Comments due by February 9, 2019
(The following is 3 years old but I think that it explains many of the basic issues about the Paris agreement by one of the best known environmental professors and environmental bloggers in the world)
The Paris Agreement, a truly landmark climate accord, which was gaveled through , December 12, 2015, at 7:26 pm (Paris time) at the Twenty-First Conference of the Parties (COP-21), checks all the boxes in my five-point scorecard for a potentially effective Paris Agreement, described in my November 17th blog essay, Paris Can Be a Key Step. The Agreement provides a broad foundation for meaningful progress on climate change, and represents a dramatic departure from the Kyoto Protocol and the past 20 years of climate negotiations.
I have viewed the dichotomous distinction between Annex I and non-Annex I countries as the major stumbling block to progress. That distinction was first introduced in the climate negotiations at COP-1 in Berlin in 1995. That was, in my view, an unfortunate and narrow interpretation of the sound equity principle in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 1992) – “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” It was codified two years later in the Kyoto Protocol.
The Kyoto Protocol, which has been the primary international agreement to reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions that cause global climate change, included mandatory emissions-reduction obligations only for developed countries. Developing countries had no emissions-reduction commitments. The dichotomous distinction between the developed and developing countries in the Kyoto Protocol has made progress on climate change impossible, because growth in emissions since the Protocol came into force in 2005 is entirely in the large developing countries—China, India, Brazil, Korea, South Africa, Mexico, and Indonesia. The big break came at the annual UNFCCC negotiating session in Durban, South Africa in 2011, where a decision was adopted by member countries to “develop [by December 2015, in Paris] a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties.” This “Durban Platform for Enhanced Action” broke with the Kyoto Protocol and signaled a new opening for innovative thinking (which we, at the Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, took to heart).
The Paris Agreement is a Departure from the Past
Today, in Paris, representatives of 195 countries adopted a new hybrid international climate policy architecture that includes: bottom-up elements in the form of “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs), which are national targets and actions that arise from national policies; and top-down elements for oversight, guidance, and coordination. Now, all countries will be involved in taking actions to reduce emissions.
Remarkably, 186 of the 195 members of the UNFCCC submitted INDCs by the end of the Paris talks, representing some 96% of global emissions. Contrast that with the Kyoto Protocol, which now covers countries (Europe and New Zealand) accounting for no more than 14% of global emissions (and 0% of global emissions growth).
This broad scope of participation under the new Paris Agreement is a necessary condition for meaningful action, but, of course, it is not a sufficient condition. Also required is adequate ambition of the individual contributions. But this is only the first step with this new approach. The INDCs will be assessed and revised every five years, with their collective ambition ratcheted up over time. That said, even this initial set of contributions could cut anticipated temperature increases this century to about 3.5 degrees Centigrade, more than the frequently-discussed aspirational goal of limiting temperature increases to 2 degrees C (or the new aspirational target from Paris of 1.5 degrees C), but much less than the 5-6 degrees C increase that would be expected without this action. (An amendment to the Montreal Protocol to address hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) is likely to shave an addition 0.5 C of warming.)
The problem has not been solved, and it will not be for years to come, but the new approach brought about by the Paris Agreement can be a key step toward reducing the threat of global climate change.
The new climate agreement, despite being path-breaking and the result of what Coral Davenport writing in The New York Times rightly called “an extraordinary effort at international diplomacy,”is only a foundation for moving forward, but it is a sufficiently broad and sensible foundation to make increased ambition over time feasible for the first time. Whether the Agreement is truly successful, whether this foundation for progress is effectively exploited over the years ahead by the Parties to the Agreement, is something we will know only ten, twenty, or more years from now.
What is key in the Agreement is the following: the centrality of the INDC structure (through which 186 countries representing 96% of global emissions have made submissions); the most balanced transparency requirements ever promulgated; provision for heterogeneous linkage, including international carbon markets (through “internationally transferred mitigation outcomes” – ITMOs); explicit clarification in a decision that agreement on “loss and damage” does not provide a basis for liability of compensation; and 5-year periods for stocktaking and improvement of the INDCs.
