The Conversation - Bill Hare | Harald Winkler | Julia P G Jones | Luke Kemp | Meraz Mostafa | Pep Canadell | Stefan Rahmstorf
 |
| We’ve come a long way since the agreement was formed in 2015.
Stephane Mahe/Reuters |
The
Paris climate agreement,
first struck in December 2015, enters into force today. The treaty
commits countries worldwide to keep carbon emissions “well below 2°C
above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the
temperature increase to 1.5°C”.
Countries will pursue self-determined emissions targets, agreed upon
before the last round of climate talks, from 2020 onwards. The national
targets will be reviewed and strengthened every five years.
The agreement also commits richer countries to provide funding to
poorer countries, which have done the least to contribute to climate
change but will suffer its worst effects.
As the world embarks on its most dedicated effort yet to prevent
catastrophic climate change, The Conversation asked a panel of
international experts to give their view on the significance of the
agreement coming into force.
Bill Hare: ‘A historic turning point’
For better or worse, the entry into force of the Paris Agreement is a
historic turning point, humanity’s most organised response to date to
the
largest and most far-reaching challenge to the habitability of the planet and viability of its life: human-induced climate change.
To me, this agreement represents our last best chance to come together and
take the essential steps to prevent the worst consequences of climate change.
Over the next five to ten years, if we succeed in bending the present
upward curve of emissions and ramping up climate action – meaning that
by 2025 emissions are well and truly on a downward trajectory – then we
will be able say the agreement is working.
In this timeframe CO
2 emissions from coal would
need to drop at least 25% below recent levels.
We would also need to see a whole range actions towards a sustainable,
fully renewable, zero-carbon future by 2050. Such an outcome is
not beyond what can be imagined, as the necessary measures bring many benefits, and the technologies to get there are getting cheaper every month.
Make no mistake – we would still be confronting major climate challenges
even if we limit global average warming to 1.5°C. But without that action our challenges would be immeasurably worse.
 |
| Saying goodbye to emissions is the only way to prevent catastrophic climate change.
Jacky Naegelen/Reuters |
Should we not succeed, and emissions continue to increase, the Paris
Agreement could come to symbolise all that is wrong with the world, and
with the present world order. Such an outcome would be associated with
other large-scale societal problems, such as rapidly increasing economic
inequity, as well as access to political power and decision-making.
Unchecked climate change would exacerbate many of these issues,
including the increasing likelihood of
climate-induced migration.
Scientists and policy makers are mobilising now to help in the next
great stage of implementing the Paris Agreement, which is to increase
the level of ambition and action. An
IPCC Special Report is being organised for 2018 to assess impact, mitigation, and sustainable development issues surrounding the 1.5°C temperature limit.
This report will provide vital input to the
2018 facilitative dialogue,
organised by the UN’s climate change organisation, which is meant to
examine how countries’ global aggregate level of action stacks up
against the required emission pathways in 2025 and 2030. The results of
this dialogue will provide guidance to countries as they prepare to
submit their updated, and hopefully upgraded, nationally determine
contributions by 2020.
Julia Jones: ‘Forest people cannot bear the costs’
The loss of tropical forests contributes as much as
10% to global emissions of greenhouse gases. For this reason (and because protecting rainforests has other potential benefits), a UN-negotiated mechanism on
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, known as REDD+, is widely promoted as an important pillar in efforts to tackle climate change.
Since the idea that tropical forest nations should be funded to slow deforestation was initially proposed in 2005,
many initiatives
have sprung up to explore how REDD+ can work in practice. These pilot
schemes show that while well-designed projects can deliver
emissions reductions,
conserve biodiversity and
improve local livelihoods, positive outcomes are
far from guaranteed. A number of groups advocating for the rights of people who live in forests
strongly oppose REDD+, as they believe that it will result in
evictions.
 |
| Protesters campaigned against REDD+ at the Paris climate talks in 2015.
Stephane Mahe/Reuters |
As of today, efforts to slow climate change by saving rainforests are
enshrined in international law via the Paris Agreement. What will this
actually mean for tropical forests and its people? Resources available
for conservation will increase, which is certainly positive.
However for millions of people, mostly very poor and politically
marginalised, these forests are home and the source of their
livelihoods. Their needs, views, and knowledge must be taken into
account in any conservation actions. It cannot be fair that forest
people bear the costs of mitigating climate change.
