+
Sign up for
The Upworthiest
Our top stories of the day delivered straight to your inbox.
upworthy

cop21

Heroes

For less than $8K, France's new electric car could revolutionize clean transportation.

True
Natural Resources Defense Council

Cars are an expensive — but often necessary — part of life. And electric cars? Forget it.

That tends to be a problem with a lot of sustainable products: the overhead is just too high, even if it does ultimately pay for itself in the long run.

Unfortunately, this still leaves proponents of clean living in a a pickle. The only reason that fossil fuels seem more affordable is because of the infrastructure that's already in place.

How do you get people to make a large-scale shift toward greener transportation (which would bring prices down for everyone) when most of them don't have the cash for that initial investment?

The obvious answer is to just make them cheaper — and that's exactly what France is doing.

At the COP21 Climate Conference in December 2015, French Minister of Economy Ségolène Royal announced a global competition to create a small electric car that will sell for less than $7,500 (about 7,000 euros).


Ségolène Royal. Photo by France Ecologie Energie/Flickr.

According to Gizmodo and speaking through a translator, Royal explained that her goal is to "create an electric car for the people" — something light, small, and fast-charging that "may not look like traditional electric cars."

To help keep costs down, the French government is encouraging the use of replaceable batteries (not unlike the innovative Gogoro Smart Scooter), which can be easily swapped out and replaced at designated charging stations throughout the country.

Presently, the next-best option in electric transportation (for those of us who can't afford a $45,000 Tesla) is India's e20, which costs around $15,000. The Renault ZOE is also available in France for around the same cost, plus 49 euros a month for battery rentals.

The Gogoro Smart Scooter. Photo by Maurizio Pesce/Flickr.

The ultimate goal, of course, is to incentivize the development of affordable, sustainable transportation all across the world.

"The problem arises for other countries: they worry that if we stop the exploitation of fossil fuels, it hinders development," Royal explained in an interview with 20 Minutes (roughly translated in-browser by Google).

"It is therefore imperative to drive down the price of renewable energy to provide these countries the same level of development as the industrialized countries that have reached the using in the past, fossil fuels."

There will inevitably be cynics who question the lack of specifics available thus far in France's cheap electric car plan. But what matters more right now is the country's willingness to take these kinds of risks.

Photo by Jeremy Keith/Flickr.

And considering the tremendous strides that France has already made in sustainable development, there's no reason not to take them at their word.

The affordable electric car initiative was only one piece of a four-part plan that will double France's already considerable investments in clean energy.

That new plan also includes:

  • A commitment to bring the country to at least 20% electric vehicles by 2030 (part of the Paris Declaration on Electro-Mobility and Climate Change and the Zero Emission Vehicles Alliance). As noted in the official statement, “The higher volume of orders will help reduce production and marketing prices."
  • An additional 2-million-euro investment in MobiliseYourCity, which aims to facilitate transport planning projects in 20 cities in developing and emerging countries (and is only one part of an even larger global initiative).
  • Solar. Freakin'. Roadways!(OK not exactly this, but close enough.) Over the next five years, the government plans to deploy at least 1,000 kilometers of "energy roads" that incorporate photovoltaic cells to generate electricity.

Photo by Steve Jurvetson/Flickr.

Clean and affordable transportation is just one step toward a brighter future. But it still makes a difference.

Like I said, the only reason that fossil fuels are cheaper is simply because that's the infrastructure that's already in place. But if that same infrastructure had been established with a renewable, non-carbon-based fuel source, it would cost us even less — without the added bonus of environmental damage.

But because of that infrastructure that's currently in place, the only way to enact wide-scale change is to go all-in and make it happen — and that's exactly what France is doing.

Together, we can create a new global infrastructure that works for the people and the planet, instead of just the pockets of a few corporations.

Heroes

2 men toured the planet on bike and foot to find human stories about climate change.

True
League of Conservation Voters

Daniel Price and Erlend Møster Knudsen were really, really fed up with the climate change conversation — specifically, how no one seemed to care about it.

