Paris Agreement: is it effective, or not?
The terms of the Paris Agreement (PA), drafted in 2016, sound pretty simple:
Limit global warming below 2°C.
Iterate the conditions on a 5-year basis based on nationally determined contributions (NDCs).
Of course, the full-report is not so simple, because if it were, results would have already been achieved in the present time-frame (1). So, what is the current effectiveness of the PA, given the first 5-year cycle has been completed?
No doubt, on the backbones of the Kyoto Protocol, the PA has enforced better standards for climate action cooperation. After the passing of the PA, 127 countries amending national policies to achieve net-zero emissions targets, increased climate activism and investment in clean resources are certainly some of the more positive effects that have been realized.
However, research from Climate Analytics, a company focused on integrating data science solutions for climate action policy management, suggests that without further political amendment, the 1.5°C goal might not come into effect (3). In fact, it is estimated that with the current activities, we might reach a 2.6°C warming by the end of the century, despite the promises made in the PA.
Key players in the agreement, such as the USA, Russia and Brazil, are known to have previous objections to the PA’s terms, seeing as the US’s withdrawal in 2017, and Brazil’s growth in deforestation and cattle farming economy. Furthermore, countries are missing renewable energy development targets by 50%, only raising 5 billion of the 10 million pledged for clean energy transitions (4). There seems to be a lack of dedication in following through with the PA’s actions from many parties.
According to the following graph demarcating predicted global temperature rise, even with ambitious targets, we may not be able to reach the target set by the PA. Should countries keep moving goal-posts in this scenario, or should there be strong punitive action? This suspense is to be resolved at COP26 by climate leaders, allowing the public to witness the extent of dedication summiting nations have towards their pledges. Goal-posting can allow leaders flexibility to set achievable and realistic standards, but the incentive model is not as strong as punishments for those who don’t achieve previous targets - yet unfortunately such measures don’t exist in the current policy system. Wiser evaluation must be made and climate policy makers must take a more radical approach to reach their targets, otherwise we may never witness results even in the next NDC cycle.
According to MCC’s carbon clock, the budget to maintain the 2°C rise is in 25 years (5). However, certain sources also claim that carbon budgets are unreliable, thus a disconnect in the estimation and evaluation of our progress and time left to tackle is another key challenge to meeting targets of the PA (3). Subjectively, countries can choose to take an optimistic or pessimistic stance on their climate ambitions and progress so far if effective and measurable tools are not placed to estimate the extent of climate damage in the current state, and to predict the future.
Thus, despite the increased awareness the PA has brought and the numerous projects it has initiated, lack of successful fruition of such projects emphasizes on the ineffectiveness of its policies concerning measurable tools and targets, as well as enforcement of follow-through via punitive measures for participants who do not meet their agreed terms. The PA has a peaceful approach towards diplomacy and negotiation, but without stronger enforcement - even overruling non-compliant parties - it may not be possible to witness concrete development against global warming.
References:
Comments
Post a Comment