COP21

In December 2015, leaders from across the globe met in Paris at the UNFCCC’s (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) COP21 conference in Paris. 197 countries signed a historic agreement committing, for the first time, to limit total global temperature increases to ‘well below’ 2˚C above pre-industrial levels. It was also recognised that a target of 1.5˚C would be more desirable. The Paris Agreement  is the the topic of this blog post because today it entered into force. This means that countries which have ratified the treaty (a total of 97 counties responsible for 66% of global emissions) are now legally bound to it.

This is certainly a big step forward, and when the agreement was signed in December, and again today on its implementation, there were a swath of celebratory headlines. For example, both CNN and The Guardian published articles labelling it ‘the end of fossil fuels’. Others however were critical.

So what’s the true story? Admittedly, amongst the hysteria there were a number of articles that were balanced and accurate. However, I think the best analysis is in the UNEP (United Nations Environment Program) Emissions Gap Report, the launch of which I was lucky enough to attend yesterday. The report looks at whether countries are sticking to previous climate commitments, such as Cancun 2020 pledges, and what impact the Paris Agreement may have. It’s a very interesting read, and I’d really recommend having a look using the link above. 

In short, it identifies a significant gap (hence the name) between current pledges and actions and those needed by 2030 to keep us on track for the 2˚C goal. According to their analyses, annual emissions will need to be reduced to 42 Gt CO₂ (1 gigatonne (Gt) = a billion tonnes) by 2030 to have a 66% chance of meeting our 2˚C target. Based on the pledges made at Paris (see Box 1) we are projected to be 12-14 Gt above this. This would result in a temperature increase of 3.4-3.7˚C.

Box 1: INDCs After the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen summit due to countries being able to agree how to split the responsibility for reducing emissions, a new approach was sought. Each country came to Paris having decided their own emissions reductions pledges, or ‘Intended Nationally Determined Contributions’ (INDCs). This did resulting in successfully reaching the groundbreaking agreement to limit warming to 2˚C, but the total of the INDCs is not sufficient to get there. Furthermore, some INDCs were conditional, for example on financial aid.

Image 1: Projected possible emissions pathways, based on business as usual, current policy, and Paris pledges scenarios. Image taken from the UNEP Emissions Gap Report.

Overall then, the Paris Agreement shows governments across the globe are taking the threat of climate change seriously and are willing to take serious steps to combat it. It also shows the potential for global diplomacy, and is a cause for optimism in this sense. However, it does not represent a ‘solution’ to climate change. We are still a long way off a point where global leaders reach an agreement that will actually achieve the aim they signed up to Paris.