I must confess, I am ashamed to say I never spent the time to actually read the Paris Agreement – until today. Trump’s decision to pull out of the agreement certainly triggered the far left and far right frenzy. But it was time to dig deeper. We started Adara Power not just to contribute to climate change mitigation and clean air but also to bring energy independence and technology jobs to the US.
It started with reading the following:
China committed to begin reducing emissions by 2030, roughly when its economic development would have caused this to happen regardless. India made no emissions commitment, pledging only to make progress on efficiency—at half the rate it had progressed in recent years. Pakistan outdid the rest, submitting a single page that offered to “reduce its emissions after reaching peak levels to the extent possible.” This is a definition of the word “peak,” not a commitment. … An April report by Transport Environment found only three European countries pursuing policies in line with their Paris commitments and one of those, Germany, has now seen two straight years of emissions increases. The Philippines has outright renounced its commitment. A study published by the American Geophysical Union warns that India’s planned coal-plant construction is incompatible with its own targets. All this behavior is socially acceptable amongst the climate crowd. Only Trump’s presumption that the agreement means something, and that countries should be forthright about their commitments, is beyond the pale.
Well I did it. I read the Paris Agreement. Here are some of the best resources:
- Establishes a measurement system and goal
- Each country submits its own Nationally Determined Contribution (NBC) outling their plans to achieve the goals
- Provides transparency and 3rd party review of the NBCs without the UN forcing countries into actions inconsistent with their national interests
- Complete buy-in across the globe on the need to address climate change
- Identifies a list of Annex 1 countries that are asked to fund mitigation in Developing countries
- Loss and Damage – a mechanism to compensate countries that suffer damage from climate change – not sure if these means the US can be sued by small Island countries after a sever storm – need to dig into this further
Bad for the US
Funding mechanism creates a pool of money that is currently being used by organizations in many countries that have economies that have clearly “Developed” including Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Czech Republic, India. South Korea. – https://www.thegef.org/country.
I don’t understand why the US is helping to pay for EV and Smart Grid development work in China when my company Adara Power is developing similar technology and not getting funding. Reading through a variety of projects, I am left wondering why Saudi Arabia is awarded a project to pay for filing their NBC and why Russia is receiving $350M and why we are paying the Czech Republic to support putting in a system to collect user fees on parks. On the flip side, there are great projects to build hydro in Rwanda and support truly impoverished places that need our help. We need to be in the Paris Agreement and work to curb our own emissions but we already have a huge trade deficit with China, Saudi Arabia and Korea – the money needs to go the LDCs – the Least Developed Countries. Finally, this is why we elect congress – to work on matters like this. It is not Executive Order material.