Kapok: Political will

Back in December 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was designed as an international agreement — no less — that was supposed to bind 192 parties (191 states) in committing to reduce emissions of the six main greenhouse gases, all deemed the main culprits of global warming.

The treaty, signed under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, came into force in 2005 and the first phase of commitments was to run from 2008 to 2012 on the basis of “common but differentiated responsibilities”: contracting parties had a few years to prepare themselves and the reduction of emissions (the reference year being 1990) would affect differently each signatory, with the European Union (made up of 15 members at the time) agreeing to reduce the most (-8% to be redistributed among its members).

The intention was commendable, but right from the start the process was derailed by the non-ratification of the treaty by the United States of America. Reasons were numerous, starting with the traditional reluctance of the USA to have things imposed from the outside, the fact that the Clinton administration could not secure a two-thirds majority in the Senate, and because the American main negotiator, Vice-President Al Gore, had pushed for an even greater reduction effort than the one initially envisioned — going from -5% to -7%.

In effect, what was supposed to be binding was hollowed out by the defaulting of the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases at the time and the weak penalties imposed on non-compliant parties, which could in the end entirely escape their responsibilities as demonstrated by Canada when it withdrew from the protocol in 2011. With the Doha amendment put in place in 2012 and preparing the second stage of commitments (ending in 2020), the protocol went from Charybdis to Scylla, and as of today, the amendment has not gathered enough signatures to become effective.

Thus, it was decided during the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris that instead of going for a treaty with binding obligations and a mechanism of sanctions for non-compliance that proved ultimately unenforceable, contracting parties would sign a general “accord”, one based on voluntary commitments with a common goal for members to reduce their carbon emissions “as soon as possible” and ensure that global warming would be kept over the century “well below 2ºC” above pre-industrial levels. Now, even with American President Donald Trump deciding not to honor his predecessor’s pledge, 16 states in the USA and Puerto Rico have formed the United States Climate Alliance to uphold the goals set by the Paris agreement, thus bypassing the federal withdrawal. As of now, volition is thus proving more effective than obligation, despite the initial scorn for norms that would be devoid of might.

Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the international body providing governments with the scientific basis to develop climate-related public policies, released its latest special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5ºC — not 2ºC — above pre-industrial levels. Predictions are bleak, to say the least.

The main conclusion is pretty simple: “global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate.” And this will amplify the impacts of heat-waves, destabilize marine ice sheet in Antarctica and provoke the irreversible loss of the Greenland ice sheet, and global mean sea level rise (relative to 1986-2005) will range from 0.26 to 0.77m by 2100. Any increase beyond 1.5ºC would amplify the impacts on terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal ecosystems and affect negatively their benefits to humans.

For the experts, in order to limit the rise to “only” 1.5ºC one would have to reduce the emissions of CO2 by about 45% by 2030 and reach net zero — reaching carbon neutrality — by 2050. If we were to take absolutely no action to limit greenhouse gases emissions, the temperature would then rise by 5.5ºC by 2100!

In the words of one of the scientists participating in the Panel, the report points out “the enormous benefits of keeping to 1.5ºC” and that moreover “this can be done within laws of physics and chemistry.” Political will is thus the only requirement!

Published in Macau Daily Times on October 19, 2018

Kapok: Not so fantastic anymore

One of my fellow columnists with the Times has made the fight against the abusive usage of plastic an all-out effort, very often taking a very personal tone. Contrary to the French song [I originally and mistakenly wrote Belgium...], plastic is not that fantastic anymore and we should actually be considering totally banning it from our life. If Plastic Free July is such a great initiative, it is so not only because it strikingly demonstrates that we can “easily” do without the convenience of organic polymers — cheap, malleable and resistant, and yet awfully and irremediably polluting — but that recycling is not enough and what needs to change is our social and economic behavior at large.

In a ground-breaking study published in Sciences Advances in July 2017, a group of researchers was able to estimate that humanity had produced some 6,3 billion metric tons of plastic waste since 1950, and that only 9% of these had effectively been recycled, 12% incinerated, and no less than a staggering 79% accumulated in landfills or the natural environment. By 2025, the cumulative recycling rate should amount to 20%, and projecting the current global waste management trends, even though we will be able to recycle some 44% of our plastic waste by 2050, by then we will have also accumulated some 12 billion metric tons of discarded plastic waste scattered in the midst of mother nature!

The image of a straw stuck in the nose of a turtle might provide a terrific imagination grabber targeted at five-year-olds and their hurried parents — our era oscillates between the empathy for the cute and the indifference to barbarity — but as a more politicized journalist recently remarked: “Coca Cola produces on its own some 128 billion plastic bottles per year! When put one on top of the other, these bottles amount to one hundred times the distance from the Earth to the Moon…” Even though some countries are doing better than others — Norway already recycles 43.4% of its plastic waste — it is indisputable that the ability to recycle everything we manufacture is everything but a chimeric dream. Sorry for all the new evangelists of circular economy, but the future lies in reducing the amount of filth we are dropping on the green planet!

I was thus very proud when on October 2 the French National Assembly approved the law banning single-usage plastic “cutlery, meat picks, box covers, trays, ice-cream pots, salad cups, boxes and stirrers” by January 1 2020. This list complements the cotton sticks and single usage plastic glasses, cups and plates which were already destined to be axed by that date. Fifty micron thick plastic bags had already been removed from cashiers as well as fruits and vegetables stalls respectively in 2016 and 2017. But then, France only recycles 22.2% of its plastic waste and one could argue that being an advanced economy, it had had plenty of time to pollute without really caring.

However, I just came back from India, and guess what? Twenty-five out the country’s twenty-nine states have already put in place various bans on the manufacture, supply, storage and use of plastics! India’s Environment Minister has already announced that by 2022, his country would “eliminate all single use plastics.” In Mumbai, 225 municipal civil servants dressed in purple have been tracking offenders to the law since June 2018, and if this does not sound almighty in a city of 21 million dwellers, those confronted to fines ranging from Rs5,000 (half a median monthly salary) to Rs25,000 for recidivists seem to be taking the scheme seriously, be them manufacturers, distributors or consumers. In Goa, the manufacturing of 50 micron and thinner plastic bags has actually been prohibited by law since 2016, and even political parties have been made responsible for managing the waste generated by their campaign activities! 

In Macao, civic groups are mobilizing and taking stock of the filthy wasteful habits registered in the SAR, but why would the territory be left to the goodwill of a few casinos, even with the best of intentions? Is a gold-plated plastic landfill our only horizon?

Published in Macau Daily Times on October 5 2018