COP 21 Explained #1 - The Paris Climate Change Conference - Saving the planet?

What the historic 2015 Paris Climate Conference was all about, why it was so important, and why the outcome was so significant. Or was it?

_____________

It has been over a month since the 21’st United Nations Climate Conference, or COP 21, was held in Paris. But what was it all about? Why was this conference so important? And what was so significant about “the Paris Agreement”?

Prior to the conference, held between 30 November and 12 December 2015, environmentalists, scientists and other influencers encouraged politicians to take action and promote new ambitious climate policies, to influence the outcome of the meeting in Paris. The conference could be followed live in TV broadcasts and on the internet across the globe, and on 12 December we read; “Success in Paris!”, “Climate Change Conference in Paris reaches global legally binding climate agreement”, “Agreement reached in Paris to limit global warming to 1,5°C”. The general impression I believe a lot of us got from news bulletins was that the world had finally come together to stop global warming and climate change. So is that it? Will the planet be saved now?

There are a lot of articles describing COP 21 and the Paris Agreement. Many of them good (BBC correspondent Matt McGrath has published a number of good articles on COP 21 and the agreement, which you can find here), some of them less so. Most of them describes only parts, or highlights, of the agreement, and tend to miss the whole picture. However, as with any other topic, many of the articles you find out there are influenced by the writer’s opinions, or they are written by people with agendas. Environmentalists tend to have an unrealistic focus on the positive things (in this case everything that might help mitigate global warming), without being critical enough as to what has actually been agreed. I don't believe this is constructive, as you might miss risks and barriers along the way to achieving your goal. On the other hand, skeptics (and I don’t mean climate skeptics in this case) tend to focus solely on the negative aspects – what didn’t come out of the meeting and what wasn’t in the agreement. This misses the big picture and the long-term perspective. However, you should remember that this is politics, so it’s not black and white. In order to understand the big picture, you have to look at all aspects of the issue.

What strikes me when reading about the climate conference, the agreement, or climate change itself, is that it appears that most people seems to want the same thing. Why would anyone oppose limiting global warming and climate change (again, let’s not get into a debate on climate skeptics)? So environmentalists and skeptics alike fundamentally wants the same thing – a climate change agreement that is likely to make a difference. They just have different ways of approaching the issue.

Of course, we all have thoughts and opinions about any topic, even if we don’t necessarily have an actual agenda or reason to try to influence others. Despite this, I wanted to try to give an unbiased view of the agreement. This will be the first in a series of 3 articles, describing what the Paris Agreement is, and what it isn’t.

Why The COP Exists

To understand the story behind COP 21 and why the COP (Conference Of the Parties) exists, we first have to get a little bit of history (don’t worry, it won’t be a lot).

Global warming and the risk of climate change has been known for a long time. Even as early as the late 19th century, scientists argued that emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) could cause global warming and lead to climate change. By the 1960s, anthropogenic (human caused) global warming with subsequent climate change was increasingly evident. But it would take until the early 1990s, when computer models and observations “confirmed” the theory of global warming, for a consensus to start to form in the scientific community. The international political response came in 1992, at the Rio Earth Summit. 

The “Rio Convention” adopted the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which established a framework for controlling and stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of GHG’s. The objective was to limit GHG concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the climate system.

So what do the scientists believe is “dangerous interference”? According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a temperature increase of more than 2°C compared to the pre-industrial era would lead to serious consequences, such as an increase in frequency of extreme weather events, that could become catastrophic and irreversible.

In order to limit global warming to 2°C before the end of this century, climate experts (i.e. the IPCC) estimated that GHG emissions needs to be reduced by 40-70% by 2050, and that zero emissions needs to be reached as soon as possible and no later than the end of the century.

This is where the COP comes in. The objective of the COP is to review the work of implementing the Rio Convention. Of course, there has been a number of COP’s (since we just had the 21st), but two of the perhaps most noticeable was the 1997 COP 3 in Kyoto, where the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, and the 2009 COP 15 in Copenhagen. But let’s get back to those later.

The Historic COP 21

That was the short history lesson, so let’s now get back to COP 21. Why then, of all COP’s, was the one in Paris so important, and why is it been called “historic”?

Well, it was important because the goal of COP 21 was to, for the first time (and we’ll get back to this as well) achieve a global legally binding climate agreement aimed at keeping global warming below 2°C at the end of the century, i.e. to come up with a response to global warming and climate change.

It has been called historic because the conference, represented by 196 parties, managed to negotiate what is called the “Paris Agreement”. This has been praised as the “first ever global legally binding climate change agreement, to reduce GHG emissions, limit global warming to 1,5°C, and mobilize measures to counter the impacts of climate change”.

