Paris Agreement Status Survey

Climate Scorecard has been conducting a survey to collect feedback from environmental leaders and concerned citizens regarding the status of the Paris Agreement. We are concerned that many countries are not doing enough to live up to their Paris Agreement commitments. We want to see if others feel the same, and if there its a need for a campaign to get countries to do more.

Below are posted results from those who have taken the survey thus far. If you haven’t done so we encourage you to take the survey yourself. Email your name and opinion to kristin@climatescorecard.org and we will add it to our survey results post.

Thanks—-Ron Israel, Co-Director Climate Scorecard Project

 

Name, Country of Residence, and Occupation 1. Do you think the Paris Agreement is in danger of not being able to meet its goals and prevent the earth’s atmosphere of heating beyond 1.5 degree Celsius? 2. If you answered yes to question # 1, please give 1-3 reasons why you think the Paris Agreement is in danger of not reaching its goals. 3. Please list 1-3 actions that should be taken by national, regional, state, or city governments, and/or by businesses, organizations or citizens to ensure that the Paris Agreement succeeds.
Ash, USA, Professor, consultant Yes, some danger, but I am optimistic and believe it is possible and even probably that countries will meet their goals. I think that the technology on affordable alternative sources of energy is fast advancing, and that the economic incentives for making the shift from fossil fuels will increasingly make the difference. Detroit and Los Angeles are now piloting self-driving, electric delivery vehicles…within 10 years it is plausible that these become vehicles of choice for a number of sectors, and even privately. Reduce subsidies and incentives for fossil-fuel energy sources and increase subsidies, research funding and investments for non-polluting alternative energy sources – NOW. Increase support for the 365degree boycott of fossil fuel investments – spread this to institutions in Europe, India, (even China?), and beyond.
Vivian, USA Yes. Countries not meeting their committed goals replacing fossil fuels, especially coal, with non-polluting energy sources is not fast enough. U.S. abdicating leadership by withdrawing from the agreement. Meet or exceed the agreement’s carbon-reducing goals with aggressive actions, in spite of the U.S. as a country having withdrawn set and meet their own even more stringent carbon-emissions goals make very visible, in every way possible, both the dangers of climate change and what we need to do to mitigate it, so that the public is informed and eager to support necessary actions.
Helena, UK, Researcher I would go further and say there is currently no hope of meeting its goals. a. Industrialised countries have no intention of reducing energy consumption which is the only way to reduce emissions. b. In a world where so-called development and increased emissions go hand in hand, the rest of the world does not see why it should sacrifice development in order to constrain emissions c. So both sides play games in which they pretend to tackle climate change effect or the opposite effect from that required, i.e. Destroying forests not carbon neutral and not a solution 1. industrialised countries must make unilateral and verifiable commitments to reducing energy consumption and decouple development from energy consumption 2. Private transport must be reduced, climate neutral housing should be a priority for city governments 3. The movement of goods is hugely emission intensive and needs to be tackled internationally
Peter Yes, the Paris Agreement is in danger because Pres Trump wants to mine more coal, which is a ghg emitter. We (all humans) should instead be developing our ability to manufacture non-ghg emitting power.
Tom, U.S.A., community activist Yes, I most certainly do, unfortunately. 1) I’m concerned about the lack of commitment on the part of the U.S. federal government; 2) I think the Republican Party in the U.S. will stop at nothing to achieve its goals; 3) I don’t have faith in the corporations that develop and rely upon fossil fuels. 1) Here in the U.S. our state, county, or city governments should declare a state of emergency and institute a mandatory conscription to climate change forces requiring all able people between the ages of 18 and 65 to devote 10 hours per month to activities organized locally by local nonpartisan committees that will help to address climate change in their respective locales; 2) the federal government in the U.S. should create a cabinet level department to contend with climate change; 3) businesses in the U.S. should begin offering discounts or gift cards to customers who devote 10 hours per month to climate change related volunteer work.
