INTERVIEW
What do the Portuguese experts think about the
Paris Agreement?
Published on December 29th, 2015
At the end of 2015, one of the most remarkable events of the year took place: COP21. The 21st Conference of the Parties resulted in the Paris Agreement, and with it, the end of a deadlock in climate negotiations. Without forgetting the past and paying attention to the present, one should also think about the challenges of the future. What to expect in the coming years? Clima@EduMedia heard several Portuguese experts, in search for reactions and a greater understanding of the pros and cons of this document.
Filipe Duarte Santos
Director of the Systems, Instrumentation and Modelling (Sistemas, Instrumentalização e Modelação da Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa) Laboratory at the Faculty of Sciences, University of Lisbon. He coordinates the CCIAM (Centre for Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Modelling).
“An agreement that ended 20 years of deadlock in the climate negotiations”
Director of the Systems, Instrumentation and Modelling (Sistemas, Instrumentalização e Modelação da Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa) Laboratory at the Faculty of Sciences, University of Lisbon. He coordinates the CCIAM (Centre for Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Modelling).
“An agreement that ended 20 years of deadlock in the climate negotiations”
Filipe Duarte Santos witnessed the development of COP21. Paris had “for the first time, the feeling that there was a common purpose between the different countries present, and a feeling that we were facing a great challenge in need of a solution. Otherwise the danger is imminent, especially for future generations and for the poorest countries”.
The coordinator of CCIAM stresses that this agreement marks the “end of 20 years of deadlock in the climate negotiations”.
However, he warns that “the established commitments are voluntary and not mandatory, that is, there is no penalty if countries do not abide by them and the agreement is fairly silent on the verification mechanism”.
The expert also listed a set of measures that “could have been in the agreement but are not”. He spoke to us of “establishing a price for tone of carbon dioxide emitted, which was not possible because of opposition from some of the major oil producers like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela”; the “definition of a quantifiable target for the reduction of global emissions by 2050, which was in earlier versions of the agreement with values of 40 to 70% compared to 1990, also turned out not to be included in the approved text”; and a clarification of the funding responsibilities of the most developed countries in relation to the least developed countries. “It was agreed that a loan of about 100 billion dollars a year is to be made, but it is not clear who will provide this money”, he says.
The coordinator of CCIAM stresses that this agreement marks the “end of 20 years of deadlock in the climate negotiations”.
However, he warns that “the established commitments are voluntary and not mandatory, that is, there is no penalty if countries do not abide by them and the agreement is fairly silent on the verification mechanism”.
The expert also listed a set of measures that “could have been in the agreement but are not”. He spoke to us of “establishing a price for tone of carbon dioxide emitted, which was not possible because of opposition from some of the major oil producers like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela”; the “definition of a quantifiable target for the reduction of global emissions by 2050, which was in earlier versions of the agreement with values of 40 to 70% compared to 1990, also turned out not to be included in the approved text”; and a clarification of the funding responsibilities of the most developed countries in relation to the least developed countries. “It was agreed that a loan of about 100 billion dollars a year is to be made, but it is not clear who will provide this money”, he says.
Francisco Ferreira
Coordinator of Quercus in the areas of climate change and energy.
“We are hostages of national contributions”
Coordinator of Quercus in the areas of climate change and energy.
“We are hostages of national contributions”
In the opinion of Francisco Ferreira, the Paris Agreement is “very important” and exceeded expectations, particularly with the increase in funding to developing countries and neutrality emissions for carbon dioxide from 2050. Still, “we are hostages of national contributions”.
The former president of Quercus acknowledges that not everything is perfect. “The verification and monitoring mechanism is not complete. It is very important to have a structure, worldwide, that accommodates long-term goals and ways to reach these goals”, he claims.
In fact, “while the Kyoto Protocol set specific targets for 2008 and 2012, the Agreement of Paris will always be a difficult negotiation over time”.
The former president of Quercus acknowledges that not everything is perfect. “The verification and monitoring mechanism is not complete. It is very important to have a structure, worldwide, that accommodates long-term goals and ways to reach these goals”, he claims.
In fact, “while the Kyoto Protocol set specific targets for 2008 and 2012, the Agreement of Paris will always be a difficult negotiation over time”.
Júlia Seixas
Professor and researcher at the Faculty of Sciences and Technology, Universidade Nova de Lisboa. CENSE is part of the research group (Center for Environmental Research and Sustainability).
“Countries will have to do their work”
Professor and researcher at the Faculty of Sciences and Technology, Universidade Nova de Lisboa. CENSE is part of the research group (Center for Environmental Research and Sustainability).
“Countries will have to do their work”
The researcher believes that “it is more serious that countries adhere to these mechanisms and commit to developing their homework, which will be reviewed every five years than to set goals or long-term binding numbers”.
In the second half of the 21st century, carbon neutrality should be reached, which means that emissions must be compensated in some way for the capture of CO2 that is to be issued, or via the increase in forests or others, or by other technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration”.