The Key Elements of the Paris Agreement
Here are some of the highlights of what stands out to me in the Paris Agreement.
Article 2 of the Agreement reaffirms the goal of limiting the global average temperature increase above the pre-industrial level to 2 degrees C, and adds 1.5 degrees C as something even more aspirational. In my opinion, these aspirational goals – which come not from science (although endorsed by most scientists) nor economics, and may not even be feasible – are much less important than the critical components of the agreement: the scope of participation through the INDC structure, and the mechanisms for implementation (see below).
Article 3 makes it clear that the INDC structure is central and universal for all parties, although Article 4 blurs this a bit with references to the circumstances of developing country Parties. But throughout the Agreement, it is abundantly clear that the firewall from the 1995 Berlin Mandate has finally been breached. In addition,five-year periods for the submission of revised INDCs (and global stocktaking of the impact of the Paris Agreement) are included in Article 14. The first stocktaking review will be in 2018, with the start date for new INDCs set for 2020.
Article 4 importantly describes transparency requirements (domestic monitoring, reporting, and verification). This is crucial, and represents a striking compromise between the U.S. and Europe, on the one hand, and China and India, on the other hand. All countries must eventually face the same monitoring and reporting requirements, regardless of their status as developed or developing.
Article 6 provides for international policy linkage, and is therebyexceptionally important for the successful exploitation of the foundation provided by the Paris Agreement. The necessary language for heterogeneous international policy linkage (not only international carbon markets, but international linkage of other national policy instruments) is included. I have written about this key issue many times over the past ten years. It can bring down compliance costs greatly, and thereby facilitate greater ambition over time. (See our paper on this from the Harvard Project on Climate Agreements: “Facilitating Linkage of Heterogeneous Regional, National, and Sub-National Climate Policies Through a Future International Agreement” By Daniel Bodansky, Seth Hoedl,Gilbert E. Metcalf and Robert N. Stavins, November 2014.) The Paris Agreement accomplishes this through provision for “internationally transferred mitigation outcomes.” With this provision, we have a new climate policy acronym – ITMOs – about which I suspect I will be writing in the future.
There is considerable discussion of “finance” in Article 9, but the numbers do not appear in the Agreement, only in the accompanying Decision, where item 54 states that by 2025, the Parties will revisit the total quantity of funding, using the current $100 billion target as a “floor.”
Finally, the Agreement’s Article 8 on Loss and Damage was necessary from the point of view of the most vulnerable countries, but the most contentious issue is settled in Decision 52, where the Parties agree that this “does not involve or provide a basis for any liability of compensation.” That decision was absolutely essential from the perspective of the largest emitters.
Anticipated Impacts of the Paris Agreement
Before I turn to my assessment of the Agreement, I should comment briefly on a topic that seems to be of considerable interest to many people (based on the questions I received from the press during my 10 days in Paris), namely what effect will the Agreement have on business, what signals will it send to the private sector?
My answer is that impacts on businesses will come largely not directly from the Paris Agreement, but from the policy actions that the various Parties undertake domestically in their respective jurisdictions to comply with the Paris Agreement. I am again referring to the 186 countries which submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contributions – INDCs – under the Agreement.
So, in the case of the United States, for example, those policies that will enable the country to achieve its submitted INDC are: the Clean Power Plan (which will accelerate the shift in many states from coal to natural gas for electricity generation, as well as provide incentives in some states for renewable electricity generation); CAFE (motor vehicle fuel efficiency) standards increasing over time (as already enacted by Congress); appliance efficiency standards moving up over time (as also already enacted by Congress); California’s very aggressive climate policy (AB-32); and the northeast states’ Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
These various policies are credible, and they will send price signals that affect business decisions (but not across the board nor with ideal efficiency, as would a national carbon tax or a national carbon cap-and-trade system). In terms of impacts on specific companies, impacts will continue to vary greatly. But a useful generalization is that a major effect of most climate policies is to raise energy costs, which tends to be good news for producers of energy-consuming durable goods (for example, the Boeing Company) and bad news for consumers of those same energy-consuming durable goods (for example, United Airlines).