Ms. Aditi, India, Independent researcher Yes (As I was born and reside in a tropical country, I am competent to give my action points for citizens from the view point of tropical country only.) First Reason There is no guideline or framework specifying how the respective countries will meet the targets. Second Reason: Number of countries have not placed strong importance of climate change in their foreign policies, so that climate governance does not become hierarchical. Third Reason: Very weak commitments by many countries will definitely defeat good efforts made by others as climate and temperatures do not stop at borders (sky land or waters) of a country. Actions for tropical, temperate and cool temperate countries are distinct and must not be generalized to suit western marketing of highly garbage oriented products *e.g. From micro-plastic beads to defunct solar power equipment. For *citizens of tropical countries:* Stop using air conditioners at all times throughout the year in the offices and homes. Building plans for tropical countries must not blindly ape those of cold climate western countries. Central air conditioning of buildings must be shunned at all costs in tropical countries .All buildings must be built to use all natural light of the sun during daytime and natural air ventilation throughout the year. AC Cars with single occupant must be banned during rush hours, and that includes cars of members of parliaments or local bodies. All diesel cars must be banned totally. No electric lights must be used during daytime in tropical countries in offices and homes. Every citizen of tropical country must plant two indigenous trees every year and take care of them to grow, so as to restore the natural water cycle. Make shopping and market centres completely car free from dawn to dusk. These measures will definitely ensure to a great extent to minimize the heating of atmosphere (the tropical part, I mean).
Yahya, Togo, Technical Adviser Yes I think it will not. 1. The 2nd biggest emitter the US has pulled out. Apart from not cuttings its emissions this will force others not to fulfill their obligations for fear of being economically disadvantaged. It will also provide an excuse to others just joined the agreement just to look good. 2. There is no concrete switch over to alternative energy. In fact coal and other brown sources of energy are being promoted. The brown sector is expanding instead of shrinking. 3. There is no significant support to developing countries in terms of finance, development and transfer of tech or capacity building. 1. The international community should assist developing countries in a robust manner in terms of finance, tech and capacity building 2. All parties must set concrete goals and indicators for shifting to alternative sources of energy 3. The US must be convinced to come back otherwise it can’t work.
Julieanne, USA Yes US is not participating at government level. Senators, governors and mayors should speak out.
RK Yes, as it is proved that global warming is not anthropogenic and as it rises faster than our fossil fuel-fasting reduction. Above all, we are the brink of the following danger. As our earth’s geomagnetic shield has completely vanished in 2015, SRM has “reconnected an artificial geomagnetic shield” and this artificial shield too now fails rapidly. So, our experts are forced to protect our earth from the harmful radiations like X rays, gamma rays, UV B&C, cosmic rays etc. with “suddenly dumping millions of tons of sulphur ice rocks; all over our earth or blasting nuclear bombs in our earth’s stratosphere” as an ultimatum, having given importance only to underground shelter owners. It is to be done as an accident in October 2017, having wiped out one third of the human race. Though it is a mandatory, doing it gradually and smoothly is good, ethical. You, the CIA’s, intelligences, forces and governments should stop this horrible chaos. My stand points: 1) NASA’s solar storm warmings in pre2012, 2012 and post2012. 2) NASA confirms that our earth is to become an ice global in October 2017. 3) Nuclear war creations upon reasonless stages.
Lorene, USA, Health Care Yes President Trump withdrew the USA from the agreement. President Trump has appointed many people, who do not support scientific findings about Global Warming, into positions where they can have negative impact on our planet. EG EPA President Trump is advancing agendas for coal and petroleum industries instead of advancing renewable energies. Get Trumps Tax/ Financial information and determine how he is profiting from his agenda. Impeach Trump Encourage States to commit to meet the goals of the climate agreement.
Katy, Britain, ESL teacher I absolutely think that these goals will not be achieved. But that shouldn’t stop us trying. People are greedy and unwilling to work together, there is too much vested interest in dirty technology, governments work too slowly to make the drastic changes required quickly enough. Invest in renewable, sustainable energy, everything else will come from there. Make all new structures carbon neutral and energy-use neutral. Find champions; I’ve been searching for some time to find a positive figurehead in today’s world and, although there are plenty of us little folk trying to make a difference, I cannot find a Ghandi, a Mandela, a Mother Theresa to look to.
