News
COP-timism-21: Beginning of climate action
The recently concluded United Nations Climate Change Summit in Paris (known as COP21) has ended with optimism of the potential that mankind might restrict global temperature increase to below 2°C and even an aspiration of a more ambitious target of 1.5°C.
Parts of the agreement are said to be ‘legally binding’ and has been hailed as a success of diplomacy.
Getting nearly 200 countries to agree to anything is an achievement in itself, and can be attributed to pragmatism on the part of UN, the French organisers and the spirit of compromise of the countries involved.
While this agreement is not the solution, it is the beginning of a potential solution.
Firstly, the world is already almost 1°C warmer than pre-industrial times and the potential effects of this on the climate is visible.
Ten of the last twelve years have been the warmest years since records began 135 years ago. While in March this year, we passed the milestone of 400 parts per million CO2, which is 50 ppm above what is believed to be a safe level.
The last time the earth had this much CO2 in the atmosphere was between 2.6 and 5.3 million years ago. Even if the world was to stop all greenhouse gas emissions today, the effect of warming due to what is already in the atmosphere can’t be reversed.
So in reality, under the current state of affairs, there will be no real reduction in global emissions, CO2 and temperature till after 2050 or most likely later.
Secondly, under the current agreement, countries make their own commitments to reduce carbon emissions (known as Intended Nationally Declared Commitments – INDCs) and these national commitments are outside of the actual agreement.
This means they are non-legally binding and there is no mechanism to ensure a country meets these commitments or to penalise them if they don’t.
Finally, countries act in their own national interests. All nations feel that cutting emissions will affect their economies and development. So naturally all countries have not even committed the bare minimum reductions. Based on the reductions proposed by all countries, the world is looking at a 2.7°C or even 3°C world.
The agreement is far from perfect and a discussion of its flaws could be endless. It makes you wonder, if the current scenario is a 2.7-3°C world, why is it being hailed a success?
A look back at 2009, the COP15 summit in Copenhagen which was to result in countries agreeing to a binding agreement to cut emissions by a specific number similar to the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 ended in failure.
These talks fell apart at the end due to actions of a few nations acting in their own self-interest. They believed binding emissions cuts would hurt their economies.
What the leaders of the world learned from this is that the time when the world could unanimously agree on anything for the greater good has passed.
The preparations for the current agreement started immediately after the failure of Copenhagen with the intention of getting an agreement no matter what. It is clearly a success in that it is an agreement which is the beginning of change. This can be seen in three main points:
First, it got countries of the world to agree to a 1.5°C and 2°C world. This alone was a big achievement with countries initially even proposing higher limits. Locking these numbers in with strong wording alone was a worthy achievement.
Secondly, the move to renewable energy has started and this can’t be stopped. This is driven partly by investment by the EU and the US to take it away from dependence on fossil fuels and China in order to deal with their catastrophic levels of pollution driven by a dependence on coal.
The cost of renewables has gone down and the rise in its use has been rapid and is more than likely to increase. Under the current agreement rich nations have agreed to a transfer of technology to poorer nations.
If poorer nations do leapfrog the fossil fuel stage of development and move straight to renewables, the results would be significant.
Thirdly, though the current INDCs are insufficient, they will be reviewed every five years. Some countries had attempted to have these reviewed every 10, 15 or even 20 years which would clearly have been too late to make any effective changes.
The key point here is that the attitudes of society change with time. As the climate changes so will the demand by society for change.
Having five years INDC review periods could be the most important element of the agreement as it allows flexibility for societies to push countries to change in the face of effects of climate change they experience or observe.
In reality, the shift in energy from fossil fuels to renewables and the flexibility that INDCs provide could mean that a keeping temperature below 1.5°C or even reversing temperature increases might not be just a pipe dream.
This agreement is not the end but clearly the beginning of climate action.
(The writer is a researcher and founder of Conservation Link, a company that specialises in ecosystem restoration and conservation education)