Pinto, Juliet

DigitalCommons@Florida International University

Florida International UniversityFIU Digital CommonsSea Level Rise Collection12-4-2015Paris Talks: Energizing Cognitive DissonanceJuliet PintoSchool of Journalism and Mass Communication, Florida International University, jpinto@fiu.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/sea_level_risePart of the Communication Commons, and the Environmental Sciences CommonsThis work is brought to you for free and open access by FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sea Level Rise Collection by anauthorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact dcc@fiu.edu.Recommended CitationPinto, Juliet, "Paris Talks: Energizing Cognitive Dissonance" (2015). Sea Level Rise Collection. Paper 37.http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/sea_level_rise/37Paris Talks: EnergizingCognitive DissonanceDECEMBER 4, 2015  /  TED GUTSCHE  /  0 COMMENTSThis special series of posts is produced by Juliet Pinto (FloridaInternational University) and Phaedra Pezzullo (University ofColorado-Boulder)In collaboration with International Environmental CommunicationAssociation, FIU’s Sea Level Solutions Center, and eyesontherise.org.Both Pinto and Pezzullo are attending COP21 in Paris. By Juliet Pinto, from ParisAt the opening remarks on Monday by the heads of state, 150 heads of statepromised to move forward in positive ways for the climate, building on the2009 promises to phase out fossil fuels. But those words masked innatecontradictions. As Maeve McLynn from Climate Action Network–Europesaid, “That can only be achieved if their own governments stop financing dirtyfossil fuels, and there is really minimal movement in that direction. In fact, themain contradictions to decarbonization are the huge subsidies thatgovernments give to fossil fuel industries.”Indeed, at a panel on the subsidies developed countries currently offer fossilfuel companies, the G20 average for fossil fuel producers from 2013-2014was more than $450 billion. As the panelists noted, subsides can includeeverything from direct government spending, to tax breaks, state-ownedinfrastructure, grants, loans and more. Every subsidy creates an incentive tokeep producing fossil fuels, from locking in carbon risk by buildinginfrastructure (particularly offshore oil rigs), to keeping coal mines running inthe face of declining prices, to masking the risk for financial managers andcreating incentives to keep investing in fossil fuels.At the same time, the science is clear: Both the carbon we already have in theatmosphere, as well what we continue to put there, is a huge risk. As formervice-president Al Gore said today, “The climate crisis is the 800-pound gorillarunning right through the middle of the world economy.”To help the world understand this contradiction, civil society talks havefocused on the gap between the remarks by 150 world leaders on Monday, allacknowledging the climate crisis and pledging to forge an agreement to meetthe enormous challenges of global warming, with the actual behaviors andactions by those same governments in incentivizing fossil fuel production,elaboration and consumption.For example, various studies have shown quite clearly that these subsidies, insome cases, are what are keeping fossil fuel production going. One examplecited today was the Powder River Basin coal production, where U.S. coalsubsidies accounted for 39 percent of total production. That translates intomore than 2 gigatons of emissions, not an insignificant number.Panelists from various think tanks emphasized that if developed countriestruly plan to decarbonize, the dollar amounts spent on these subsidies couldbe easily transitioned to clean energies. As it stands, clean energy producersare currently unable to compete with fossil fuel producers, as the playingfield is so structurally unequal, and fossil fuel companies are paying muchlower costs of capital than they should be.In terms of the COP talks, while the focus for G20 countries is mitigation,they also must provide for developing countries to not only mitigate, but alsoadapt to the impacts of climate change. In fact, the area that the G77countries are focusing on most heavily now is adaptation, as the developingworld is who primarily bears the brunt of the impacts of climate change. AsI’ve mentioned previously (LINK) the chief fund to aid developing countrieswith not only the transition away from fossil fuels, but also mitigation andadaptation, is the Global Climate Fund. Panelists today noted the hypocrisywith which Annex I nations have failed to adequately fund the GCF, but yetthe billions of dollars they pour into fossil fuel subsidies.So I conclude my COP21 experience by circling back to how I began it:cognitive dissonance. I live in a G20/Annex I country, whose leader wants astrong climate legacy. At the same time, I live in Miami, a city on the frontlines of sea level rise, which in the context of climate change is acceleratingand poses a grave threat to the well-being of this community. The UnitedStates provides billions of dollars in subsidies to fossil fuel industries.I, like so many others, struggle to reconcile these notions I watch G20 worldleaders speak of “solving” climate change, but whose own governments giveaway billions of dollars to the carbon-producing industries. How can this be?What will the outcome of COP21 be? The world is watching Paris.Uncategorized

Paris Talks: Energizing Cognitive Dissonance

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@Florida International University

DigitalCommons@Florida International University