That sounds like a success doesn’t it? The COP 21 achieved their goal, a global legally binding climate agreement that limits global warming to “well below” 2°C. Job done! Well, let’s get into a little bit more detail about what was actually agreed, by taking a closer look at some of the highlights from the Paris Agreement.

The Highlights

The final agreement is a 32-page document (which can be downloaded here) written in very specific language. Extreme attention to detail was given to the exact wording in the document (here is a good article describing the process of the negotiations), to make it flexible enough for all parties to be able to sign the agreement.

These are the highlights that are regarded as the key elements of the agreement. And remember that these elements have all been agreed upon in consensus by all parties of the convention.

1. Keep increase in global average temperature well below 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels.
2. Aim to limit the increase to 1,5°C to protect island states.
3. Aim for global emissions peak as soon as possible.
4. Review work that has been carried out by governments every 5 years – and set new more ambitious targets according to new science.
5. Report progress on target implementation to other parties and to the public.
6. Track progress towards the long-term goal through a transparency and accountability system.
7. Strengthen threatened societies ability to deal with impacts of climate change.
8. Provide continued and enhanced international support for adaptation to developing countries (and this is the big one which I will come back to in detail later).
9. Recognize the importance of minimizing loss and damage from impacts of climate change.
10. Acknowledge the need to cooperate and enhance the understanding, action and support in different areas such as early warning systems, emergency preparedness and risk insurance.
11. The EU and other developed countries will continue to support reduction in emissions and build resilience to the impacts of climate change in developing countries.
12. Developed countries are to mobilize USD 100 billion per year until 2025 when a new target will be set.

Note that the agreement aims to limit global warming to 1,5°C, which is a change from the previous target of 2°C. The reason for this more ambitious target is that it is believed to be necessary to protect vulnerable island states from sea level rise. This also sends a message to the parties that current actions are not enough, and more ambitious actions are needed in order to reach even the 2°C target.

This looks good doesn’t it? All parties have agreed to aim to limit global warming to 1,5°C, cooperate and review work every 5 years and set new more ambitious targets, help developing countries… These are the kind of highlights reported by news across the globe.

But wait a second, the attentive reader will have noticed that these highlights, which are key elements from the agreement, are mainly vague words. Aim to limit global warming to 1,5°C – how? Review work and report on progress on implementation – progress and implementation of what? Something is missing here, right? Well, yes and no. It is missing in the actual “agreement”. The agreement itself does not contain any collective or national emission reduction targets, nor does it contain any information on how to achieve the (not-included) targets.

Not including the targets and actions in the actual agreement, which is the document to be signed and ratified, raises the question; how valid are the elements in the agreement? Many articles report the highlights of the agreement, without having done their research on what the elements are based on. They are basically reporting what the COP wants them to report. This is dangerous since it creates an overly optimistic view on what has actually been agreed. I am not saying it’s wrong, it simply does not depict the whole picture. Optimism is good, and I believe it is a necessity especially when it comes to trying to combat something like global warming. But overly optimistic views create a gap between perception and reality. The key elements above represent many people’s perception of the agreement, but we need to look at the reality behind it.

The INDC’s

You will have to look at what the agreement is based upon, to find that there are national targets and plans of action to achieve those targets. The agreement is based on a voluntary emission reduction system, called “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” or INDC’s. All states were requested to submit their INDC’s ahead of the conference, and 160 were submitted (including a collective one for the EU), accounting for over 90% of global emissions. These are voluntary national climate action commitments to reduce GHG emissions, that countries intend to take under the agreement based on the country’s abilities to act. The word voluntary is significant and we will soon come back to that. Countries could also specify adaptation measures – policies to reduce the effects of climate change, which many of the most vulnerable states have done.

In addition to showing the state’s intended commitment and actions to fulfill those commitments, submitting the INDC’s ahead of the conference gave scientists the opportunity to estimate how close to the target (limit global warming to 2°C) we are. On 30 October, the UN published a synthesis report on the INDC’s combined impact. The estimates showed that the planned actions are not enough. According to the studies, the projection of global GHG emissions based on the submitted INDC’s would lead to a temperature increase of 2,7 to 3°C at the end of the century. However, we are moving away from the worst-case scenario of 4.5 to 6°C, that has been considered by scientists as the most likely up until the estimates based on the INDC’s.

So the COP 21 and the Paris Agreement didn’t achieve the goal of limiting global warming to “well below” 2°C. Not yet at least. However, they did take a huge leap forward from the previous worst case scenario, and managed to get commitment from parties to do more, which has resulted in an estimated change in global warming projections from 4,5 – 6°C to 2,7 – 3°C. This is a step in the right direction, and with the agreed 5 year intervals between meetings, reviewing and setting new targets, the long-term goal might actually be within reach.

The “Binding” Agreement

Remember I said that the word voluntary would be significant? Why would any country voluntarily bind themselves to an emission reduction commitment (except for perhaps Sweden)? Well, some wouldn’t, and that’s the point.