Theo, South Africa, Disabled I do believe that there is a real danger of the agreement failing. The main danger is the willingness of the USA to pull out of the agreement. Most of the rest of the world is influenced by what the US does and their own commitment will falter as a result. There is also the problem of the various companies that have a vested interest in not having to spend the extra money to ensure that they adhere to the conditions of the agreement. Even if there is full support from all parties then the biggest obstacle to overcome is the lethargy regarding change. This is something that will have to be driven at all levels. Everybody will have to take full responsibility to effect change. Our whole way of life would need to be amended. We have to pull away from a consumerist society to a awareness society. This would have to be effected at all levels, government, corporate as well as individual. We need products that are not designed to break down, thus reducing the current factory output. Proper management of resources as well as land to reduce pollution. Then there has to be proper education of the whole world’s population to let them see how their actions impact on climate change. To sum up, we require a holistic approach otherwise we are doomed to fail and will have to endure a lot more hardship before things improve.
Sunil, Bhutan, Volunteer Yes The possible reasons can be : – Irresponsible character and nature parties to twist their governing policy rather then being concerned to main issue. – Withdrawal of responsible parties from the agreement and no legal obligation on them. – Increasing mitigation cost and decreasing reliability and preparedness for mitigation. – Lack of Payment of ecosystem services for ethnic group. Actions – Promotion of mitigation measure with special target on youth led awareness campaign like Cop In My City of CliMates. letting peoples to know Who, Why, How, What for, and When is responsible for the situation today and how to get out of this danger. – To develop and propose agreement as legally binding document. – Say no to packaged food or water which produces lots of today’s carbon, Stay Vegan, and always be mindful of what you consume.
Augustin, Cameroon YES, the Paris agreement may not be able to achieve its objectives. Limiting the average rise in temperature to 2 ° C remains possible but only at the cost of heroic – and unlikely – efforts. The 1.5 ° C target is largely out of reach.To have a probability of 66% to remain below 1.5 ° C, the total human emissions must not exceed 2250 billion tonnes CO2-equivalent (GTeqCO2). This is an objective that is likely to weaken the Paris agreement. Governments must now join the movement. The Paris agreement will only be credible if accompanied by the immediate cessation of harmful and climatic projects in all countries. The solutions exist with local initiatives based on citizen dynamics such as positive energy territories, citizen projects of renewable energies or zero waste processes. More than ever, the citizen movement must grow, resist climate policies and embody solutions.
Dr. Yılmaz, Türkiye, Strategist Yes The incentive systems (taxes, investments..) are not aligned with the world we want. Remedies for not meeting the goals are not fully enforceable. US has decided to pull out of the Agreement. Tax negative externalities, instead of profits, transactions or value added in a revenue neutral manner. Create opportunities for trading negative externalities between countries Create an environment where the global burden for transformation is shared according to income per capita.
Luiz, Brazil, CliMates/ Latin America COP in My City Coordinator Yes, I think the Paris Agreement is in danger of not reaching its goals such as to prevent the heating beyong 1.5 °C. a) unconscious politics and decision making towards environmental issues and its importance; b) Lack of people’s education towards environmental conservation; c) Corruption. a) Educating people locally by small workshops, talkings and social media postings; b) Buiding up partnership between different stakeholders such as NGOs, companies and academia; c) Planting trees with a group of friends, teachers, relatives etc – under authorization of local authorities and landowners.
Mary, Germany, Ph.D. Student Yes First, the withdrawal of the US from complying with the Paris agreement, weakened the Paris agreement, given that US is one of the major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions. – Most top producers of greenhouse gas emissions have not legislated their NDCs to help meet the goals they set. – There should be a clear framework set at national and regional levels to help meet the sectoral greenhouse gas emission reductions. – Countries should set aside finances to help implement greenhouse gas emission reduction, particularly by also involving financial organizations. – Citizens should also be sensitized and informed on the importance of complying with the Paris agreement and how they can participate in implementing it.
Nasrin, Bangladesh, Govt. Service JI think the Paris Agreement is in danger of not being able to meet its goals and prevent the earth’s atmosphere of heating beyond 1.5 degree Celsius. The reasons are a) Lack of necessary knowledge / awareness about the quantity of Carbon emmission and its adverse effects. b) Lack of bilateral , regional and international cooperation on Climate Change issues. c) Lack of rapid reduction measures in accordance with the best available science and technology. The solutions are a) Adequate measures should be taken to provide relevant information, idea and knowledge among the people of all countries. b) Cooperation should be expanded. c) Lack of rapid reduction measures in accordance with the best available science and technology. This type of measures should be disseminate among the people with the help of print and electronic media.