Luke Kemp: Watch out for Donald Trump
The Paris Agreement’s entry into force is both impressive and
troubling. It could be a sign of renewed international momentum. But its
speed is more likely indicative of a lack of substance.
Ratification means few legal obligations for participating countries.
Paris entering into force has more symbolic than legal strength.
What does entry into force mean for those nations that have not joined, such as
Russia?
Not a great deal for now. Arguably, they should be excluded from having
a voice and a vote in initial negotiations over the finer details of
the agreement’s implementation.
In practice, diplomats are eager to ensure that Paris
remains a truly global effort,
and have created a technical workaround so that even countries that are
yet to ratify can participate in discussions. The (perhaps naïve)
assumption is that eventually all parties will join.
In the longer term a lack of ratification is likely to lead to
exclusion from discussion under the Paris negotiations, as well as an
inability to use elements such as market-based mechanisms under the
agreement. Non-ratifying countries will probably also become
international pariahs.
However aside from social pressure, the Paris Agreement is extremely weak against countries who choose not to join, or
opt to withdraw.
It contains no “non-party” measures to entice participation or punish
non-ratifying countries. Such an arrangement looks fine for now, but it
could become a
fatal flaw if Donald Trump takes power in the US on November 8.
 |
| Superpower gone rogue?
Carlo Allegri/Reuters |
Paris was designed to be a universal agreement that appeals to the
United States, trading away strong substance in favour of quick approval
and universal participation. A rogue superpower could mark the end of
the honeymoon.
Meraz Mostafa: ‘New approach to climate policy’
With the activation of the Paris Agreement, the issue of loss and
damage becomes a central tenet of international climate governance. The
UN climate body is now committed to address the impacts of climate
change that go beyond adaptation. These include everything from
islands sinking in the Pacific Ocean to infrastructure damage during cyclones.
This is somewhat surprising given how contentious the issue of loss
and damage has been at climate talks. Arguably, the first reference to
the concept was
proposed in 1991
by Vanuatu, whose negotiators unsuccessfully argued for an
international risk insurance pool to deal with the adverse affects of
climate change.
 |
| Vanuatu has been advocating for loss and damage since 1991.
NASA |
But it took until 2014 for the UN climate body to establish a separate mechanism, called the
Warsaw International Mechanism.
This mechanism consists of nine action areas ranging from how best to
finance loss and damage to how to deal with the impacts of climate
change not easily valued in the market (the loss of home, tradition,
culture and so on).
Even with this in place before the Paris negotiations last year, several developed countries,
including the US,
were uneasy about including loss and damage in the agreement. This is
because they were worried this issue would quickly bring up the question
of whether developed countries could be held liable and have to
compensate for their share of greenhouse gas emissions. A comprise was
reached in negotiations where a separate article in the agreement was
dedicated to loss and damage, but the notion of compensation and
liability were explicitly ruled out.
The article on loss and damage in the Paris Agreement mainly focuses
on supporting the Warsaw mechanism. The next round of climate talks in
Marrakesh will be important, because it is when the negotiators are
expected to come to a decision on a five-year rolling working plan for
the mechanism.
This plan is yet to be determined, based on the last meeting of the
executive committee of the Warsaw mechanism
(made up of an equal number of representatives from developed and
developing countries). In particular, separate task-forces will be
created to address issues such as migration and non-economic loss and
damage. An information hub for comprehensive risk management (that is,
microinsurance) will also be established.
The Paris Agreement is significant, because it establishes a new
approach to climate policy, whereby climate change-related loss and
damage will have to be addressed alongside mitigation and adaptation.
Stefan Rahmstorf: Governments should be in emergency mode
The Paris Agreement is the best we could have expected at this point
in history. It is a beacon of hope. Almost all nations on Earth have
decided to move towards net zero emissions.
It was high time, and in some respects too late. Paris came
almost exactly 50 years after the famous
Revelle report
from the US president’s scientific advisory panel issued a stark
warning of global warming, melting ice caps and rising seas due to our
carbon dioxide emissions.
The long delay in confronting this threat is not least a result of a
major, still ongoing obfuscation campaign by fossil fuel interests.
