The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 21st Conference of the Parties (COP 21) which concluded last Saturday 12th December in Paris succeeded in delivering a universal framework agreement that concretises the direction of the climate change discourse and more importantly affirms the scope of the problem and the directions in which solutions should be sought. Coming after failures such as that which occurred in Copenhagen in 2009, it could be regarded as an important accomplishment.
As is not unusual with these huge global meetings in which national governments and so many others have invested significant political capital (even more so since after the terrorist attack in Paris success was belatedly billed as intended to deliver a historic blow to global terrorism), much official euphoria has emanated since the conclusion of that indaba. But the difficulties that are likely to arise if we do not reverse the present direction of our changing climate are so considerable that we should not allow ourselves to be swayed by what are essentially official claims of victory.
A few weeks ago, this column (UNFCC Paris 2015: the meaning of success. SN 07/10/2015) indicated what the Paris agreement should contain if it is to be considered successful. Thus, notwithstanding the generality agreed to in paragraph one above, without much comment (that will come later) I will briefly restate the criteria for success stated in the article and my understanding of how they are addressed in the just concluded agreement.
Firstly, the call was for high ambition in relation to the level of temperature rise that should be the global goal by the end of this century using preindustrial times as a baseline. Small islands and low-lying states, such as those in the Caribbean Community, felt that if the agreement stuck to the usually touted goal of 2ºC many of them may well disappear and thus a goal of 1.5ºC or less would be more appropriate.
Article 2 of the Paris agreement speaks of:
‘Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.’
Secondly, the summit was not to be considered a success if it allowed rich countries to make financial promises with little clarity on how the money will be raised. At least two issues arise here.
- Many developing countries want financial resources to help reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, etc. and in 2009 in Copenhagen, developed countries promised to provide $100bn a year by 2020.
Article 9 of the agreement states:
Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention and other Parties are encouraged to provide or continue to provide such support voluntarily.’
And Section 111 (Decision to give effect to the Agreement) 54 states:
‘… developed countries intend to continue their existing collective mobilization goal through 2025; … prior to 2025 the Conference of the Parties … shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries.’
- Some vulnerable developing countries are facing irreversible and permanent damage from climate change and wanted a strong agreement that recognises the dangers and offers protection. Developed countries appeared ready to recognise their historical role in causing the problem but, like the US, have been opposed to any language in the agreement that makes them or their companies legally liable for climate change damage.
Article 8 states:
‘Parties recognize the importance of averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, … and the role of sustainable development in reducing the risk of loss and damage. (but) …the Agreement does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation.’
Thirdly, to be a success the agreement would have to contain practical steps to challenge the $1 trillion dollars of annual subsidies to fossil fuel industries. Reaching the goal of 1.5ºC or even 2ºC means that there must be zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2170. This would be near impossible if something is not done now to rein in the use of fossil fuels.
In relation to this, Article 3 states:
‘In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases (net zero emissions) in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.’
Finally, the agreement would not be considered a success if it does not provide a process that continually and relentlessly confronts Parties and their publics with the gap between trajectory and goal. Transparency and accountability regarding the gap should do something to drive appropriate action.
Articles 14 & 15 of the Agreement state:
‘The Conference of the Parties … shall periodically take stock of the implementation of this Agreement to assess the collective progress towards achieving the purpose of this Agreement … The Conference … shall undertake its first global stocktake in 2023 and every five years thereafter … A mechanism to facilitate implementation of and promote compliance with the provisions of this Agreement is hereby established (and) … shall consist of a committee that shall be expert-based and facilitative in nature and function in a manner that is transparent, non-adversarial and non-punitive.’
Apart from the high praise coming mainly from official sources, there are some sobering comments. It is claimed that until governments agree measures to curtail the use of fossil fuels, global warming cannot be properly addressed, and the final agreement is seen by some as too vague. For example, as we have seen above, the final text commits governments only to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions ‘as soon as possible’. James Hansen, one of the first to begin raising awareness about the dangers of climate change, has said of the agreement ‘It’s a fraud really, a fake’.
