Bruce Bisset: More than an Eiffel of Paris promises

Bruce Bisset is a freelance writer and poet. Photo / Warren Buckland

Much as I'd like to support the positive spin people are trying to put on the agreement thrashed out in Paris, a critique of the detail reveals it is not so much a commitment to limit climate change as a road map of what nations might do if they want to take action.

In many cases - very much including New Zealand's - there is no compelling evidence to suggest they want to.

The "commitment" is voluntary, not to mention arbitrary, with some countries electing to do a lot and others very little. There's no real commonality except default recognition that things are going to get worse unless they all do something.

What and how much are open questions.

Sure, at least there's finally a truly global agreement, with 195 participating nations at COP21 - denoting the 21st time such a conference has been held, which in itself tells a story.

And, staying on the bright side, if every country does as it has indicated it will to meet the target of peak global emissions before 2030 (reducing thereafter), then maybe we will only see another degree or so of warming.

But there is no legislative framework, no enforcement or even monitoring body in the mix; nothing other than self-reporting every five years to provide accountability. Everything hinges on goodwill, and the exact extent offered is dubious - think Republicans in the US Congress and multiply by nationality to guesstimate the chances for success.

Moreover meeting the goal of a maximum two degrees Celsius temperature rise over pre-industrial levels seems unlikely even with full compliance as proposed; 2.5C (or more) looks a better bet.

Okay, call me pessimistic, but given the snail's pace to date, can you honestly see the world "equalising" greenhouse gas emissions with natural absorption rates by 2050? That's what must happen to be sure to achieve the two-or-less degree target.

The kicker is that based on existing accelerating patterns of change, science is now saying the real target - to avoid unacceptable disruption and destruction - should be revised down to 1.5C.

Fat chance.

Meanwhile ordinary folk, misled and misinformed by corporate deniers and media disinterest, are finding ever more whimsical ways to pigeon-hole the issue.

A friend who is otherwise politically and socially aware told me it was all a plot by aliens, manipulating humankind at their bidding, to terraform the atmosphere to their own liking.

Who knows? He could be right. But on the face of it it's another example of the "don't blame me" response to culpability.

That's what we have to get over.

We have to own up, admit we've been fundamentally stupid, and urgently take direct action to reduce our impact on our only home. Before we destroy its ability to support us - permanently.

Which means not letting the government get away with its "miracles and wonders will save us" line while they allow extraction of new coal sources and refuse to subsidise solar power.

Nor the one about being "too small to matter", while they build motorways galore and let our rail network fall into disrepair.

Nor "it's a gradual transition", excusing them to permit (and subsidise) new oil and gas exploration instead of building electric vehicles and service networks.

Nor the "produce more dairy" juggernaut that ignores the environmental cost of relying on precious water and copious chemicals to survive whilst belching megatonnes of methane.

Am I glad there was agreement in Paris? Absolutely! But it's a first step, not a fix-all, and judging by "clean green" New Zealand's business-as-usual attitude it's already doomed to fail to fix anything.

That's the right of it.