The French are famous for their diplomacy and negotiation skills, and perhaps this was the crucial ingredient missing from previous efforts to agree upon common objectives for tackling climate change that we saw nothing come out of the climate conferences in Rio, Kyoto and Copenhagen. However, 2015 marks a major shift from that trend since the climate talks in Paris earlier this month have borne fruit in the form of an agreement between all 195 participating countries.
The deal itself is a remarkable policy proposal, one that could end up changing the way we think about socio-economic development. It calls for holding increases in the global average temperature to well below two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, in recognition of the consensus within the scientific community that such an increase in temperature would result in catastrophe for the planet in the form of floods, droughts and widespread water and food shortages. Additionally, the signatories have agreed to make all possible efforts to reach their greenhouse emission peaks as soon as possible, so that the shift from traditional sources of energy like fossil fuels can be phased out faster and be replaced by sustainable energy. Furthermore, the deal requires frequent assessments — every five years beginning from 2023 — of national performance by countries to cut down emissions.
This last aspect is related to another point in the deal through which signatory countries are required to monitor, verify and report their greenhouse gas emissions through a common system of evaluation, much to the chagrin of developing states that wanted a more lenient system for themselves and a harsher mechanism for developed states. Moreover, the climate agreement, which will come into force in 2020, calls on nations to increase financing towards the research and adoption of sustainable practices, and encourages states to continuously update their commitments and be in competition with themselves in terms of meeting and even outdoing their own targets.
The hopes for agreeing upon a single agreement by all the participant countries were quite low, especially when we keep in mind the stubbornness during negotiations and the inflexibility to compromise during previous climate conferences. So, it came as a bit of a surprise to see all 195 nations coming together to set goals for a sustainable future. Obviously, there had to be some hardball and arm-wrangling by the diplomats involved before everyone was in agreement, but the fact that, unlike previous attempts where diplomacy came to none, this time enough goodwill has been generated regarding tackling climate change is remarkable.
But of course, just like any other policy agreement, the climate accord reached in Paris has its deficiencies too. First, the goals set by common agreement are not aggressive enough to ensure even the stoppage — let alone reversal — of the damage that is already going to take place because of policy inertia. However, in the deal’s defence, such compromises are characteristic of the deal agreed upon among such a huge number of nations, where everyone has to be appeased and taken on board.
Second, even if the goals are somehow seen as pragmatic and realistic, there is no mechanism for the global community to enforce them and punish the states that fail to meet standards. Institutions play a crucial role towards the execution of policy in domestic contexts but, internationally, we are yet to agree to such binding bodies. In their absence then, caring for the climate can only come through either by suffering direct climate-related tragedy or through sheer altruism, two possibilities that provide a weak foundation for the future.
But, that being said, the deal is nonetheless a huge step in the right direction. Just the fact that this many countries were able to agree upon something is remarkable in itself, and when we look at the agreement from a trans-national standpoint, the enormity of what has been achieved becomes even more obvious. Part of the reason behind why the agreement has been possible only now and was not earlier on is that the effects of climate change have started becoming apparent to a wider audience. Previously, climate science was shunned to the domain of the absurd but the discipline has garnered the attention of brilliant minds in the scientific as well as the political community alike in recent times, resulting in a much-needed consensus.
Additionally, this time around, the developed and developing countries have been able to resolve their differences through bargaining and compromise, which previously had been a sticking point during climate conferences. Prior to this climate conference in Paris, however, big polluters like China and the US had signed bilateral agreements to tackle climate change through change in their economic practices. Similarly, post-Paris, many important developing countries, such as India, have also been given leeway in reaching their peaks for carbon emissions further down the line, so as to not compromise growth and development, and to subdue any concerns about climate justice.
Only time will tell how successful the efforts of states towards reducing the impact of climate change will be but it is nonetheless refreshing to see a sense of urgency towards addressing an issue that has lacked proper attention for far too long. Hopefully, this agreement will be enough to stimulate research in environmental sciences and direct crucial funding towards sustainable practices, two possibilities that have been the bane of the supporters for aggressive policy. But, before all that can take place, we need to weed out the deniers among us who are still too stubborn to witness the rapid changes taking place in the environment all around them. Only then would we be able to successfully usher in what truly would be a new era for our future generations.
The author is a freelance columnist with degrees in political science and international relations