The world’s eyes will be on Paris again at the end of November. Barely a fortnight after the Paris terror attacks, heads of state and government will congregate on the French capital for United Nations climate talks. Although the public demonstrations that typically accompany such a summit have been cancelled for security reasons, activists hope that the horrors of the past few days will only strengthen the unity and resolve of world leaders to come to an agreement.
On the road to Paris 2015, Debating Europe, in partnership with Friends of Europe, will be inviting policymakers and experts to respond to YOUR questions on climate change as part of a series of debates.
Do you need some of the facts about the numbers involved? We’ve collected information on the climate pledges made by some of the biggest Asian economies – India, Japan, and South Korea – in the infographic below (click for a bigger image). You can see the figures for the United States, the European Union, and China in our previous infographic in the series.
Could hopes for a successful Paris summit be misplaced? We had a comment sent in from Bob arguing that people need to be more aware of what will happen if we don’t change our behaviour and drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. But what will happen?
To get a response, we spoke to Janos Pasztor, Assistant UN Secretary-General on Climate Change, and asked him what would happen if the Paris summit fails to reach an agreement:
We also had a comment from Jan, who believes that the question of historical responsibility and “carbon debt” of developed countries is one of the major sticking points for the negotiations. Should developed countries have to pay more for climate change, seeing as they are historically the main reason for a warming climate?
We put Jan’s comment to Janos Pasztor to see what he had to say:
To get another perspective, we also took Jan’s comment to Carole Dieschbourg, Luxembourg’s Environment Minister. What would she say to Jan about the historical responsibility of Europeans for climate change?
Finally, we had a comment sent in from Yannick in the wake of the Volkswagen emissions test scandal. He believes that companies cannot be trusted to follow the rules, so it is up to governments to enforce them better.
Does Carole Dieschbourg, Minister for the Environment of Luxembourg, agree with Yannick?
Will the Paris climate summit be enough to prevent catastrophic warming? What happens if the agreement isn’t enough? And should developed countries pay more for climate change? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!
16 comments Post a commentcomment
didn’t they do that sort of thing before?
Of course it won’t.
30% by 2030? HAH!
We should have 100% reduction by 2020 if we want to not make things WORSE.
They are already very bad as they are now.
You just don’t get it do you ?
This isn’t something you feel immediately but over 20-30 years or more!
And your “commitees” and “summits” won’t change ANYTHING.
Ban corporations from polluting and ban all imports into the EU who come from countries that do not allow EU inspectors to check their production process to see how “green” it is.
SIMPLE.
MONEY talks, so hurt them in the wallet.
And no “green taxes” don’t work, they can dodge that already.
What happened before ?
.
It depends if the theory of global warming is correct, the jury is still out.
No, “the jury” is not “out”.
97% of scientists agreeing means that pretty much every F*****G scientist worth his salts is on board with this.
The 3% are crackpots or “private” scientists funded by big business to fool you gullible peons.
The question is misplaced. The question should be:
What should we be demanding of the participants of the Climate 2015 conference in Paris?
It’s too late already…
Men is responsible for the 10% of climate change…the rest is due to volcano activity and periodical moviment of Earth
But is a good excuse for the “good for nothing” politicians get in a photo.
This is the way : Clean and cheap , solar + electrical car . Free energy and car drive forever : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZyvjXHlBvA
No, it won’t. As long as people are allowed to make money destrying the planet, there won’t be a shortage of candidates.
No! A “climate summit” fixated mainly on greenhouse gases/CO2 emissions and not on a comprehensive policy of a “clean(er), less polluted world”- is a select, but incomplete effort! True innovative science need to take the lead- big powers & responsible governments implement. We know by now that big economies- “zero carbon” base load- will come from nuclear energy. Not by circumventing the issue- “trading in emissions”- like the wheeler & dealer fraternity & banks do with every trad-able commodity in their “global casinos”.
The result of growing human expectations, pressure on increasing GDP’s, overpopulation, unsolvable global poverty and the race to develop the developed & underdeveloped is a recipe for an ever growing abuse & exploitation of the entire earth’s environment.
Big interests, greed, corruption in governments & industry- to recklessly exploit & pollute earth in MANY ways- remains ignored. Pity, the biggest CO2 polluters- China, US & EU- where excluded here. While humanity is drowning in their own filth, poisoned & maimed by pharma, chemicals & industrial GMO agriculture- nature will always react somehow! Excluded e.g. are:
http://www.ibtimes.com/china-india-us-among-worlds-worst-marine-polluters-country-country-breakdown-plastics-1813476
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/08/toxic-towns-poisoned-rivers-byproduct-industry
Any EU politicians resign yet? It amazes me how they tip toed through this huge scandal the Paris attacks have surfaced. But many of us knew.
Paris will achieve ‘voluntary’ carbon reduction commitments, but it’s a baby step. No carbon charge (despite calls from the industry even), no divestment, no commitment to manage the resource and just leave it in the ground, and no end to hidden fossil fuel subsidies – even in Europe! I think we need a B plan.
Incompetent EU leadership—-they all should resign
Somebody can tell me what are the positive and negative arguments of this debate please?