'The Paris agreement is ... the only approach that could work.'

'Could' being the operative word

The only thing which will make it work is pollution making the lives of all the countries worse so the public demand change. The current 19th Century style industrial smog in Bejing being a case in point. So - Reactive rather than proactive

I will be interested to see the number that materialise their stated intent as a number have identified thae fact they consider it their right to pollute to develope

So, Global Governance as a popularity contest...
Who thinks this is going to produce solutions for climate change?
Who thinks the signatories will hit the target of less than 2 degrees temperature rise?
I would expect perpetual target undershooting, to minimize competitive disadvantage or the political burden of the structural transformation needed for the transition.

Hopefully, it is ***not*** "the only approach that could work". It is too early for global governance based on good will and popularity, and voluntary responsibility has no chance, I believe. It is a great failure as much as it is great hypocrisy, for those countries advocating it.

Hi Anne-Marie,

This is nicely laid out, for it tells us what the Paris Agreement is not.

And it's not much (in one sense) and yet in another sense it might be everything.

INTENT being everything. At least, that's what I believe.

It's the first time that so many nations have declared their intent to actually do something in regards to global warming, instead of the vague expressions and hand-wringing that we've seen until Paris 2015.

One should rightfully expect that LEADERS from each nation will appear in subsequent COP events to discuss the successes (and possible failures) in meeting their intended carbon reduction targets.

1. No doubt, some nations will seek to meet their targets via greater ENERGY EFFICIENCY. And that of course, is the best 'bang for the buck' route to take with regards to energy use/CO2 reductions.

No matter how energy is produced, some amount of CO2 is emitted. Therefore, each MegaWatt of energy that remains unused, results in zero CO2 emissions.

This can even be the case where a mixed grid employs solar and wind power. Both feature zero emissions as standalone energy generators, however, in a mixed grid with various energy generators, from coal, to nuclear, to gasfired, to biomass, and true renewables like hydro-electric, solar and wind, once all the renewable energy capacity is exceeded, then the other generators must engage to meet total demand.

In the case of increased energy efficiency, many MW of electricity will never be required in the first place, therefore, the need for non-renewable energy generation diminishes.

2. LEAVING COAL is the next best scenario in order to meet our carbon reduction targets.

Many people are unaware that natural gas burns up to 1,000,000 times cleaner than the dirtiest brown coal (lignite) and up to 10,000 times cleaner than the cleanest black coal (anthracite).

Separate from all that, burning natural gas emits only 45% of the CO2 that coal does on a per unit basis.

By simply upconverting every coal power plant in the world to natural gas, emissions would fall by many Gigatonnes.

I suggest that it's an important enough goal that IMF money, ADB money, UNDP and UNEP money should be flowing to developing nations to help them upconvert to coal by 2020.

Yes, I said by 2020.

We're either serious about actually doing something, or we're just enjoying our time at the COP confabs.

It's time to actually accomplish something on the Earth Atmosphere file, instead of merely engaging in more talk.

Harvard says that coal-fired power generation causes up to (or maybe more than) half a trillion dollars of damages to the U.S. economy -- and that's from the non-CO2 component of coal-fired burning (obviously)

http://www.chgeharvard.org/sites/default/files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf

Obscene water usage levels are a factor with coal use, as coal requires 1100 gallons of water per MegaWatt, while natural gas requires only 300 gallons per MW.

3. With that said, coal could become extremely valuable in the Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) and Coal-to-Gas (CTG) markets.

South African gasoline (petrol) is blended with a minimum of 30% super pure CTL fuel -- which has a direct and measurable effect on all vehicle emissions in the country.

Some South African airlines fly on CTL (coal oil) as opposed to conventionally sourced petroleum (kerosene) fuel.

Both the vehicle fuels and the aviation fuels produced from CTL fuels reduce CO2 emissions by a minimum of 50% -- and toxic pollutants are virtually eliminated.

Due to the FISCHER-TROPSCH (catalytic) process, super clean-burning CTL fuels can be created from even the dirtiest coal.

CTG works almost as well when done in confined areas with no leakage into the atmosphere.

4. We can't have enough renewable energy and it's now reached price parity with conventional energy in many regions.

Globally, we need to be at 50% renewable energy and 50% natural gas (and nuclear) as our long term goal, in order to meet a 366PPM goal (350PPM is impossible, no matter how noble that goal is, when there are more than 7 billion people in the planet)
_____
Many countries already meet 100% of their electricity and district heating (primary energy) demand via renewable energy.

Laos, Costa Rica, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Burundi, Ethiopia, Nepal, DRC, Zambia, Mozambique, Iceland, Albania, Paraguay, Bhutan, Lesotho, Tokelau, all get much more than 90% of their primary energy from renewable sources.

Costa Rica recently hit the 99% renewable energy mark.

Scotland hit its 2030 target (50% renewable energy) back in 2014.

Denmark produced 140% of its primary energy demand in 2015 with renewable energy (40% was exported to neighbouring countries, for cold. hard, cash)

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/12/scotland-just-hit-australias-2030-renewable-energy-target-in-2014/

So it can be done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources
_____
IN SUMMARY, if we, as a species, simply legislated coal-fired power generation out of existence, upconverting all coal-fired generation to natural gas by 2020, and continue our present levels of coal extraction, converting it to CTL fuels and CTG, we would (just by that alone) give ourselves an easy extra 15 years to find solutions to our pressing CO2 and toxic pollutants problems.

Again, IMF, ADB, UNDP, UNEP, U.S. Dept of Energy, the EPA, and a host of other organizations should be setting the example to invest massively in this arena.

Finally, thanks to Bill Gates for his LEADERSHIP and PHILANTHROPY -- directly improving the lives of many people on this planet, and supporting positive change in our shared global commons.

As always, very best regards, JBS

This reads like a Mary Poppins rationalization for the failure to agree a 'real' treaty - largely torpedoed, I suspect, by the current failure effective governance in the US. The scariest 'failed state' since the Roman Empire wen out of business.
If voluntary efforts were likely to be useful, nothing would have stopped governments post-Kyoto from giving it their best try. But very clearly they haven't. The competition will not be a race to the top, to see how much more than thee I can do, but a race to the bottom to see how much I can backslide, particularly in case of economic downturns. At five year intervals, all will solemnly intone that really, they'll do more in the next review cycle (5 yrs). I found the gush of misplaced self-congratulation at the end of the meeting, sickening. A celebration of failure.

AS for the 1.5C target - this is a cruel joke, or hoax, on the most vulnerable Island nations - and, eg, Bangladesh. To achieve that, we'd already have to be extracting more carbon than we're currently adding. We're way past 2C already. 'Day to day' weather is a trailing, not leading, indicator of what we're already committed to. For the same reason you can't turn a supertanker on a dime - momentum of process. Takes time to change direction. The species will survive climate change over the next decades/centuries (it doesn't stop in the yer 2100, honest!). Most current political arrangements, will not. There will be some spectacularly ugly periods, casualty-wise.

The series of anomalous (statistically) weather events over the past few years are not 'warning canaries in the coal mine.' They're dead canaries.

As I commented on one of the other articles on the same subject, “the leaders put on a good show, a PR success, made to be seen as a great achievement in order to raise their failed profiles. Anticipated success rate for implementing the deal…...next to zero”. Unless all humans start thinking seriously how to honestly protect this planet, and to put this planet above all considerations, this planet earth will not be merciful with us at all. I am yet to know someone who left this life, and took a penny with him.