Es war ein Trugschluss zu glauben, dass alle Verhandlungsparteien bei der Weltklimakonferenz in Paris, mit dem Ergebnis tatsächlich einverstanden gewesen sind. Die Ablehnung von COP21 hat verschiedene Gründe und kommt aus unterschiedlichen Richtungen. Einer, der vehemensten Kritiker ist der Nicaraguaner Paul Oquist-Kelly, wohl der einflussreichste Umweltpolitiker des mittelamerikanischen Landes.
Wohl erst ein Anruf des Heiligen Stuhls in Mittelamerika, so erzählt man sich, habe Oquist veranlasst, seinen Widerstand in Paris gegen den Klimavertrag aufzugeben, obwohl er ihn in dieser Form für falsch hält. Seine Argumente:  „Das Ziel von COP21 die Temperaturerhöhung der Atmosphäre bis Ende des Jahrhunderts unter zwei Grad zu halten, möglichst sogar unter 1,5 Grad, wird nicht erreicht. Es läuft auf 2,7 bis 3 Grad im weltweiten Durchschnitt hinaus. Für Nicaragua und andere tropische Länder würde dies 4 bis 5 Grad bedeuten.
[youtube url=“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDS4FrN6ToY“ autoplay=“yes“]
Paul Oquist Interview bei COP21 in Paris

 Außerdem bedeute das Weltklimaabkommen eine Zurücknahme des Rechts auf Kompensation durch die Verursacher dieses Klimawandels. Ein Entschädigungsfonds, wie ihn Nicaragua fordere, sei nicht Bestandteil des Vertrages. In dessen Vorwort rede man zwar von den Menschenrechten, aber im operativen Teil fordere man dann von den Entwicklungsländern, auf ihre legitimen Rechte zu verzichten. FAIReconomics dokumentiert in Gänze die Argumente, die der mittelamerikanische Politiker, in seinen Gesprächen, wie jüngst in Berlin bei einer Veranstaltung der Klima-Allianz, vorträgt:

