Greg Odogwu
Recognising that climate change
represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human
societies and the planet and thus requires the widest possible
cooperation by all countries, and their participation in an effective
and appropriate international response, with a view to accelerating the
reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions,….”
An introductory paragraph in the Paris Agreement
Because I was not in Paris to witness it
live, throughout last Saturday, December 12, I was glued to the
television. I flitted from one channel to the other, sucking in every
piece of reportage I could find on the Paris climate talks, COP 21. At a
time – during the tension-filled wait for the final proposal and
subsequent adoption by the 196 nations represented – every international
cable network went live. It was like waiting for the outcome of a
global election. At that time, for those who understood what the odds
were, the destiny of the world hung on a balance!
And when the deal was finally sealed,
heaven was let loose. The negotiators, diplomats and climate leaders at
the COP 21 conference hall threw decorum to the wind and began an
emotional celebration, where the cameras did not miss Ms Christiana
Figueres’ (UNFCCC’s Executive Secretary) generous bear hugs at the high
table. I also popped champagne in my own way.
Granted, there were a couple of
dissenting voices who rather than celebrate, pointed out impassionedly
that the Paris Agreement was not enough to save the world from the
dangers that lay ahead as a result of continued global emissions of
green house gases. They said the agreement was too weak and definitively
not ambitious enough to bring about any quick solution to the fast
changing climate.
I perfectly understand why many people are celebrating, while some others are shouting “foul”!
For the records: On December 12, world
governments’ meeting in Paris produced a landmark climate agreement,
after two weeks of intense negotiations and waves of global mobilisation
by the climate movement. The deal includes an agreement to limit global
warming to below two degrees Celsius, with an aim of 1.5 degrees, and
achieve climate neutrality that will require phasing out fossil fuels by
2050. This signalled a new dawn for a dirty-fuelled world.
As a matter of fact, the main reason
people celebrated is that this climate agreement represents the first
time the world has come together in a legally binding document aimed at
fighting climate change. Scientists have warned that if green house gas
emissions continue to rise, the world will pass the threshold beyond
which global warming becomes catastrophic and irreversible.
That threshold is estimated as a
temperature rise of two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels –
and on current emissions trajectories, we are heading for a rise of
about five degrees Celsius.
Of course, the world signed onto an
agreement to curb such emissions in 1997 under the auspices of the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in what is known
as the Kyoto Protocol, but that document is not legally binding, and
anyway, will expire in 2020. Paris was to determine what happened for
the decades after that.
Furthermore, the world rejoiced in Paris
because it became apparent that the demons that trailed the Kyoto
Protocol have been exorcised by the emerging corporate goodwill of all
concerned. It will be recalled that the United States refused to ratify
the Kyoto Protocol. She remained firmly outside Kyoto, so although the
UN negotiations carried on year after year, the US negotiators were
often in different rooms from the rest of the world.
America’s grouse was that major carbon
emitters in the developing world, like China, were not expected to make
emissions cut commitments while the developed world was to cut theirs.
So it became a bitter international politics power play, which defined
the annual climate talks. The root of the bad blood is in the fact that
the pact required worldwide cuts in emissions of about five per cent
compared with 1990 levels by 2012 and each developed country was
allotted a target on emissions reductions; but developing countries,
including China, South Korea, Mexico, India and other rapidly emerging
economies, were given no targets and allowed to increase their emissions
at will.
The story of the negotiations had been
the clash of negotiators’ voices juggling to balance climate justice
with real politics. This was why the world decided at the Bali COP 13 of
2007, to create an action plan that set the world on the course to a
new agreement that would take over from Kyoto. It was later described as
Kyoto second phase, or the KP2.
Instructively, as it stands today, the
highest emitters of the world are China, the USA, India, Russia, and
Japan – in this order. It is palpable that without a new deal, these
players would have been in terminal loggerheads.
The magic wand came when the world
decided that whether big or small, every country must make commitments
to cutting emissions. They were mandated to submit what was known as
Intended Nationally Determined Commitments before the Paris conference,
and the documents later collated became the foundation on which the
Paris Agreement sprouted.
Everybody now knows what the biggest
emitters committed to. The European Union will cut its emissions by 40
per cent, compared with 1990 levels, by 2030. The US will cut its
emissions by 26 per cent to 28 per cent compared with 2005 levels, by
2025; China committed that its emissions will peak by 2030. From down
here, Nigeria committed to 20 per cent unconditional emissions cut.
The bottom line is that the groundwork
is laid: it is no longer business as usual. America and China, for the
first time, are on the same page in this matter; and the world is set to
move away permanently from fossil fuel to a clean energy future.
Yet, that is not the whole story. There
are two troubling concerns, which inform the scepticism to the Paris
Agreement from some quarters.
First of all, in as much as the world
submitted ostensibly ambitious INDCs, analysis of these INDCs, endorsed
by the UN, have suggested that these pledges are not enough to hold the
world to two degree Celsius. And that is not enough to meet the
scientific advice concerning temperature threshold. This is why one of
the key components of the Paris Agreement is to institute a system of
reviewing of emissions targets every five years with a view to scale up
the commitments.
A related concern is how the transition
to a fossil-free future will be funded. The Paris Agreement did not make
anything “mandatory”, or “punishable”. The developed world, for
instance, cannot be held to their $100bn per year (from 2020) Green
Climate Fund pledge.
And herein lies the next problem. How
strong, and transparent, will the emissions cuts review mechanism be to
rein in “un-ambitious” nations whose climate responsibility could still
be overshadowed by national exigency? None of the countries that failed
to meet their commitments under the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol
have been sanctioned; and what is the guarantee that the KP2 will
sanction defaulters, when it has made no provision for a “climate
police” or justice system?
So, the people that cry that the Paris
Climate Agreement has no bite, and is weak, cannot be written off in a
hurry. The euphoria is in the fact that the whole world has agreed to
work together in this climate fight on an equal partnership, but that is
where the good news ends. It is like a barren mother giving birth to a
baby with a precarious health condition, though curable, but very
delicate. Yes, the baby is born. But it can die within the next 24
hours, if proper care is not taken.
EmoticonEmoticon