Comments due by Feb 11, 2016
Do you agree with this assessment of Paris?
The Paris Agreement, a truly landmark climate accord, which was gaveled through today, 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.
Essential Background
Anyone who has read this blog over the past several years, or – even more so — my academic writing over the past twenty years on international climate change policy architecture, knows that 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.
12 comments:
This article informs about the readers regarding The Paris Agreement. It mentions certain aspects of this agreement that are given importance like transparency, regulations over industries to control the harm caused to the environment. Its various impacts will definitely be seen on business.
Personally, I agree with what the author said about how "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." What the author's saying, essentially, is that although these meetings in Paris aren't the solutions to all of the Earth's environmental problems, especially in regards to climate change and such, but it is a step in the right direction. Obviously not every country on the planet can (or will) change their ways immediately to 'save the Earth,' but many are taking some action and trying their best to meet up with the goals they agreed to in these Paris meetings.
-Elizabeth Piper Phillips
The Paris agreement approaches international reform on emission levels more strictly, as it takes into account developing countries which previously lacked any commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This action alone requires all countries to cut down the threat of global climate change, immediately improving the likelihood of achieving their goal of cutting temperature increase down from 5 or 6 degrees C to only 2, hopefully 1.5, degrees C. As repeatedly declared the action taken by the Paris agreement is a "meaningful progression" however the threat of global climate change remains unsolved. Truly only time can tell how well this new approach will work toward cutting down global emissions, and the specific approaches to revision every five years and international monitoring may be the key factors in achieving committed actions by developed and developing countries alike. Regardless of the success of this action and achieving the low temperature increase as stated, without any reform at all global emissions would increase at the same alarming rate. Any action is a positive action even if the problem will take years to solve, with the Paris agreement we may see that reform is moving steadily in the right direction.
As the author states, "only time will tell." I think the Paris agreement was a good step in the right direction towards cracking down on emission levels and trying to cut the temperature increase down from 5-6 degrees Centigrade. I think it will be interesting to see how countries, especially heavily-industrialized and developed countries that are the main culprits for high emissions, work to meet this goal and what this will mean for businesses. The Paris agreement was a landmark case in terms of countries believing and understanding that something needs to be done about climate change and global warming, yet it will be interesting to see if any changes come of it and if countries begin to actively change their ways. Only time will tell, like the author said, how well countries follow through on this agreement.
-Marrina Gallant
There are many opinions on the causes of global climate change.This includes who bears the historical responsibility for it, and how countries should distribute the load in the fight against its negative consequences. Representatives of developing countries consider, for example, that the main responsibility lies with the industrialized countries, which, for their part, are convinced that the distinction between “poor” and “rich” countries within the framework of climate issues has a bigger role in the rise of the climate change. In order for those who are concerned, there are regular meetings among those who decide to take an action. The one of last meetings was held in Paris, at the end of 2015. The final agreement of the climate summit contains the intention to eliminate the use of oil, coal and gas and switch to renewable energy sources and energy-saving technologies. Is it really true commitments that are held at these summits or are they just promises? That is what I have been wondering about recently as some countries really put an effort, while others continue with their inefficient and poor government policies. I agree with the assessment made, and the words that “only time can show” are the exact words that should be stated in the current situation. The difference in opinions and actually goals of “rich” and “poor” countries might bring difficulties.
After reading this article it seems to me that the develop and developing world are getting a grasp on climate change. The next step for the foundation for progress will be exploiting it. I very curious to see if the countries at the Paris meeting will be able pass or enforce the new policies they need to achieve there INDC. I am shocked at learning about how bad the Kyoto agreement really was. To leave out countries like China, Mexico, and India in a international climate change agreement was a major mistake. I am keen to see how things play out in the future regarding policies governments will take on climate change.