I would like to organize our analysis of this topic through a series of questions. Does the Paris Agreement restrict the world average temperature rise to 2.0 degrees or 1.5 degrees Centigrade?
No, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change leads us to a world of a global average temperature rise of 3°C in this Century, well over the goal of 2°C and double our goal of 1.5°C, according to the Secretariat of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). It should be noted that a 3°C is a world-wide average and in some regions that translates to 4 and 5 degrees, specifically in Artic and tropical regions.
The document itself lacks transparency, hiding from the world the fact that the 55 giga tonnes of greenhouse gases (Co2e) by 2030 puts the world on a trajectory of increases in the average temperature of between 2.7°C and 3.5°C. The draft document originally contained neither the 55 gigatonnes nor the 2.7 to 3.5 degrees. Nicaragua on reiterated occasions insisted that this was a lack of transparency that amounted to mislead world public opinion. In the end the 55 gigatonnes that very few people understand was included and the 2.7 to 3.5 degrees in average temperature that is easy to understand was excluded.
In order to achieve the 2°C goal, the target needs to be no more than 40 giga tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2030; and to limit the increase to 1.5°C, the emissions should not exceed 34 giga tonnes by 2030. This means that there is a gap between the 2015 commitments and meeting the goal of a 2.0°C increase of 15 gigatonnes and for the goal of 1.5°C of 21 gigatonnes.
What are the consequences of a three degree world?
The World Bank estimates that for every degree Celsius increase in average temperature the production of cereals worldwide decreases 5%. There has been a reduction already of around 40 million tons in the production of maize, wheat and other important crops around the world between 1981 and 2002 due to this cause.
With a temperature increase of 3°C it is estimated that up to 30% of living species will be at risk of extinction. There will be widespread coral mortality, as well as an increase in the intensity, frequency and extent of the coral bleaching phenomenon. The six major episodes of coral bleaching in the past 20 years have been caused by periods when the water temperature increased. The reef destruction will lead to a very significant drop in the production of human food from the sea.
Access to clean water will become difficult for over two billion people. Desertification will advance on all fronts.In sum, food and water security will deteriorate. Sea levels will rise and coastal areas will be affected.
It is obvious in these circumstances that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development  approved only  last September, 2015, will not be met. The progress made with regard to Millennium Development Goals could also be rolled back.
What can we learn from the 1 degree situation?
In 2015 the world reached the level of 1 degree Celsius above the pre-Industrial level.  At this level all the ice in the world is melting—Artic, Antarctic, Greenland, mountain glaciers. We have four year old droughts in Southern United States, Southern Iberia, Southern Africa and Southern Australia.
We have one of the three strongest El Niños since 1950. The temperature anomaly in the mid-Pacific at the equator on 4 November, 2015 was 3 degrees above normal. It is a temperature rise in the sea in the mid-Pacific that triggers El Niño. The years 2014 and 2015 were the hottest years on record and the prediction for 2016 is that it will replace 2015 as the hottest year on record.  If this is what we have at one degree, do we really want to play around with three degrees centigrade?
What is the corrective mechanism of the Paris Agreement?
Any country, of course, can raise its commitment at any time if it so wishes. There will be a Facilitative Dialogue-Stocktaking on progress in 2018, 2023 and 2028. In 2020 countries that haven’t presented Intended Nationally Determined Commitments (INDCs) may do so and other countries may wish to update their INDCs. In 2025 all countries should present INDCs with increased ambition. Subsequently there will be an INDC process every five years.
Thus, the first real chance to reverse the trajectory set by the INDCs of Paris 2015 will be in 10 years,, in 2025. The Facilitative Dialogues of 2018 and 2023 will find that we are further away than ever from the 2.0 or 1.5 degree goals. This point should be obvious since the trajectory in execution leads to 2.7 to 3.5 degrees and not to 2 degrees.
Valuable and irreplaceable time will be lost. We lost 5 years between Copenhagen and Paris and now it is proposed that we wait another 10 years before a possible correction. We must stop the rise in greenhouse gases now. The incremental approach of INDCs every five years will not work because we cannot turn back the greenhouse gas clock, we can only hope to stop it from rising.
The pre-industrial level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere was 280 parts per million. We passed the level of 350 ppm that scientists warned was the limit for moving into dangerous territory in 1988, and last year we reached 400 ppm. If we continue on this path and go to 450 or 500 ppm we risk losing the ability to influence the phenomenon.
Climate change must be stopped before the emissions take place not afterwards.
The Paris Agreement methodology is to roll the INDC dice of voluntary commitments and whatever the results are, that’s it. If it doesn’t work out, we will try again in five years.  Pathetic. Humanity deserves better.
Who are the Major Emitters?
The Paris Agreement is based on the principle of Universal Responsibility. It is based on the discourse that everyone is equally responsible and there should be no finger pointing. It is designed to get the major emitters off the hook. Universal responsibility was designed to replace the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR). Universal responsibility is ideology. CBDR is a reality.
IPCC data indicates that the greenhouse gases accumulated in the atmosphere between 1870 and 2011 to be a little less than 2,000 giga tonnes of CO2. About 82% of that total has been produced by the 20 countries of greatest emissions in the last 50 years of that period. On the other hand, the 100 countries with  least emissions represent less than 3% of total emissions.  So we must ask: Is it fair to say that 196 countries are parties equally responsible for climate change and that we have the same obligations to stop it?
Today the top 3 emitters produce 48% of emissions and the top 20 78%. They also have 76% of the world’s gross national income.
They have the CO2 equivalent and they have the economic resources. Only they can decrease the carbon gap from 55 gigatonnes to 40 or 34 gigatonnes. However, they also lack the political will as was demonstrated by their weak 2015 INDCs.
How can the carbon gap be covered in a fair and equitable manner? Is it fair to say that Nicaragua with 0.03% of the emissions has equal responsibility with the top three with 48%.
Nicaragua proposes that the gap of 20 giga tonnes of CO2 equivalent that is needed to cover the gap by 2030 be made with additional commitments by major emitters, distributing a carbon budget among countries in proportion to their historical emissions.
To determine the historical responsibilities of major polluters we can analyze data of CO2 emissions from the World Bank for the period 1960-2011. This period is sufficiently representative, given the fact that during this period 80% of the accumulated emissions since 1870 were produced, as estimated by the IPCC. Moreover, it is considered that of the available series that of the World Bank are the most reliable.
This same criteria can be applied to an Indemnization Fund for the countries that are suffering the consequences of climate change without having caused it.
Does the Paris Agreement conserve the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR)?
CBDR is present in the list of aspirations in the preamble but it was eliminated operationally by a fe de errata that listed it as a typographical error. The text that read that the developed countries shall take the lead in emission reductions was changed to should take the lead, the same as developing countries. This last minute ploy in plenary was quick gaveled into an approved document despite crossing a negotiating red line of the developing countries.
Is the Paris Agreement Legally Binding?
The Paris Agreement is legally binding except for emission reduction commitments and finance. Thus, the two most important topics are excluded. However, since there is no financing in the Paris Agreement, the practical exclusion is the operational emission reduction commitments.
How to save the world from the Paris Agreement?

  1. The no ratification of the agreement by a group of countries would send the message that the result of 55 gigatonnes is not acceptable. It is rather a threat to humanity.

No ratification is also an opportunity for developing countries to declare that they are not abdicating their legal rights. Article 8 of the Paris Agreement denies to developing countries the right to demand any form of compensation and liability due to serious and irreversible damage caused by climate change in our countries.

  1. United Nations General Assembly action
  1. United Nations Human Rights action
  1. Judicial actions
  1. A broad based popular movement

Quite obviously this is a difficult struggle against powerful forces but even though the odds for success are long, it must be fought for the future of the climate, the world economy, Mother Earth and Humanity.
The Paris Agreement is similar to the bank bailouts that passed the cost onto the workers, retired people, and taxpayers.
The Paris Agreement consists of bailing out an unsustainable model of production, consumption, finance and life style and passing the cost on to subsistence farmers, fisher folk, coastline dwellers, the poor and eventually all of humanity and Mother Earth.
Thank you very much.