An Assessment with my Paris Scorecard
Lastly, here is my November 17th scorecard and my assessment of the five key elements I said would constitute a successful 21stConference of the Parties:
- Include approximately 90% of global emissions in the set of INDCs that are submitted and part of the Paris Agreement (compared with 14% in the current commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol). This was obviously achieved, with total coverage reaching 96% of global emissions.
- Establish credible reporting and transparency requirements. This was achieved, through long negotiations between China and India, on the one hand, and Europe and the United States, on the other.
- Move forward with finance for climate adaptation (and mitigation)B the famous $100 billion commitment. This was achieved.
- Agree to return to negotiations periodically, such as every 5 years, to revisit the ambition and structure of the INDCs. This wasachieved.
- Put aside unproductive disagreements, such as on so-called “loss and damage,” which appears to rich countries like unlimited liability for bad weather events in developing countries, and the insistence by some parties that the INDCs themselves be binding under international law. This would have required Senate ratification of the Agreement in the United States, which would have meant that the United States would not be a party to the Agreement. There wassuccess on both of these.
Final Words
So, my fundamental assessment of the Paris climate talks is that they were a great success. Unfortunately, as I have said before, some advocates and some members of the press will likely characterize the outcome as a “failure,” because the 2 degree C target has not been achieved immediately.
Let me conclude where I started. The Paris Agreement provides an important new foundation for meaningful progress on climate change, and represents a dramatic departure from the past 20 years of international climate negotiations. Of course, the problem has not been solved, and it will not be for many years to come. But the new approach brought about by the Paris Agreement can be a key step toward reducing the threat of global climate change. In truth, only time will tell.(Robert Stavins 2015)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that climate change is one of the most pressing issues in the economy. As the climate continues to worsen, global GDP continues to decline. As estimated by the World Employment and Social Outlook, 1.2 billion jobs are threatened by climate change. I looked at The Paris Agreement as a step in the right direction in regards to eliminating the threat of climate change. It set a precedent for how almost 200 countries should move forward in doing their part to cut greenhouse gas emissions. I think that this agreement was a monumental step, in just acknowledging the fact that we have a huge problem and if nothing is done, things will continue to get worse. President Trump announced that he would be pulling the U.S. out the the Paris Agreement in June of 2017. Although he cannot officially leave until November 2020, it is doing a huge injustice to the agreement. He has left an open space for other countries to follow his actions in pulling out of the agreement. In addition, he decided to cut the United States contributions the the Green Climate Fund. This was created to help poorer, developing countries minimize their gas emissions.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Trump pulling out from the Paris Agreement may affect other countries to leave the agreement... Nevertheless, Trump is looking at the agreement from an economic perspective and not a climate change one. The issue is that Trump may help the U.S. economy short time, but long term, with the consequences of climate change, our economy will be hit harder. My opinion is that Trump should have stayed in the agreement because the U.S. economy will lose more money in the upcoming years if climate change keeps on worsening. Rather than staying in the agreement, and fixing the environmental issues.
Delete-Vianna Konoplin
I agree with you Vianna! I believe if money were invested to develop clean energy in the United States, our economy would improve exponentially considering we'd be less dependent on other countries for oil and potentially develop technology to store it.
DeleteOver the course of a few decades, society has been paying more attention to climate change and urging people to take forethought towards the way we treat the atmosphere. It has become inevitable to circumvent the consequences of climate change in recent years, especially with the increase in temperatures, sea level rising, and so forth. Climate change plays a role in economics because it puts the world in an economic mess. It’s been accepted that people consume more resources than they can produce, and with that being said, this has put significant pressure on people consuming less. However, the problem with consuming fewer resources is that people are buying less, which contributes to excess supplies and an increase in unemployment. If no one is buying, they don’t need workers to produce and GDP goes down. This reduces the GDP growth drastically long term. The Paris Agreement is an understanding between all the nations, in which, they agreed to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius and reduce their usage of carbon emissions. This agreement certainly is a good way to eliminate climate change, but it is critical for the economy. It’s affecting developing countries specifically because they will decrease their economic growth. Another issue I see with the Paris Agreement is that the developing countries caused a majority of this issue, so it’s unfair that the developing countries economy gets hit harder. Though, we will only be able to tell the benefits of this agreement in the upcoming years because the 2 degree Celsius objective has not been obtained.
