Most countries have committed to trying to reduce global warming, as coordinated within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). A BBC article, COP21: What does the Paris climate agreement mean for me?, explains the significance of targets agreed in 2015:[1]
“It was agreed by 195 nations. They will attempt to cut greenhouse gas emissions to a level that will limit the global average temperature to a rise "well below" 2C (3.6F) compared to pre-industrial levels - a level of warming deemed to be the point when dangerous climate change could threaten life on Earth.”
…Some of it is legally binding within the United Nations framework. The regular review and submission of emission reduction targets will be binding.
So too will the $100bn fund from developed economies to help emerging and developing nations decarbonise their energy mix - which means moving away from burning fossil fuels to clean energy sources, such as renewables and nuclear.
What won't be legally binding will be the emission targets. These will be determined by nations themselves.
Within the agreement the targets are known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). To date, 187 countries have submitted their INDCs.
Observers have calculated that all of the targets, if delivered, will only curb warming by 2.7C. This is well above, not well below, the 2.0C goal of the Paris Agreement.
This begs the question why the targets themselves are not legally binding under international law.
This relates back to the 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen. Observers say the attempt to impose binding targets on countries then was one of the reasons why the talks failed.
In Paris, a number of big emitting emerging economies - including China, India and South Africa - were unwilling to sign up to a condition that they felt could hamper their economic growth and development.”
It was intended that the NDCs would be progressively tightened and that they could be traded. This gave a flexible, but legally binding, framework of objectives for global initiatives on climate change. Its lack of rigidity made it more likely to succeed than the firm targets which were set by the earlier Kyoto Protocol. The UNFCCC operates a newsroom to publish its progress, which keeps up the international pressure on politicians to meet their promises. .
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the AR6 Synthesis Report in March 2023 to give scientific guidance to policymakers. In its headline statements it noted in a that “Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase” and referred to the “Urgency of Near-Term Integrated Climate Action”.
Progress has been patchy though, most importantly in China and America (the largest producers of greenhouse gases):
· China is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, largely because it has become the manufacturing centre for much of what wealthy countries consume. The UNFCC published China’s Achievements, New Goals and New Measures for Nationally Determined Contributions in June 2022, containing a commitment “that China would scale up its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by adopting more vigorous policies and measures, and aims to have CO2 emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060”.
· As described above (6.7.5.3), climate change policy is hotly disputed in America. In June 2017, the BBC reported Paris climate deal: Dismay as Trump signals exit from accord – fulfilling his election pledge. This reduced the accord’s effectiveness, although on 1 June 2017, 407 US Climate Mayors commit to adopt, honor and uphold Paris Climate Agreement goals. They were “representing 70 million Americans” and their statement ended by saying “The world cannot wait — and neither will we”.
· President Biden restored federal oversight of progress against NDCs, publishing A 2030 Emissions Target in April 2021 that showed progress and set “an economy-wide target of reducing its net greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52 percent below 2005 levels in 2030”.
· The Five key takeaways from COP27 in Egypt, in November 2022, included “A new funding arrangement on loss and damage - a pooled fund for countries most affected by climate change”, which is a positive development.
· Unfortunately, “the cover text failed to include a reference to the phasing out of all fossil fuels, seen as a necessary advance on last year's decision to phase down the use of coal”. This was probably due to the fact that “Attendees connected to the oil and gas industry were everywhere. Some 636 were part of country delegations and trade teams.”
· UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak slowed down Britain’s plans in an attempt to win popularity ahead of an impending General Election. He “announced exemptions and delays to several key green policies”, including “a five-year delay in the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars”. He “said he was "confident" the UK would hit net zero by 2050”, but was “accused of "wishful thinking" by the government's own climate adviser”. And the Auto industry slams Britain's petrol car ban delay and confusion:
“Analysts and executives also said the government's flip-flop meant Britain risked losing recent momentum in the adoption of greener transport, put off car buyers thinking of switching to EVs and disrupt plans by electric charge-point operators.”
Politicians are moving too slowly, making it harder to avoid painful and expensive adjustments later.
(This is an archive of a page intended to form part of Edition 4 of the Patterns of Power series of books. The latest versions are at book contents).
[1] The abbreviation COP21 refers to the 21st “Conference of the Parties” participating in the negotiations. A website is maintained to give a Past conferences overview, and the Paris Agreement is published within that website.