The goal of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 2°C, or better 1.5°C,
is necessary. Two degrees of global warming is very likely to spell
the end of most coral reefs on Earth. Two degrees would mean a
largely ice-free Arctic ocean in summer, right up to the North Pole.
Two degrees would be very likely to destabilise the West Antarctic ice sheet (evidence is mounting that
this has already happened). Such an increase might even destabilise the
Greenland ice sheet and parts of the
East Antarctic ice sheet, locking in more than ten metres of sea-level rise and sealing the fate of coastal cities and island nations.
Some major impacts of our fossil fuel burning cannot be prevented
now, thanks to the fateful delays already mentioned. But every 0.1°C of
warming we avoid helps contain further massive risks to humanity,
including major threats to food security.
Because of all the time that was lost, the remaining emissions budget is very tight: at current rate, we are
eating up the budget to stay below 1.5°C (with a 50:50 chance) in about ten years. The budget for 2°C would allow us to keep emitting for about
30 years.
If we ramp down emissions rapidly we can stretch these budgets out to
last longer, but the key here is to turn the tide of emissions now or we
can give up on staying well below 2°C.
If we take the Paris Agreement seriously (and we should), governments around the world should be in
emergency mode, taking rapid and decisive measures to get their emissions down.
Pep Canadell: Little time for celebration
By all accounts, the Paris Agreement is an astonishing achievement.
However, we should spend little time in celebrating its coming into
effect and move swiftly from the broader well-intended rhetoric to
specific actions. The
next round of climate negotiations,
beginning in Marrakesh on November 7 will be the first real test to
assess how committed countries are to the goals of the Paris Agreement.
 |
| From Paris to Marakesh. The work begins now.
Reuters |
Each individual country needs to show how they will specifically implement the very vague
National Determined Commitments,
and equally important, how they are planning to go beyond those initial
commitments, now that we know that the collective effort falls well
short of what is required to stay below 2°C.
Harald Winkler: ‘Implementation of adaptation and mitigation needed’
The Paris Agreement has entered into force. The global significance
is the political momentum for climate action continues. From a southern
African perspective, the implications for adaptation are at least as
important as mitigation – and both will need support. The focus must
shift to implementation at the local level.
For Africa, the Paris Agreement gives much greater political visibility to adaptation.
Article 7
includes a global goal for adaptation. But also a review to ensure that
the adaptation response is adequate. The adaptation goal links the
temperature goal – to be held below 2°C, and pursuing efforts to 1.5°C
above pre-industrial levels - with adequacy.
The greater the increase, the worse any negative impact will be,
particularly for African countries with low adaptive capacity.
International practice on adaptation needs enhancement, this can build
on existing
methodological work,
particularly on information for the adaptation component of Nationally
Determined Contributions or other forms of communication.
To take effective adaptation action locally, the
adaptation finance gap must be addressed.
Certainly all countries will have to do more on mitigation. The
literature is clear that the sum of the Intended Nationally Determined
Contributions “
still imply
a median warming of 2.6–3.1 degrees Celsius by 2100”. This is often
simplified to mean more mitigation, but in many southern African
countries, this will mean “avoided emissions”. The challenge is to
follow development pathways – to meet basic developmental needs –
without going to high emissions in the first place. Avoiding a
high-emissions development pathway is a big ask of African countries.
Support is essential to shift to both low carbon and climate-resilient development pathways.
 |
| South African Minister of Environmental Affairs Bomo Edna Molewa signs the Paris Agreement in April 2016.
Carlo Allegri/Reuters |
The strength of the Paris Agreement lies in its comprehensive scope
that includes finance, technology and capacity building. The success of
local action on adaptation and mitigation depends on implementing these
provisions. For the first time in global climate governance, developed
countries have agreed to communicate indicative support to developing
countries every two years ex ante. Access to environmentally sound
technology and capacity building will be important to achieve the
necessary transitions. Continuous support for the
Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency is a crucial aspect of transparency; and transparency related capacity.
Finally, local action is needed – and, globally, a multi-lateral
rules-based regime, which is what the world set out to achieve in Durban
and agreed in Paris. Fully developing the Paris “rule book” is a key
task at the international level. But we dare not wait – each country and
all its people need to start to prepare for the impacts, avoid
emissions and where emissions are high, reduce them very rapidly indeed.
Links
