As Jan. 1 neared, many media outlets published articles that reviewed and ranked the most noteworthy events of the past 365 days. For many left-wing publications, the event that gained the most praise was the 2015 United Nations Paris Climate Change Conference. This event, apparently the most important and consequential event of the past year, was magnificently monumental in nature. Because of the hot air emissions created at the talks and coupled with the negotiators’ unduly self-praise, the media declared that all of the polar bears clinging onto nearly liquid glaciers can rest easy.
Before you write angry emails, I am not a climate-change denier. I think caring for the environment is a necessary endeavor. That being said, I was not really fond of the Paris climate conference.
Here’s why: World dignitaries lost their sense of priorities. True, environmental concerns are incredibly important. There’s no doubt about that. But when I think of the most important global concerns — ones that can make an immediate difference in my life — I can’t say climate change is one of them.
Once again, that’s not to say environmental issues aren’t important in the future — they are — but right now, terrorism is clearly the top global priority. We have seen attacks in the U.S., Australia, Europe and Africa. We have seen scores of Muslims, Christians and other religious men and women being slaughtered in the most egregious ways. This terror is not going to go away. If world leaders were to come together for one issue, it should be this one.
Secondly, the talks were effectively useless. Let me explain: Each participating country made a pledge to voluntarily cut carbon dioxide emissions. While that’s a nice goal, there was one fatal flaw: If a country breaks its promise, there will be no repercussions. Zero. Nada. A country could pledge to cut a lot of carbon dioxide, pronounce how environmentally friendly its goal and its country are and renege on that pledge with total impunity.
Oddly enough, world leaders decided to operate on an honor system sort of like the one that governs an open bowl of candy on a doorstep on Halloween. A note dictates — with equal enforceability, mind you — children must take one candy each or suffer the nonexistent consequences from the homeowners who are not in their house and are not willing to act on their demands. We all know how we behave when presented with this predicament.
Of course, this forces us to rely on the stellar and forthcoming natures of our foreign counterparts — for example, the stellar and forthcoming nature of countries like China. We all know China fudges its economic data. Ten-percent growth rate, really? Given the chance, they’d fudge emission numbers as well.
Interestingly enough, the talks hovered around cuts in domestic carbon dioxide emissions. For a country like China, it could reduce their domestic emissions — if what they tell us is true — but keep their foreign factories and manufacturing plants pumping out carbon dioxide. Once again, they will not be penalized for this.
For a final point, consider the spectrum of outcomes. On one hand, leaders could just make up emission-cutting goals and completely fail on their promises. This is clearly a bad outcome.
On the other hand, let’s say countries properly cut emissions and keep their promises and hold others accountable. If this happens, we have established a hypocritical precedent. The drivers of these talks are all post-industrialized nations. Talks about cutting emissions are great for countries like the U.S., which doesn’t manufacture and produce goods as much as it did in the 1890s.
For developing countries, manufacturing and production are necessary to grow their economies. If we impose restrictions on these countries, their economic futures and standards of living will suffer. We would prevent them from becoming first-world nations. I find this inherently unfair and yet another bad outcome.
All in all, this conference was neither consequential nor monumental. The polar bears need to start worrying again.
Michael Beato is a UF political science senior. His column appears on Mondays.