ReplyDelete-Vianna Konoplin
Just as the global economy has an impact on every country, the environmental changes our world is undergoing is just as crucial. With agreements and protocols being discussed, countries have been forced to interact and make essential decisions with each other which has proved to be an effective method. Developing countries are at a disadvantage to the developed countries on many fields, yet to lower our emissions and keep global warming balanced under 2 degrees Celsius: we need everyone to participate the same to take care of our planet and our future. Although India and China contributed to the emissions in higher masses, there are other factors that come into play to explain why they are still developing. Nevertheless, the only way we can make steps towards change is if everyone is involved. This is an entire planet issue, not just for us humans separated by borders. The Paris Agreement has made many steps towards a better tomorrow such as: including 90% of the world's global emissions in INDCs (Intended Nationally Determined Contribution) and establishing successful transparency and credibility between Europe & USA with India & China. These are just two of the many effects these agreements have had on our policies- and only one I question. As much as I support reevaluating negotiations every five years, I honestly think it should be less time. The Earth is changing rapidly not just socially, politically or professionally, but the environment is on a slim time line that needs to analyzed every two years maybe less??? I might have to look more into it, but that's just an opinion that crossed my mind.
ReplyDelete-Miranda Baldo
DeleteThe Paris Agreement was intended to reduce global emissions and Obama was even praised when he signed the treaty. I do not understand how the United States could pull out of an agreement that is meant to save us all, as a humanity.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the decision to enforce low emissions in all countries, even developing ones. I understand that they are at a disadvantage because clean energy is expensive to achieve but once it attained can help to promote the whole country. I do believe clean energy is the future as there even are cars now running solely on electricity. Better yet, an at home plug to charge it. With all these advantages in technology, oil refining is getting more expensive, not to mention, scarce, and heating up our world.
It’s very important to start taking strict action to protect the environment. For the last few hundred years so many countries have developed and caused a lot of harm to our planet, although it was a developing time there were not a lot of restrictions to protect the environment, so a lot of harm has already been done. I think we need to start putting the planet first and not money, man kind is being destroyed by greed. We need to start being more informed about the harm we are causing and paths to take to help and protect the environment. The more awareness the better, because we will implement changes to our daily lives to save the planet. Climate change is causing a ruckus in economics, should we consume less even though there’s an excess supply, like fast fashion, so much product going to waste because there are endless opportunities to buy. I think the Paris agreement is a great way for nations to come together and agree to put forth more effort in caring for the planet. The issue with developing countries is it’s strongly affecting their economy compared to those countries more dominant. It should be put on every country to lower emissions. It’s important we all begin to take action in saving the planet.