Imposed binding agreements have been tried before, and it simply didn’t work as intended. The Kyoto protocol was a milestone in international negotiations on climate change. Especially for the EU, which has always been at the forefront of promoting action against global warming and climate change.

For the first time, binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets were set for industrialized countries. However, a number of big emitting countries did not ratify the agreement. Despite this, the Kyoto protocol entered into force in 2005 and was intended to cover the period 2008-2012. The Bali Action Plan in 2007 established timelines for the negotiations towards a successor agreement to the Kyoto protocol, and it was expected that an agreement would be reached by the end of 2009. As most of you know, the parties did not manage to reach an agreement at the COP 15 in Copenhagen in 2009. So instead the Doha Conference in 2012 established a second commitment period, from 2013 to 2020, of the Kyoto protocol, which was ratified by a number of industrialized countries. However, the U.S. senate did not ratify the first, and therefore nor the second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol.

Following the limited participation in the Kyoto Protocol and the lack of agreement in Copenhagen in 2009, it became clear that imposed, top down legally binding treaties wouldn’t work. The attempt to impose binding targets on countries is seen by many as one of the reasons why the talks failed in 2009.

Prior to the Paris meeting, a number of big emitting emerging economies - including China, India and South Africa – said they were unwilling to sign up to an agreement that could have a negative impact on economic development.

Similarly, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned that the US would not sign a "Kyoto-style" treaty. So it is unlikely that the US would ratify a treaty, but with the authority of the president the US can still sign up to a Paris “Agreement” under an “executive agreement”, which would be more or less the same in terms of international law. However, this also means a future US president could easily issue another executive agreement abandoning the commitments made in Paris.

Aimed at achieving a broader commitment, the voluntary emission reduction system with the INDC’s were introduced with the Paris Climate Conference. The INDC system was designed to avoid the top down approach, with no legally binding emission reduction targets or actions. Whereas the Kyoto protocol was (is) a legally binding top down approach, and could therefore only really be applied to developed countries, the new system manages to get global commitment - even from developing countries (we shall see in a later article what the sudden commitment from developing countries really are based on). In that respect, the INDC system has already been a success.

"The Paris agreement will consequently be truly universal and binding for every country in the world"

This is the reason why the Paris Agreement isn’t, and shouldn’t be, a legally binding agreement when it comes to reduction targets – because it would eliminate a number of important parties. Even at the COP 21’s own webpage it says; “The Paris agreement will consequently be truly universal and binding for every country in the world”, and at the EU website it says: “At the Paris climate conference in December 2015, 195 countries adopted the first-ever universal, legally binding global climate deal." This is simply not true, or at least not the whole truth.

However, parts of the agreement are legally binding within the United Nations framework though. For example, the regular review and submission of emission reduction targets will be binding, so too will the $100bn a year fund from developed economies to help emerging and developing countries reduce their emissions, but not the reduction targets and actions themselves. There will not be any mechanism to force a country to set a specific target, nor to enforce the implementation of actions to meet a set target. Instead, there will be a “name and shame”, or “name and encourage” system.

So the COP 21 and the Paris Agreement did not achieve the goal of a global legally binding agreement either – not quite at least. But it may have achieved something greater than that, it may have actually achieved global commitment - a commitment from almost every country on the planet to take responsibility to limit global warming. It has mobilized forces to take action, placed climate change on the agenda, and even in the legal framework, in many countries. This is why the Paris Agreement should be mentioned as “historic” – not that it is a legally binding agreement, because that is at best stretching the truth (here is a good article on why it doesn’t matter if it is binding or not).

(A small note on the voluntary system though. The reason for the voluntary system and the INDC’s is to avoid a top down approach. However, this is exactly what has been done within the EU. The EU has set universal targets that will apply for all EU member states. This did not prevent states from presenting their own national INDC’s in addition to the one from the EU (as long as they had more ambitious targets) but the EU has at least imposed minimum targets and it’s now up to each and every state to fulfill that commitment as best they can.)

The Signing

So going forward, what will happen? The agreement will be open for signing in New York between 22 April 2016 and 21 April 2017, and the agreement will become “legally binding” if joined by at least 55 countries which together represent at least 55% of emissions. If so, the agreement enters into force in 2020.

So will the agreement be signed? Yes – there is no particularly good reason not to sign. Will it matter if it is signed or not – will the actions be taken and commitments fulfilled? With no binding targets, and only a name and shame system to “enforce” the agreement with, time will have to tell.

There is a gap between the 2°C goal and the commitments expressed by the INDC’s. But at least now they know what that gap is, and can start the political work to get even more traction and action until the agreement enters into force in 2020.

In the next article, we will dive a little deeper into the actual agreement, to get a better understanding of what has actually been agreed - beyond the highlights.