After learning more about the agreement, the lack of coverage probably makes more sense than should be admitted. The final agreement has a lot of "shoulds" in place of "shalls" and there are basically no ramifications, other than global shaming, for non-compliance. No country other than Luxembourg seems to really care about public shaming - there is always someone else to blame. There is also very little in the way of objective measurements across the globe, making compliance with the suggestion even more doubtful.
The should versus shall should not be downplayed. I should eat healthier and exercise more. The law says I shall not walk out of Walmart with Twinkies without paying for them. The former is a suggestion, the latter has consequences. While the scale of a global environmental agreement is much bigger, the binding of the language is the same.
Reportedly, some of these "shoulds" were put in place at the urging of the US since the Obama administration was fearful that "shall" would then require Senate approval of the agreement, and this would not be a requirement if the agreement is merely a suggestion. So rather than face the difficult political work at home, John Kerry pushed for a, largely, vapid agreement.
What the Paris agreement will allow, is for a lot more finger wagging. Al Gore has been finger wagging for quite some time now. And, frankly, something does need to be done. However, even Mr. Gore does not agree that anything drastic needs to be done. He is quite content living a lavish 1%er lifestyle while earning his living as a professional finger wagger. He has attempted to address his oppulence, but his response is actually more dangerous than the problem his lifestyle creates.
I could almost admire his honesty if he said some form of, "I'm imperfect, and like everyone else, would like to do better. But alas, I'm human so do as I say, not as I do." What his response is really saying is, "I'm very wealthy, so I can live an extravagant lifestyle with only some guilt and an insignificantly small additional expense. Those of you who are not rich must make real sacrifices." (and he says this with condescension). Elsewhere, the referenced "10 geothermal wells" are noted as being under Al Gore's driveway. Just How friggin' long is his driveway?
I shouldn't pick on Al Gore too much. It is just too easy to do and if the environmental movement ever does take off for the non-Birkenstock crowd, he would have to find something else to prognosticate on.
Expanding in a minute, I do see climate change as a real and growing threat. What is almost unbelievable is how little population is discussed as part of the issue and solution. As soon as procreation is mentioned, eyes get wide and hands are thrown up - having seven children, even if you can't afford three, is a basic human right! Sadly, in the first world through the third, the people having seven children are too often the ones that can't raise them in a more sustainable manner. The lack of including population changes as part of any solution, or even any discussion, of the environment in the future is further evidence of the (lack of) real importance of the issue. As Al Gore has taught us, real sacrifices must always be made by someone else.
The question most of asked around the issue is, "Do you believe in global warming?" This question itself is wrong and unfortunate. The branding of the phenomenon as "global warming" was a huge mistake made decades ago. Branding it as "climate change" allows for more honest discussions without including anecdotal observations of a frigid winter in Dallas. There should actually be three questions:
So, is the climate changing?
Yes. This is fact, and there is data to support this. Denying this is, frankly, wearing blinders.
Is the climate change caused by human activity?
Somewhere between probably and almost for sure. Scientific fact is hard to come by, but the vast majority of climate scientists are not dumb and while modeling the atmosphere is notoriously difficult, most models together point in generally the same direction. Even the most conspiracy-minded skeptic must admit that, at best, human activity is not helping since, as above, the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is fact.
What should be done about it?
AAAHHHHHHHHHH, here is the real question. The difficult one. The question even Al Gore doesn't want to live by if he really believes what his prophet persona says.
The question of what to do about it must not be based exclusively on hard climate science, since any changes shall take into account economic theory, social changes, etc.
As much as I've spent much of my adult scientific life poopooing the "social sciences," they play a bigger role here than what anybody wants to admit. Until the Joe and Jane six-pack crowd sees a short term benefit to changes that might improve the climate situation, it will never take hold.
Witness how when gas was $4/gallon a few years ago, the sale of small cars began to noticeably creep up, while in our current oil-glut environment, larger vehicles are again making a strong comeback.
Great, so the answer is to make not being a granola really, really expensive, right?
Wrong, economic theory must also play a role. As resilient as the atmosphere may or may not be, the global economy is a fragile glass figurine in comparison. Any attempt to affect a large change quickly will result in catastrophic consequences, even if the long term result is good (and modeling the economy long term is harder than the environment). Negative changes in the economy moves people, business, and government into preservation mode and the climate will quickly become an even lower priority.
Similarly, it is ludicrous to expect advanced economies to digress - the economy must grow or die and any politician who suggests a decrease in lifestyle for the next generation will be railroaded out on a log.
We also should not expect developing economies to do anything other than pursue the lifestyle that the developed world has. Suggesting otherwise is borderline evil. I do sometimes wonder if the developing world is not in a better position to move ahead of the developed world - without the entrenched infrastructure in places like the United States, France and Germany, is it easier to put a different, more sustainable infrastructure in Subsaharan Africa? If environmentally friendly solutions are such a no-brainer and so much better for the long term economy and technologically advanced to the point everyone should have them, how come they are not becoming the norm in places like China, India or Brazil? Maybe not quite as much of a no-brainer as the solar crowd would hope.
The difficulty of individuals making changes can be illustrated by what I do to help and hurt the globe. I do this not to flog myself, or to be self-congratulatory, but to illustrate that almost everyone does things that help and hurt.
I recycle nearly everything I can, but I also realize that much of what is recycled does end up in a landfill.
I have a longer-than-average commute, but I chose my truck as the highest mpg open-bedded 4wd vehicle available at the time.
I drive very little on the average weekend, but pursuing mass transportation is not something I have much interest in.
I could buy a more efficient 4-wheeled vehicle, but then I would have yet another vehicle which is not really helping.
In the summer I do most of my commuting on a motorcycle which uses much less fuel than most cars, but my bikes are not really built for fuel efficiency and, frankly, I ride motorcycles because I like motorcycles, with any environmental benefit a tertiary thought at best - do motives matter?
I heat and cool my house with geothermal and keep it at a cool 64F in the winter, but if the house wouldn't have had geothermal when I bought it, I probably wouldn't have put it in myself.
I've looked into solar panels, and even ran full electric to my pole bard with that in the back of my mind, but any payout for solar panels, using realistic estimates, would be at about the anticipated lifetime of them, so I don't think I'll do it anytime soon. To be clear, it is getting closer to being cost effective if subsidies are maintained, but looking at the actual cost, it is not. And I can think of better uses environmental or otherwise for that money.
I see water scarcity as a potentially much larger problem in the future, but water use minimization is almost silly living in the Midwest.
I have planted many trees on my property, but they keep dying.
Everyone of these things has a "but" in it. Nobody wants to destroy the environment or return to the days of burning rivers. Everyone could be doing more and probably should (even Al Gore), but...
And that is the real answer, there are no easy answers to this.