ReplyDeleteMelissa Correa
Climate change is a major issue that we are dealing with as citizens of planet earth. The Paris Agreement was created in order to help tackle this issue and move towards a more sustainable lifestyle. Even though the Paris Agreement will help preserve our planet and potentially elongate the lifespan of human life, it does come with a high cost. This cost effects our economy greatly due to the fact that less sustainable products cost less and sustainability come with a great expense. Although sustainability is a huge expense at first, it depreciates over time and ends up saving you much more money in the long run. For example, solar panels are very expensive in their initial installation stages but ends up saving a person money overtime as they aren't spending too much on their electric bill. But when it comes to a car it is much cheaper to drive one that runs on gas in comparison to a solar powered vehicle. Our economy would benefit from moving towards a more sustainable lifestyle because the eco-friendly products will reduce waste. Some sustainable products are still in the initial stages of testing which means that it will create more jobs when factories are formed. Thus, helping boost our economy. -Sarah Naqvi
ReplyDeleteWhile the Paris agreement is a great step in the global fight against climate change, it is definitely not enough by itself to actually make a real difference in the way countries around the world continue to abuse the planet. This summer I took a class in ‘environmental rights’ and the Paris Agreement is something that was often discussed as a landmark in sustainable thinking. Just like this article, the general consensus from the class was that the agreement was very successful in regards to uniting much of the world in the fight against climate change and in pushing global thinking towards ideas of sustainability. However, the agreement was not as successful in setting up practical goals or initiating global policies that can actually be enforced by the U.N. For example, as the piece states, while the agreement sets up a global ‘way of thinking,’ there is no global law. In order to meet certain goals, each country will establish their own domestic policies. I am not very well versed in economics, but I wonder how far a country is willing to push their own economy to meet certain goals outlined in the agreement. The United States has put certain policies into practice that will indeed help reduce its carbon footprint, such as the Clean Power Plan and California’s AB-32. But, as the piece claims, these policies don’t include a national carbon tax, something that might actually be “ideally efficient.” While steps are being made, money rules the world, and it is hard to truly change things when countries aren’t willing to go the extra mile to really modify the way they do things. I also think that developed countries (like the U.S.) must be much more radical in their own change. It is harder for a developing country to put their own economic growth on hold to meet sustainable goals. However, developed countries control a lot of the money in the world, and are probably less likely to want to give up much power or global influence. While small steps are good, It is the responsibility of developed countries to take BIG steps or it will be too late. The piece later states that the Paris agreement failed to reach its 2-degree C temperature increase target, which in my opinion, wasn’t a very unreachable goal. If real change is to happen, I think It is important for further agreements to help establish better global policies, and promote harsher domestic policy, especially when it comes to regulating big businesses, who are causing the most damage.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI post as unknown previously by accident. And this is Yuqing Weng.
ReplyDeleteThe goal of the Paris Agreement is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so that global temperatures do not rise more than 2 degrees in which prevent global warming. In order to help developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and be able to face the consequences of global climate change, developed countries have pledged at least $100 billion per year till 2020. Climate change poses a danger to the earth that cannot be ignored, therefore, as residents of the earth, we need to take some actions to protect our home. The Paris Agreement is a good start. However, at June 1st, 2018, President Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris agreement. He says the deal is unfair to the United States and redistributes American wealth to other countries. There are many people went against Donald Trump, such as the CEO of Tesla, Elon Musk, he announced his resignation from trump's advisory board, Elon clearly know that climate change is real, and withdrawing from the Paris agreement is bad for America and bad for the world. The Paris Agreement is expected to change the way of human development, stimulate the global industry to shift from fossil energy to green energy, and rapidly expand renewable energy such as solar energy and wind power. The carbon emission trading mechanism will also become an important core measure of carbon reduction in many countries.
It saddens me to say this but I actually know people who do not believe that Climate change exists. To me, its like how can you be so oblivious to the world? With the Great Barrier Reef losing half its coral back in 2016, strange weather, and glaciers melting; what more do some people need to be convinced of that it does not exist? While the Paris Agreement was a nice start to reduce gas emissions being put out, as a whole there are a lot of work to be done. We come from a world for example where we rely heavily on gas for cars, cooking, etc. Yes, there are many alternatives to reduce these emissions, but how many people can you really convince to switch to alternatives? For some, it just is easier to emit these deadly sources. Also, I feel like people really focus on themselves for now instead of looking at long term. I would agree that the new climate agreement is broad. Countries would need to hone in on their goals. I believe they should step up their efforts to move faster into using cleaner energy sources. I believe it will take a whole lot for the country to clean up transportation. What makes it worse too is all the traffic that happens during rush hour as well. Being stuck in traffic and sitting on the highway for say anything more than 10 minutes while your engine is running, is letting out a lot of gas emissions. Two states in the United States that are pushing for renewable energy sources and advertising electric vehicles is not enough to make a difference. Yes it can set them as an example, but we are just two states out of fifty, which is also out of the entire world. I’m not really sure if “all countries facing the same monitoring and reporting requirements regardless of status developed or developing” is a good thing. Maybe I will have to look more into this because for the countries that are well developed, they have a lot of changes to be made. Whereas for the developing countries, third world countries, they could implement ways to not become so dependent on these types of emissions before they overly use it.
ReplyDelete