Xie Zhenhua, the Special Representative for Climate Change for China (left), Prakash Javadekar, the Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change of India (middle), and Bomo Edna Molewa, the Minister of Environmental Affairs of South Africa (right), at a new conference in Le Bourget, France.
Introduction
The 21st United Nations Conference of Parties (COP21) was held five years ago and was adopted on 12th December 2015. It was held in Paris from 30th November to 13th December. The plan for the conference was to set a framework for all countries on an international level to curb their carbon emissions and limit climate change to below 2ºC and try to limit it to below 1.5ºC. Forever known as the Paris Agreement, it is the first international agreement holding countries to a form of accountability on climate change; with almost 190 countries as signatories, this was seen as a fundamental step in the direction towards a safer, ‘less warm’ planet for future generations. But was it?
It has been recorded that the past five years have been the warmest years since 1880, with 2018 as the fourth warmest year and 2019 as the second warmest year. The National Aeronautics and Space Association (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are two organizations that have been instrumental in monitoring various changes in climate. Their analysis indicated how warm the past decade had been, with 2019 marked as the 43rd consecutive year that global land and ocean temperatures were above average. Reports show that if the current rate of temperature increase continues, we will be facing more ice melting, sweltering heat, and higher water levels that could lead to the loss of tens of millions of lives.
This led me to wonder with all the meetings that have taken place, why is there no difference to the rate at which climate change has continued to worsen? If the five years after the Paris Agreement got warmer, that indicates that the rate of global warming increased. Does this mean that the Paris Agreement was a failure?
COP21 and Beyond
After COP21 was introduced, the agreement was open to be signed by all in favour beginning 22 April 2016 (Earth Day). The initiative was to accelerate and intensify all the actions and investments needed for a sustainable low carbon future. Ambitious efforts were to be undertaken, with ideas to also enhance support to assist developing countries. In addition, the agreement aims to improve nations’ ability to deal with the impacts of climate change and their ability to make finance flows more consistent with that of low greenhouse gas emissions. Such a future would entail lower carbon emissions from industrial companies, reduction in burning of harmful fuels, green consumerism, and so on.
In order to reach these ambitious goals, there had to be appropriate collection of financial resources and a functioning technological framework to be set in place beforehand. Capacity-building would be very relevant to the success of this plan; the idea was to provide support to struggling and developing economies with weaker institutions, so that they would be able to reduce their own emissions based on their national objectives.
The agreement aimed to be transparent. Government’s would meet every five years to ascertain their standing based on their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) reports or statements entailing each country’s plan on how to reduce their carbon emissions and make a more sustainable system long-term. INDCs are binding at a national level, as a review process will monitor each country’s progress in regards to their emissions target. This is fundamental to the Paris Agreement.
Each country’s administration would also be expected to: redeliberate within their national systems on the need to improve their INDCs over time, report to each other and their citizens on their plans to alleviate climate change shocks, and make sure every nation is held accountable for the plans they have set. This was the plan. The problem, however, is that while the agreement is a legal document, it is not really legally binding. It is said to be a hybrid of legally binding and non-binding agreements. It consists of a core agreement that controls the international process, which is legally binding for all applicable parties, in addition to aspects that are not legally binding to any parties, such as the aforementioned INDCs.
However, countries cannot actually be held to this agreement. This means that if a country does not meet its target, there are no consequences (apart from the effects of climate change, that is). In like manner, countries cannot be made to join the Paris Agreement and can leave at any time - as the United States did under President Donald Trump’s administration. So what we have in essence, is a voluntary means of reducing the effects of climate change but only if a nation’s administration is willing.
Furthermore, INDCs come with another dilemma. By the 7th of July 2015, 45 countries had posted their INDCs; the EU said it would cut its emissions to 1990 levels, Australia set theirs for 2000 levels, the US and New Zealand set theirs for 2005 levels, and China - who wasn’t aiming to cut emissions - set their goal to peak by 2030 without a clear level. Developing nations set their plans to reduce their emissions to as much as they are capable. The Minister of Environment for Morocco, Hakima El Haite made a statement, explaining how INDCs are hard to calculate, or rather compare, because nations use different values to evaluate their emissions.
In conclusion, the plan for a treaty that holds every nation accountable is a step forward towards a safer planet, but much still needs to be done to ensure that everyone does their part in reducing emissions and making this planet last for many more years. The Paris Agreement gives hope for a better collaboration between countries, but we all know that the progress we have achieved can be even greater. There is still a lot of work to do.
Comments