neither scientists nor engineers and are also, in many cases, “deniers” of Global Warming. All this means that our political folks will have many different kinds of communications problems, many of them capable of generating unpleasant surprises and delays. We are in an urgent situation today and cannot afford too many missed communications, surprises, or delays. Mother Nature will give us enough bad surprises. We must endeavor to minimize the other surprises. Conclusion and Warning All of which is to say that although the GHG problem is bad today, it could well get much worse, and perhaps soon; for which reason the nations should not regard whatever happens in Paris as “final”, but only as a start from which they should anticipate moving further and faster with GHG reductions as new information makes such further reduction desirable or necessary. And because there may be unpleasant surprises and new urgencies even in the near term, it makes sense that the target maximum attained temperature gain be 1.5°C rather than the 2°C often spoken of. Because missing 1.5°C would be bad but missing 2°C would be tragic. |
Comments:
Submit a comment, subject to review:
|
123pab.com | Top
©2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 www.123pab.com |