The two friends had met in Svalbard while working on their doctorates — Erlend, a Norway native, was studying Arctic climate science, and Dan from London had a focus on the Antarctic.

"We both agreed that we were spending way too much time writing papers that would only be read by other academics," Erlend explained in an interview with Cafe Babel.

"I sat down at my desk one day finishing up my PhD and I realised that even my parents didn’t know about COP21, even my parents who I babble on, complaining about my PhD to ... . My closest friends weren’t even getting it," Dan told Desmog UK.


But what was the point of all their hard work if the rest of the world refused to pay attention?

They realized that if people didn't care about the science, then maybe the human struggle side could open their eyes.

"The main thing that’s missing in this entire problem is personal stories and making this relevant to people and getting the emotional side across," Dan explained in a Q&A at the Earth to Paris event during COP21.

"And I think that’s going to become far more apparent as we come into the next few decades. So finding a way to communicate those stories is going to be a key way to inspire action."

That's why Dan and Erlend created Pole to Paris, an environmental odyssey that would bring them across the world to raise awareness about climate change.

Starting from their quite polar opposite research positions in the Arctic and Antarctic, Dan and Erlend travelled by foot and bicycle (mostly) for a total combined distance of nearly 20,000 kilometers, ultimately reuniting in Paris just in time for COP21.

Along the way, they lectured at community events and spoke to the local people living on the front lines of our changing planet, bringing public awareness and personal stories to the center of the climate crisis. The original goal was to make the journey without relying on carbon emissions, but, of course, it's hard to bike or run across the ocean, so they did have to rely on a few boats and planes, however reluctantly.


Erlend took the northern route, running 3000 kilometers from the Arctic Circle in Norway all the way to Paris.

This part of the path was dubbed the "Northern Run," for obvious reasons. And while Erlend spent the first half of his trek mostly by himself, he was accompanied by some official Pole to Paris friends as he made his way through the United Kingdom and Belgium.

But Erlend's most remarkable memory from the trip was a meeting with the Saami, the indigenous people of Norway. Here's how he regaled the tale at Earth to Paris:

"Normally the winter out there will freeze the ground from maybe October to maybe April. And it will stay cold. Now things are changing. The Arctic is warming over twice as fast as the global average. So as it gets warmer, now they have this rainfall in the middle of winter, and when it rains it creates ice layers. The reindeer aren’t able to dig through these ice layers down to the food. The calves starve, and the people have to start buying food in the winter, which is very expensive, in order to keep this livelihood. [...] It’s not like me, I live in the city and I can just go to the supermarket to get food. These people see these changes first hand, because they actually live on the natural resources. They have stories to tell."

Meanwhile, Dan rode his bicycle a whopping 10,000 kilometers on an excursion that they called the "Southern Cycle."

His journey took him through more than 19 countries over the course of seven months, including New Zealand, Malaysia, Bangladesh, and Russia. While he didn't have any official accompaniment, Dan made plenty of friends along the way, despite a few language barriers. ("How do you communicate climate change in hand signals?!" he quipped during Earth to Paris.)


Dan was struck hardest by the people in Bangladesh, and with the help of a translator, he was able to communicate their struggles for us:

"One woman, she was a wonderful woman, told me that she was terrified of the ocean. She’s already had to move her home before. She has two young children, and now she's three meters from the shore, protected only by a wall. The danger there, these people have nowhere else to go. It’s horrendous really. The Bangladesh people are so wonderful, resilient incredible people. So kind, generous. And they’re on the front lines of this. It’s these people that we have to speak for."


While Dan and Erlend's cross-country travels have ended, their work is hardly done — and it's more important than ever that we all support the fight against climate change.

Here's what Erlend and Dan had to say after the (mediocre) conclusion of COP21:

"We have a deal. We are a long way from where we need to be, but today for the first time the world has said we will." — Posted by Pole to Paris on Dec. 12, 2015

Dan and Erlend will continue their hard scientific work from their respective polar positions. But if you want to help them in the battle against climate change, you can start by signing this petition to support America's Clean Power Plan and the EPA's efforts to protect the planet.

