Go back to In the Huddle: Stanford


Ask the Experts

Ask the Experts: Professors discuss potential effects of global climate talks in Paris

As world leaders discuss the prospective blueprint for greenhouse emissions, President Barack Obama said the stakes for the future of the planet have never been so high.

More than 40,000 delegates from 195 countries are participating in the two-week long 2015 Paris Climate Conference, which began on Nov. 30. At the conference — also called the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21) — countries are working on a legally binding international agreement on slashing greenhouse gas emissions to curb effects of climate change.

The Daily Orange spoke to Allan Mazur, professor of public affairs in Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, and David Driesen, University Professor at SU’s College of Law, about the conference and its significance in confronting climate change.

The Daily Orange: What are you anticipating most from the conference?

Allan Mazur: I think there will be an agreement for the most part among them … I think that they will make an agreement; whether they would stick to it or not, it’s a big question. I doubt that they will … No, (it’s not going to be legally binding) because the Congress in the United States will not approve it. So if the United States cannot make it legally binding then I am not certain what the status is with all the other countries.



David Driesen: I think it will result in solidification of commitments by countries to make significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions … In the past, the big problems are no binding agreements and no pledges forthcoming from the United States and China. The United States has stepped up its commitment to actual reductions and China has pledged to peak emission in 2030, meaning that it cannot go up after that, at least for carbon dioxide … That’s big progress relative to where we were … On the other hand, what’s needed to avoid dangerous climate change is much more than their prepared commitment. So the big challenge for this meeting is going to be either get the commitments strengthened in the meeting or kind of get some sort of process in place so that it can strengthen them in the future.

The D.O.: In past conferences, developed and developing nations have clashed over the amount of emission of greenhouse gas. Do you think the gap between those two groups has reduced through this meeting?

A.M.: I think all of these nations — their priority is developing and creating jobs and they are less worried about climate change; even Americans are not nearly as worried about climate change as about employment issues or economy.

D.D.: It has been reduced. It is still there and it is still a problem but it has been reduced mostly in the form of China having really changed its stance quite a bit … One reason is that the same action that reduced greenhouse gas emissions in China would reduce local air pollution in China, and the local air pollution in China is deadly … It’s so bad that it creates a risk of political unrest … Another thing is, I think, President Obama’s diplomacy. He went there to secure commitment in China and made a pledge himself to use his power as a president even with the opposition from Republican Congress to move us forward.

The D.O.: President Barack Obama made it official in March 2015 that the U.S. will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by up to 28 percent over the next decade. Do you see any short- or long-term effects on U.S. consumers?

A.M.: I don’t think it would affect us much at all. I mean, we actually have done pretty good in reducing per capita use of energy. Here, people don’t really notice it. Cars are far more efficient than (they) used to be … Buildings and houses, if they have been constructed after about 1980, they are far more efficient. It does not hurt our lifestyle.

D.D.: I don’t see that having future effects on U.S. consumers. Depending on how it’s done, there might be some minor price rises, but I don’t see it having a big effect, mostly because a lot of these will be realized by switches to natural gas that are already taking place.





Top Stories