Paris Agreement on climate change

In December, 2015, a major climate policy meeting was held in Paris. The aim was to get an agreement among UN member countries, which will commit them to fight climate change. This articles argues that it was a futile exercise as leaders are not really commited to address the issue at hand. Of course, Mr. Trump says that he will throw that agreement out if he becomes President.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international environmental treaty that has been in force since 1994. The objective of this Convention is to stabilise the concentration of greenhouse (GHG) gases in the atmosphere, which has been found to be the principal cause on rising average global temperatures. The Conference of the Parties (COP) is the supreme decision-making body of the UNFCCC, and it meets annually to take decisions that further the fight against climate change.

While several of the previous COP meetings produced non-binding commitments from members, what was perhaps the most significant meeting by far was the COP21 held in Paris in December, 2015. The meeting began with much expectation, where more than150 countries were represented by the heads of state and government aimed at achieve a legally binding and universal agreement among the 196 member countries that will keep global warming below 2° Celsius (3.6° Fahrenheit) vis-à-vis pre-industrial revolution level. The stakes at the Paris Climate Conference were high. Some considered this meeting to be “the last chance” for a deal to avert “irreversible” climate change. Even the effects of the presently estimated 0.85° Celsius rise in average temperature can be felt through the occurrence of extreme weather events around the world, and at greater frequency.   As climate change does not respect political borders, any success in controlling rising GHG concentration levels requires a global effort. Otherwise, the Earth will become unrecognisably different within decades.

Developed countries fuelled their growth to their present state of well-being by GHG emission from fossil fuel, and they are still the largest per capita polluters. At the cost of heating up the Earth, these countries have created a large and widening economic disparity between themselves and less developed countries. Furthermore, poorer countries will suffer the most from climate change due to rising sea levels, extreme weather and threatened food and water security. For the developed countries to now take a moral high ground in forcing developing countries to cut back emission smacks of hypocrisy.  The rich have explicitly rejected any acceptance or compensation for their historical emissions. Also, the loudly trumpeted pledges from the developed countries into a climate fund to transfer money to developing countries suffering from the effects of climate change lies covered in accounting ambiguity.

Still, developing countries have no choice; we are after all highest at risk. Though we too feel entitled to cheap fuel, the cheapest and dirtiest being coal, there is a dire need for poorer countries to find alternative solutions as well. Finally a deal was reached in Paris, where countries agreed to work towards limiting temperature rise to 2° Celsius. Although much has been hyped the Paris deal, the Agreement itself does not just go far enough to guarantee even the 2° Celsius pledge.

Only by aggressively cutting down global carbon emissions can we hope to limit rising global average temperatures. But alas, I feel that not much will result from Paris.  For instance, certain sectors such as shipping and aviation were not included to satisfy trade dependent Singapore. The deal also does not address GHG from land use, something we Malaysians experience yearly from the forest fires in Indonesia.  What about the climate fund? There is continued ambiguity on it, both in terms of definition and how to measure what can be considered as climate finance. Ultimately, the Agreement is non-binding.  There is little cost for counties that fail to honour their pledges. As per Article 28 of the Agreement, countries can exit from the agreement after three years merely by giving a written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.  The country shall be deemed to have withdrawn from the Paris agreement without being subjected to any penalties for non-compliance.

After decades of lobbying against a climate change agreement by petroleum companies, there is finally a formal agreement signed by most countries on the planet. For any chance of success, all countries need to be on board.   Except for these petroleum companies, there will be only losers if we do not do anything. By some accounts, even the targeted 2° Celsius will leave ten per cent of the global human inhabitants underwater within decades. There is going to be mass migration, and food to feed the populace will become scarcer.  The elephant in the room that the climate change conferences refuse to address is population growth. Increasing population will, firstly, increase GHG emissions. Secondly, how are we going to feed the expanding population? These questions have to be addressed quickly but will be the hardest part for climate negotiators to even acknowledge; scientists have to take the lead in the discourse, not politicians. We cannot trust politicians to get anything important done these days. They live from election to election. As such, the variations in the Earth’s behaviour are of little interest to them. Since Paris, they having been talking very little about the climate. Dare I imagine what happens if Mr. Donald Trump becomes the President!