More

How a disagreement over human rights language almost derailed the climate change treaty.

Before world leaders finally signed the hugely important, comprehensive agreement on ending climate change at the COP21 conference in Paris, there was an unusual dispute.

It was a small thing, but one that threatened to derail the negotiations and had seemingly little to do with the environment.


Climate change activists demonstrate at the COP21 conference in Paris. Photo by Miguel Medina/AFP/Getty Images.

Three countries requested that language about human rights and gender equality be removed from the operative part of the agreement before they signed.

Even weirder was the combination of countries making that request: Saudi Arabia, the United States, and Norway. Norway was ranked the second-most gender-equal country in the 2015 Global Gender Gap Index, while the United States came in at #28. Saudi Arabia ranked near the bottom, at 134th.

According to Human Rights Watch, an early draft of the COP21 agreement included a commitment for countries to respect both human rights and gender equality as part of their plans to end climate change.

By Dec. 12, which was intended to be the last day of COP21, these three countries voiced their opposition to including that language in Article 2, which is the part of the agreement which states its purpose.

While only three countries spoke out explicitly against including human rights language in Article 2, others — including various European Union countries — did so by not taking a public position, said Katharina Rall, research fellow at Human Rights Watch.

"I think sometimes silence on an issue like this can also be interpreted by others, and has been interpreted by others, as opposition," Rall told Upworthy.

The language matters because protecting human rights as part of addressing climate change is hugely important.

According to the Huffington Post's Keith Peterman, the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, speaking at a COP21 press briefing, asserted everyone's right to life, food, clean water, sanitation, and health.

A changing climate directly inhibits access to these basic human rights.

As Negendra Kumar Kumal, a representative of the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities, told the Huffington Post, despite the fact that her tribe is "not the main contributor to emissions ... we are experiencing unpredictable weather [including] changing snowfall and rain patterns."

Indigenous activists demonstrated at the COP21 conference in Paris. Photo by Martin Bureau/AFP/Getty Images.

A changing climate also affects women disproportionately, especially in developing nations.

"If you undermine poor livelihoods, who has to pick up the pieces? Who has to put food on the table? Who has to go further in drought for firewood?" former Irish President Mary Robinson pointed out in an interview with Democracy Now.


Representatives of indigenous peoples of the Peruvian Amazon at COP21. Photo by Patrick Kovarik/AFP/Getty Images.

In the end, a compromise was reached. The disputed language is in the preamble.

Instead of including the language about human rights and gender equality in Article 2, it was kept inthe preamble of the final agreement, with indigenous rights, women's rights, and the rights of other vulnerable groups being mentioned specifically.

And on Dec. 13, the historic agreement was signed.

In the final version, the preamble recognizes countries' legal obligations to their citizens based on human rights law, which is important when it comes to addressing climate change. That's a really good thing.

But not everyone is thrilled by the compromise. Including the language in the preamble instead of in the actual body of the agreement weakens it.

"It's more difficult to make an argument that there is an obligation to implement the preamble as such, without reference to any other article," Rall said.

Still, Rall clarified, because the whole agreement is a "binding international treaty," the preamble still has "legal meaning."

Guaranteeing human rights shouldn't be so controversial.

Why do international agreements concerning basic human rights need so much negotiation? And, most frustrating of all, when we're this close to a binding, universal agreement on climate change, why hold up this progress on something that should be as uncontroversial as human rights and equality for all?

"It's not enough to just write it into the preamble, and say: 'OK, now we're done with this. We've dealt with this question,'" cautioned Rall. She says that various indigenous groups were unhappy with the ultimate result.

Still, she's optimistic. She hopes these groups are able to follow up on the agreement in their own countries, as well as globally.

The least we can do is help apply that pressure.

Badge
United Nations
Shaping Our Future Together
Heroes

The Paris climate accord has been approved! Now here's what that actually means for you.

