What's the Forecast After Paris? Sun and Clouds

The 21st UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) ended with the approval of the Paris Agreement on 12 December. Starting this 22 April, the Agreement can be signed by all countries and it will become effective when at least 55 parties representing at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions have signed it.

COP21 ended with grandiose declarations from both its chairman Laurent Fabius and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. The historical agreement was much discussed because countries around the world were finally committed to trying to limit the increase of the average world temperature to under 2°C compared to the pre-industrial era. But is this truly the case or does the Paris Agreement run the risk of being a repetition of the Kyoto Protocol approved at the end of COP3?

The answer, as often happens, is that the glass is half full or half empty depending on how you look at it.

For environmentalists and anyone looking at the data from a scientific point of view, the glass is without a doubt half empty. In fact, the statement that participants are committed to limiting temperature increases to two degrees is false. Each country autonomously defined and presented their plan of action to reduce emissions (called INDC, Intended Nationally Determined Contributions), but if individual contributions are added together and compared with maximum emissions for a good probability of staying within an increase of two degrees, it can be seen that total emissions are clearly higher. In addition, no international sanction is provided for if the commitments presented are not met, but countries can exit the Agreement with one year of advance notice.

But those who see the glass as half full also have several reasons to be optimistic. First of all, for the first time almost all countries, representing approximately 90% of global emissions, have submitted a plan of action against climate change. The Agreement also calls for national plans to be updated every five years and countries cannot submit less rigorous commitments than previously presented. This means that, if the Agreement is honored, future emissions will have to be lower than the current trend.

Another important point that has made strides is "transparency." For some time, many countries have insisted on the fact that without a reliable system of MRV (Measurement, Reporting and Verification), national commitments have been written in the sand. Now, signatory countries will be forced to regularly communicate information on their emissions, as well as on progress made in drafting their INDC, which will be subject to the technical review of experts. The "transparency" requirement was also introduced for the communication of aid that developed countries are committed to providing to developing countries. The aim was to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. In the past, developed countries complained of the low reliability of commitments to reduce emissions made by developing countries. At the same time, developing countries complained about the fact that developed countries pledging aid did not follow through. We must now wait and see if the "transparency" requirement will push both kinds of countries to make a more serious commitment.

Regarding rich countries providing aid to poor countries, which was one of the most conflicting points at the Paris Conference, it should be noted that the preamble of the Agreement says it "shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year." The text, however, simply states that aid "should represent a progression beyond previous efforts."

As can be seen in this last example, a careful reading of the text of the Paris Agreement proves both critics and supporters right. For the former, promises are insufficient and too vague. For the latter, strides have been made and, more importantly, involvement in the fight against climate change is by now a general fact. The Paris Agreement is in any case only the beginning of a move towards a more pronounced commitment in the fight against climate change. There is an increasing number of people who think that only greater awareness of the problem and a bottom-up effort will be able to truly change the position of world political authorities.