Why the climate change deal works

The more-ambitious-than-expected deal will see greenhouse gas emissions peak “as soon as possible”, and achieve a balance between sources and sinks of those gases in the second half of this century, with progress reviewed every five years. Countries will attempt to limit global temperature rise to between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius, the level scientists say must not be breached if we are to avoid the worst risks of global warming.

To help achieve these goals, rich countries will provide $100 billion a year to help developing countries deal with climate change – a figure that is included in the treaty’s preamble, and is not legally binding. Critics of the deal, from different parts of the political spectrum, have already tried to diminish its significance. But it deserves to be defended. As President Barack Obama has said, it may prove to be “the best chance we have to save the planet we have”.

For those who argue that the deal is not ambitious enough, it’s worth remembering that the talks nearly collapsed several times over the past two decades, and have been one of the most complex set of international negotiations ever. Whereas the 1997 Kyoto Protocol — which mandated country-by-country reductions in greenhouse gas emissions – involved a deal for the EU states and 37 developed countries, the Paris treaty also involved developing countries, which makes it the first genuinely global treaty to tackle climate change.

The provision that the deal must be reviewed every five years means that countries can toughen their response to climate change in the future, especially if the political and public will to tackle the problem increases with time.

Not surprisingly, sceptics of climate change have lambasted the agreement. Despite the now-overwhelming scientific evidence about the risks of global warming, a number of people, including several Republican candidates for the US presidential nomination, continue to state that climate change is at worst a grand hoax, or at best an unwelcome distraction from other key issues.

While there is always uncertainty with science, these critics are misguided. Even if scientists are somehow wrong about global warming, the Paris deal will help to more swiftly remove our dependence on fossil fuels, making the world a cleaner, less-polluted and more sustainable place. Moreover, it will motivate many countries to develop a broader range of fuel sources, especially renewable energy, which can help enhance energy independence at a time of growing geopolitical turbulence.

The consequences of a failure to act now would be the growing likelihood of devastating environmental damage. This is folly on a global scale.

So despite what critics claim, the Paris deal is a good one. It tops off a series of summits that have addressed the challenges of global warming and sustainable development more broadly. Paris follows not only the UN summit in New York in September, which established the new 2030 development goals, but also the Financing for Development conference in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in July, and the new framework for disaster risk reduction that was agreed to in Sendai, Japan in March. Collectively, these agreements could help billions across the world in coming decades.

Governments must now follow up on the political window of opportunity provided by the Paris conference. From 2016 onward, implementation will be most effective through national laws: the country commitments put forward in Paris will be more credible – and durable beyond the next set of national elections – if they are backed up by national legislation.

 

Andrew Hammond is an associate at the London School of Economics Centre for International Affairs, Strategy and Diplomacy. He is a former UK government special adviser.