While the linked Huffington Post article about CoP21 is about a week old, it still makes some interesting points; which remind me of the Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times".
The article makes it clear that just to meet the somewhat weak INDCs, the private sector will need to make tens of trillions of dollars of investments to re-tool the global economy; which will soon utilize all of the expected bond capacity in the international market place. I note that this investment will have a significant carbon footprint for the next few decades; at just the same time as the private sector is already planning on making major investments in robotics, and smart infrastructure (which will also have an additional significant carbon footprint). Also, I note that photovoltaics are highly dependent on rare earths that will soon come into short supply; which will cause another round of re-investment in capital for other types of renewable energy sources (which will also have a carbon footprint). Assuming that the world economy will re-invent itself in a few short decades without a lot of inefficiencies and increased levels of risk, seems short sighted. Which is not to say that we should not try, but is to say that we should be prepared to deal with some major fallout during the next several decades:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/assaad-w-razzouk/the-paris-climate-talks-c_b_8358928.htmlExtract: "The INDCs are the driving force of COP21 and will become the development pathway for all countries. Weak and general at first, they will become stronger and more detailed over time.
Two major consequences will follow.
First, multi-trillion dollar investment opportunities for the private sector will be clearly delineated, while others, far from where the country is heading, should be avoided.
…
Second, the breadth of these INDCs means that within a few years, all finance will be climate finance; and all bonds will be green bonds.
…
The business and the financial world will be markedly absent from Paris, but should closely monitor the evolution of INDCs and of "loss and damage" in Paris. These could upend how they currently do business."
PS: In response to jai's post, I concur that using the term "possible" is not a good idea; as many people assume that this means that I think we will in fact stay below the 2C goal; which I do not believe to be the case. My point in using the term "possible" is to emphasis that anthropogenic global warming is pure and simply a result of human mindset; unfortunately, I do not believe that people will can their way of thinking fast enough to prevent very dire consequences to our socio-economic-environmental systems, possibly as soon as 2035, but certainly by 2050.
PPS: I neglected to mention that all of the "loss & damage" from climate change will also require still more capital investment (which will also have some level of carbon footprint).