True
The Wilderness Society

For the first time in history, representatives of 195 nations agreed to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Rejoice! Hooray! The world is saved!

GIF from "Captain Planet," obvi.

Well. Sort of. Ish. For now.

The so-called "Paris Agreement" was signed into effect Saturday evening, Dec. 12, 2015, after two weeks of grueling negotiations(and technically one day after what was supposed to have been the end of the Conference of the Parties, but that's OK).

It is a landmark step in slowing the effects of climate change across the globe. The mere fact that 195 nations actually came together and agreed on something is a pretty remarkable feat in itself, especially considering that the last 20 times the United Nations tried to get together to address global warming, all ended in resounding shrugs.

GIF via MTV News/Kanye.

While the historical importance of this cooperation is certainly worth celebrating, it's also an easy distraction from the more ... lackluster aspects of the climate deal.

Imagine those 195 nations involved in the agreement are 195 friends who all went out for dinner one night.

Now imagine the nightmare of trying to split the bill 195 ways. The Democratic Republic of the Congo doesn't want to go in on the $300 bottle of wine that the United States bought for the table. And the Marshall Islands had two more pieces of calamari than Brazil did, so Brazil wants them to pay the difference. Then, of course, there's Monaco, who only got a salad and yes OK paid for exactly what they ate plus a stingy tip, but they didn't factor in the tax and everyone else wants them to split the cost of the appetizers, too. And we haven't even gotten started on entrees yet!

Let's just say there was a lot of compromise involved. But hey, at least everyone had a good time, right?

Actual footage from the signing of the agreement. GIF via New York Times.

For example, there was a whole lotta hemming and hawing about the difference between a 1.5° and 2°C global temperature increase.

We know the overall climate is warming and we need to stop it before it gets worse. But there's some disagreement on what "worse" means, exactly.

The general consensus has been that 2 degrees Celsius is the cutoff for rising global temperatures by the end of the century. Any hotter than that, and it gets increasingly difficult to predict just how unpredictable the ecological damage could be. Also, 2 degrees seemed like a pretty attainable goal for most countries.

There are others, however, who were pushing to cap the rise at 1.5 degrees. And while that half-degree might seem like splitting hairs, there are some parts of the world where it could be the difference between life and death.

GIF from "Anchorman."

The result of all this back-and-forth? The global temperature increase will be capped at ... um ... well, we're gonna cap the global temperature increase.

Basically, every country gets to set its own limits for greenhouse gas emissions. These limits will be publicly available through the UN website so all nations can be held to proper public scrutiny.

Unfortunately, there's not really any requirement for these emission reductions other than "less than what we're doing now." Amid the fancy legalese of the formal agreement, it actually says: "Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible" (emphasis mine).

That's remarkably vague and noncommittal, especially for a legally binding contract. But the parties will reconvene every five years to review their progress and maybe-possibly increase those limits. So that's something?

The upside of the Paris Agreement: Everyone agrees that we need to take climate action.

Even if specific action is still left to the discretion of each nation, this is a big move in the right direction.

While the issue of global warming is hardly "solved" and we're not any closer to saving the planet once and for all (if such a thing is even possible), at least we acknowledge there's a problem, and we're committing to fix it.

Yes, there are some changes that will happen in your country and some things that might be integrated into your day-to-day lives. But you might not even notice them, and they might not be enough to make a difference.

That might seem like cold comfort. But it all depends on what we do from here on out.

So let's pledge as individuals to embrace climate-conscious lives whenever possible.

Vote with your dollars and go green when you can. You don't have to buy solar panels for your home — just pay attention to what you recycle. Walk, bike, or carpool when you can (and maybe next time you buy a car, aim for electric). Be aware of the world as you move through it, and consider the impact that actions might have on the future of our planet. And whenever there's an option that involves less fossil fuels, I implore you to take it.

That might be as vague and noncommittal as the Paris Agreement. But everything has to start somewhere.

Let's get started.

Trending Stories