The Paris Agreement was an improvement from the Kyoto Protocol. The goals that the meeting established are not only feasible but realistic given the amount of countries involved. According to Article 2 of the agreement, their goal is to limit global average temperature increase by 2 degrees C and possibly 1.5 degrees. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement states in Article 4, that developing countries will be held accountable for global emissions. The INDC structure makes it so that developed and developing countries are both cooperating with the agreement. Although many did criticize the meeting for not doing enough, it is definitely a step forward into the right direction. As Article 14 states, all parties involved agree to return to negotiations every 5 years. The Agreement established transparency between all parties involved regardless of their status. This ensures that their is no discrimination amongst the countries that are involved. It also did a good job at avoiding quarrels over who is to pay the penalties for the emissions. The writer notes, that the agreement will have some vague impacts on businesses. This to me is a good example of an achievement. That is because in order for the U.S. to achieve its goal it will pass policies that will to some extent hold businesses accountable. The Clean Power Plan is an example of this, which hopes to move from coal to natural gas for electricity. This will be felt by those businesses who make a living off of coal production. Overall, in the United States, policies will be made that will come as a result of this meeting. In short, the meeting was a success because everyone was able to walk away being held accountable and with a clear transparent goal to achieve.
Paris Agreement states in Article 4, that developing countries will be held accountable for global emissions. These meetings in Paris aren't the solutions to all of the Earth's environmental problems. The one of last meetings was held in Paris, at the end of 2015. The final agreement of the climate summit contains the intention to eliminate the use of oil, coal and gas and switch to renewable energy sources and energy-saving technologies. The Paris agreement approaches international reform on emission levels more strictly, as it takes into account developing countries which previously lacked any commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. i must agree with the assessment made, that the words that “only time can show” are the exact words that should be stated in the current situation.
I will have to read the actual agreement later, but if, as you suggest, enforceability is increasing, that's very useful for getting renewables off the ground. R&D, of course, will also be useful.
Someone else's comment also made it occur to me--the personalization of these contributions also does help, if that wasn't present in the Kyoto protocol. I find it a little strange that it wasn't present, even.
I agree with your assessment of the Paris Agreement; " 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." I found that (what I think) the agenda of the Paris Agreement was to solve the global climate change/increasing global emission problem, by more specifically indicating the roots of such issues. Representatives of 195 countries adopted a new hybrid international climate policy architecture that includes Intended Nationally Determined Contributons, which builds a foundation for global change. The effort begins with getting everybody on the same page, especially those already developed and still developing countries, because they are the countries releasing higher levels of emissions. 186 of the 195 representatives sent in emission reports, accounting for about 96% of the total global emissions. By making the INDC structure central and universal, it allows the world to work together (more efficiently) towards a common agenda.
The Paris Agreement provides a broad foundation of progress on climate change, it also represents our departure from the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. The problem with this agreement was that they couldn't figure out the distinction between the developed and developing countries. The large developing countries were the one that we emitting all these gases so it made it particularly hard for an progress to be made. During the conference 96% of the members submitted INDC's for the Paris Agreement and only 14% did not. It is we'll known that global warming will not end quickly but these new agreements could speed up efforts in helping. I believe that they should have been focusing on these large countries more than trying to band everyone together. It says that it could take ten, twenty, or even more years before we see and improvement but getting everyone on the same band wagon is a great start as stated in Article 3. I believe the Paris Agreement could make some bigger improvements on global warming than sitting around with the Kyoto Protocol. The keys of the Paris Agreement are the centrality of INDC structure, balanced transparency requirements, provision for heterogenous linkage, and the clarification that loss and damages will not provide basis for liabilities. Overall I think the Paris Agreement will do well and hopefully change our problems with green-house gases.
This article talks about the Paris Agreement that took place December 12, 2015. It explains and tells us a little bit about the talks that were made in the Paris Agreement plus explains us what is the Agreement about. It 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. In my opinion, those agreements are very good, because it is an opportunity to work with the countries for a plan to fight the gas emissions and to fight the global warming. Many plans are accomplished, and even if there are some that are not, there is still a sensible foundation to make increased ambition over time feasible. Of course, it is something that will affect companies and businesses because due to new policies, some changes will have to be done and that affects every business, but in my opinion it is for a good cause and it is something that will definitely help.
Post a Comment