Overview of Issues 2016 The Politics and Public Policy of ParisOren Cass, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

October 30, 2015

What are we arguing about?

2

“Climate change is

catastrophic”“No, it’s not”Scientific Debate

“U.S. action will produce

global results”“No, it won’t”Policy Debate

“There is anthropogenic

climate change”“No, there’s not”Popular

Narrative

“Let’s pay trillions of $ to poor nations”

“No, let’s not”International Negotiation

Policy Debate

The framework has already resolved the debate

3

To move toward an agreement, negotiators had to:

• Abandon premise of an enforceable agreement

• Abandon premise of objective standards / baselines / metrics

• Abandon premise of mandatory review and revision

“The purpose of this cycle is to enable an

upward spiral of ambition over time.” – Draft negotiating text

“History and the science of cooperation predict that quite the opposite will happen.” – MacKay et al, Nature

The developing world is what matters

4

80% of all emissions

The submissions compound the failure

5

Peak by around 2030 (as already predicted); 60-65% intensity reduction (<BAU)

33-35% intensity reduction (halving recent energy efficiency gains)

No plan

No plan

+247% by 2030 instead of self-defined BAU of +261%

Too vague to assess, “does not allow for any accountability” — World Resource Inst

43% below 2005 level by 2030; but already 41% below 2005 level in 2012

The narrative may bear little relation to reality

6

“U.S. action will produce

global results”“No, it won’t”

• It worked! Countries are acting! The U.S. has no excuse not to act.

“Under the terms of the plan, India’s economy would grow roughly sevenfold by 2030, compared with 2005 levels, while its carbon emissions would triple. Yet if India took no action, emissions would also grow sevenfold.” – New York Times, 10/1/15

• The structure of these commitments is farcical; that we had to go down this path already proves the case against meaningful collective action

• The plans themselves, even with no credible enforcement, confirm no interest in departing from a business as usual trajectory

What are we arguing about?

7

“Climate change is

catastrophic”“No, it’s not”Scientific Debate

“U.S. action will produce

global results”“No, it won’t”Policy Debate

“There is anthropogenic

climate change”“No, there’s not”Popular

Narrative

“Let’s pay trillions of $ to poor nations”

“No, let’s not”International Negotiation

What are they not negotiating about?

8

What are they negotiating about?

9

“Climate Finance” is a shakedown, not a solution

10

“Ecological Debt”

Would be fascinating if this were ever debated…

“Reparations”

Rejected out of fear for open-ended commitment…

“Investment”

How to actually implement?What would we be getting?

“Clinton emphasized that the money is only on the table so long as fast-growing nations like China and India accept binding commitments that are open to international inspection and verification. ”

– New York Times, 12/17/09“The Price of an Agreement”

There are three possible outcomes

11

$Developed Countries

Walk Away with Nothing

Developing Countries Get

Firm Cash Commitment

Vague Agreement

with Enough for Everyone

Realistic Expectations (& Rational Goals) for Paris

12

Realistic Expectations

• Weak agreement with vague finance provisions, followed by much applause, no action

• Claims of significant achievement gradually giving way to claims of urgent need for action

• Continued push on U.S. to do more to promote “spiral of ambition”

Rational Goals

• Preemptively block climate finance via congressional resolution; “emperor has no clothes”

• Cement the goalposts (baselines) in the right place

• Focus public attention and policy debate on climate finance

Overview of Issues 2016 The Politics and Public Policy of ParisOren Cass, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

October 30, 2015

Thank You