António Guerner
Director of the Geosciences, Environment and Spatial Planning (Geociências, Ambiente e Ordenamento do Território) Department of the Faculty of Sciences, University of Porto. Currently he is a researcher for the Clima@EduMedia project.
“Commitement is not always synonymous with concrete measures”
Director of the Geosciences, Environment and Spatial Planning (Geociências, Ambiente e Ordenamento do Território) Department of the Faculty of Sciences, University of Porto. Currently he is a researcher for the Clima@EduMedia project.
“Commitement is not always synonymous with concrete measures”
“The commitments signed by almost 200 countries leave us, if not hopeful for the future, at least, expectant as to what might happen. Unfortunately, ‘commitment’ is not always synonymous with 'concrete measures' and, given the diversity of interests, many countries end up circumventing its commitment trying to delay the implementation of the measures agreed among all”, she recognises.
For more extreme environmentalists, she says, “the commitments may be considered unambitious. On the other hand, for the group of countries where skepticism on climate change reigns, the commitments now signed may be considered exaggerated. The important thing is that the policy measures can help to promote the development and growth of the poorest countries in a sustainable way and at the same time, allow more developed countries to keep their levels and quality of life in a balanced manner, without compromising the future of humanity”.
For more extreme environmentalists, she says, “the commitments may be considered unambitious. On the other hand, for the group of countries where skepticism on climate change reigns, the commitments now signed may be considered exaggerated. The important thing is that the policy measures can help to promote the development and growth of the poorest countries in a sustainable way and at the same time, allow more developed countries to keep their levels and quality of life in a balanced manner, without compromising the future of humanity”.
Gil Penha-Lopes
Post-doctoral student in Integrated Adaptation Solutions for Climate Change (Soluções Integradas de Adaptação face às Alterações Climáticas), Universidade Nova de Lisboa. He is also a CCIAM researcher.
“As a first step on a journey, it fulfilled the expectations, as an agreenment that defines the near future, no!"
Post-doctoral student in Integrated Adaptation Solutions for Climate Change (Soluções Integradas de Adaptação face às Alterações Climáticas), Universidade Nova de Lisboa. He is also a CCIAM researcher.
“As a first step on a journey, it fulfilled the expectations, as an agreenment that defines the near future, no!"
In reaction to the Paris Agreement, he insists: “As a first step on a journey, it fulfilled the expectations, as an agreement that defines the near future, no!”
The researcher justifies his comment by noting the lack concrete measures: “If they said where the subsidies that the States provide for oil exploration end up, that would be something concrete that we could see happening. We are on the one hand, trying to achieve the goals, but on the other, we are funding everything that is exploration and use of fossil fuel products. There is much inconsistency that needs to be clarified. Giving examples for the future, he points out that “by 2020 we must look for new alternatives to oil, natural gas and coal, for instance betting more on renewable energy”.
In addition, he claims that in the present and future issues, in the short term, “the carbon price should also begin to be internalised in the price of products because, currently, almost all of them come without the associated carbon price”. This way, and with more information, it is possible that people begin to decide for what is cheaper, which is usually the least polluting and what is produced locally”, he explains.
He further adds that “the most serious cases, where there are higher emissions of CO2, the products should have a fee to compensate as used in fuel, which is associated with its carbon footprint, which would later be paid to the Ministry of Environment in reforestation projects, for example.” “It is important for us to start knowing how we can use nature to help solve this problem, promoting a balance of CO2 emissions, reforestation, and soil improvement, and also finding new agricultural practices and farming options enabling greater carbon capture”, he concludes.
By: Cláudia Azevedo, Isabel Pereira and Renata Silva
The researcher justifies his comment by noting the lack concrete measures: “If they said where the subsidies that the States provide for oil exploration end up, that would be something concrete that we could see happening. We are on the one hand, trying to achieve the goals, but on the other, we are funding everything that is exploration and use of fossil fuel products. There is much inconsistency that needs to be clarified. Giving examples for the future, he points out that “by 2020 we must look for new alternatives to oil, natural gas and coal, for instance betting more on renewable energy”.
In addition, he claims that in the present and future issues, in the short term, “the carbon price should also begin to be internalised in the price of products because, currently, almost all of them come without the associated carbon price”. This way, and with more information, it is possible that people begin to decide for what is cheaper, which is usually the least polluting and what is produced locally”, he explains.
He further adds that “the most serious cases, where there are higher emissions of CO2, the products should have a fee to compensate as used in fuel, which is associated with its carbon footprint, which would later be paid to the Ministry of Environment in reforestation projects, for example.” “It is important for us to start knowing how we can use nature to help solve this problem, promoting a balance of CO2 emissions, reforestation, and soil improvement, and also finding new agricultural practices and farming options enabling greater carbon capture”, he concludes.
By: Cláudia Azevedo, Isabel Pereira and Renata Silva