Dorian A.

Grey-Angeles (T6)
ME 4180-01
Dr. Espinosa

Assignment 3: Paris Climate Agreement Summary

1) What is the Paris Climate Agreement?

The Paris Climate Agreement was formally adopted in December 2015 by the United Nations
Framework Convection on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the 21st United Nations Climate
Conference (COP21). In essence, it is a global agreement to tackle climate change. It primarily
deals with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions, investment in new technologies
(renewable energy), and financial support for developing countries. Currently, 195 of the 196
counties that attended COP21 have signed on to the agreement. Ultimately, it marks a historic
moment for comprehensive global climate effort.

2) What are the most important parts of the agreement?

There are three central parts of the agreement: efforts to limit the global temperature increase, the
long-term objective to balance GHG emissions sources and removals, and the five-year review
cycle. The first provision establishes a common goal to keep global warming to below 2˚C above
pre-industrial levels by 2100. It goes further though and sets 1.5˚C as the effective goal. This is
important because Small Island States and African nations have determined that limiting the
warming to 1.5˚C will ensure that the most extreme climate change that could harm their
populations will be avoided. Because Small Island States and African nations have been urging
this, this agreement is of upmost importance since the largest polluters (EU, US, & China) are
finally on board.

The second provision establishes a long-term goal to balance “anthropogenic emissions by sources
and removals by sinks of [GHG]” (Clemencon). Although the agreement could not agree on
specific global reduction objectives, the previous and current provision imply a goal of zero-
emissions. Many scientists are interpreting that emissions need to reach zero by 2060-80 in order
to achieve the goals set in the first provision (1.5-2.0 ˚C warming).

The third provision mandates that countries prepare and communicate long-term [GHG] emission
strategies known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). The INDCs are
voluntary pledges that are not legally binding. The provision also requires countries to update their
INDCs every five years, while ensuring that each is at least as strong as the current one. Compared
to the ten-year period supported by developing countries the shorter cycle will increase that chances
of achieving the goals set out by the agreement. Longer review periods would allow these nations
to continue depending on fossil fuels over renewables for longer periods of time before they scale
back. Longer review periods would effectively slow the trend of reducing GHG emissions.
Considering how rapidly technology develops and the urgency that climate change poses, five-year
review cycles make the most sense.

3) What is the importance of agreement?

a. In the global geopolitical context

It represents the first universal agreement (every single country has signed) to address
climate change as a pressing and urgent threat to the stability of humankind. The Kyoto
Protocol of 1997 is a prime example of a failed attempt, where some of the largest polluters
(US, Canada, China, Australia, Japan, & Russia) opted to step away from the agreement at
Dorian A. Grey-Angeles (T6)
ME 4180-01
Dr. Espinosa
the time. Even though the INDCs are voluntary, the five-year submission period will
hopefully lead to more ambitious goals in light equity and differentiation on behalf of the
larger polluters.

Although the agreement might not provide a specific outline for achieving these
stabilization goals, it will at the very least trigger a departure from our dependence on fossil
fuels to an energy transition that will decarbonize the world economy. Thanks to the
agreement, the fossil fuel divestment campaign and climate change activism has gain
momentum worldwide. More investment is going into new technologies/infrastructure for
renewable energy and activism is much more vocal and organized. These efforts and the
fact that INDCs are public will ultimately keep pressure on countries and governments that
are trying to maintain the status quo.

b. In the environmental context

Environmentally, it is of even greater importance as we are already experiencing effects of

climate change that will only intensify in terms of magnitude and/or frequency. Ecosystems
all around the world are already struggling. According to the WWF, a warming of 1.5˚C
will put 20-30% of species at risk of extinction. Changing temperatures, melting ice,
droughts, and floods are already affecting habitat ranges and food supplies. Our ocean
water is not only rising temperature and sea level, they are also becoming more acidic
affecting marine ecosystems as well.

The issues also apply to humans because our access to fresh water and food supplies are
also being affected. Particularly in the Western U.S., the loss of snowpack and increased
severity of drought is a prime example of the environmental impacts. This agreement is
important because scientist have agreed that maintaining warming to 1.5-2.0˚C will limit
the irreversible effects of climate change.

4) What are the problems with the agreement?

a. Political

In this context, the biggest political issues with the agreement are mostly internal since
none of the commitments are legally binding. Because contingent on an honor system,
countries can withdraw from the agreement at any time. In addition, many countries don’t
have actual climate change legislation/policy because they are struggling to escape the grip
of business-as-usual politics that focus on short-term monetary gains and do little to affect
to global effort to stop warming. For example, in the U.S. most climate policies depend
solely on President Obama’s executive orders that can revoked by future presidents. Which
is exactly what has occurred with the election of a republican president, who has also pulled
us out of the agreement. The EU is also dealing with similar issues as many countries have
shifted to the right in recent years. Central and Eastern European countries that still heavily
depend on coal energy are fighting stricter renewable energy targets and faster phase out
of coal. The EU commission has also seen changes to its personal and structure. Prominent
figures in international environmental politics have been replaced by politicians with no
environmental credentials. Much like what happened with the leadership of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In developing countries, the issue is balancing
their economic growth with the goals of the agreement.
Dorian A. Grey-Angeles (T6)
ME 4180-01
Dr. Espinosa
b. Ethical

Ethically, all the issues revolve around the principle common but differentiating
responsibilities of developed and developing countries, which focusses on fair and
equitable burden sharing. The agreement has completely abandoned basing reductions for
each country on, 1, “historic and future emissions” and, 2, “vulnerability and economic
capacity to reduce emissions and adapt to a changing climate” (Clemencon). This is
important because developing countries, Africa nations and India for example, depend on
fossil fuels for economic growth because it remains the cheapest source of energy. In
addition, they do not feel responsible for the immediate effects that climate change is
having. Ethically, it makes sense for the countries that have historically been the largest
contributors to the CO2 already accumulated in the atmosphere to bare most of the burden,
at least initially. Developing nations deserve the same opportunity to advance. In addition
to the burden, another ethical issue with the agreement is how financial support foe
developing nations is being monitored. Issues with transparency on how these numbers are
calculated are largely to blame. Although the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) has reported $57 billion, independent verification by the Indian
Ministry of Finance has reported to true number to be around $2.2 billion.

c. Enforcement

The issue with enforcement is just that. There is no enforcement as the agreement is not
legally binding. Again, countries can step away from the agreement at any time with no
repercussions. There is no requirement for domestic legal action. At the moment, countries
are only required to report their climate action every 5 years.

To make matters worse, even if there was legal enforcement, what exactly would they
enforce? The agreement does not explicitly define a peak emissions year, timeline for
emissions reduction, plans for phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, etc. No specifics to work
around, enforcement will continue to be a challenge.

5) Why is not being a part of the agreement a problem?

a. What should be done?

The US not being a part of the problem poses a huge obstacle for the global climate effort
considering we rank second in total CO2 emissions and first in per capita emissions. We
are a huge part of the problem and our government is choosing to ignore the issue all
together. This dangerous because it could lead to a domino effect like when President Bush
pulled us out of the Kyoto Protocol. If the largest contributors to the problem do not care,
the already weak agreement will struggle to make real progress. In addition to our massive
contribution to GHG emissions, the US also played a critical role in bringing both China
and India, which rank 1st and 3rd in total emissions, to the negotiation table.

In terms of what should be done, it will ultimately be left in the hands of the electorate,
citizens of the US, to take to the polls and demand action. Organized activism and
awareness campaign will be essential to sway public opinion and convince people to act
now.