By Eshika Arora (PO ’23)
From rising sea levels threatening to swallow up island nations to recurring heat waves forcing mass migrations, the effects of climate change have already been disastrous, and the worst is yet to come.
In an attempt to avert the looming climate crisis, more than 95% of the world’s countries came together at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) in 2015. There they signed the Paris Agreement, the first ever legally binding climate change treaty. The agreement was intended to curb greenhouse gas emissions to limit global temperature rise to 2°C above pre-industrial levels. All signatories of the agreement were expected to publish bidecadal climate action plans known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and wealthy signatories committed themselves to providing financial support to developing countries to facilitate their transitions to green economies.
But the initial emission reduction pledges made at Paris were not nearly sufficient enough to limit global warming to 2°C, and most signatories are not even in a position to achieve their stated goals. India and China, two of the largest emitters, are predicted to have higher emissions in 2030, relative to 2015, due to the fact that they are still rapidly developing. And many developed countries have failed to deliver on both their emission reduction pledges as well as their promises of financial support.
The landmark Paris Agreement has turned out to be nothing more than “policies on paper,” and scientists are predicting that the world is headed towards 3°C warming within this century. This warming is going to be accompanied by more frequent and severe extreme weather events that threaten food supply chains, public health, infrastructure, and more.
The world hoped that the most recent U.N. Climate Change Conference, COP26, which was held earlier this year in Glasgow, would get the world back on track and “keep 1.5°C alive”. The decisions made at the Conference, however, were disappointing. Emission reduction pledges were still not high enough, and wealthy countries did not step up to lead by example, despite having the resources to do so. The US, for example, did not commit to curbing the domestic production of coal.
According to the UN, carbon neutrality must be achieved by 2050 to keep 1.5 alive. But at COP26, China and India only agreed to reach net-zero emissions by 2060 and 2070 respectively. In addition, the already underwhelming pledges are not even complemented with realistic policies for implementation, leading to a lower likelihood of their timely fulfilment. COP26 also did not rectify the dangerously slow progress on climate finance. At the conference, wealthy countries restated their goal to deliver $100 billion dollars annually to developing countries. But this is not enough. A recent U.N. report has claimed that 5 to 10 times more spending is necessary for the world to meet its goals. This seems nearly impossible to achieve; wealthy countries have already failed to meet their initial insufficient pledge.
Comparing the negotiations in Glasgow to those in Paris 6 years ago, the similarities are concerning. Just like at COP21, a consensus was difficult to achieve during these new rounds of negotiations, with the same issues continuing to stifle significant climate action. One important issue that continues to go unsolved is that the publishing of NDCs is a voluntary commitment. As such, accountability for states’ implementation of climate plans cannot be enforced by any international institution, and progress on emission pledges is therefore entirely conditional on the domestic policies of the signatories.
Underpinning this issue is the tension between developed and developing countries. The latter believes that since developed countries have historically taken up more “carbon space,” they should assume a greater share of the burden in addressing climate change. This, in turn, would provide developing countries with more time and flexibility to leverage industrialization, and thus carbon emissions, for their economic growth.
In Paris, this tension is what led to the NDCs being self-determined by countries; it was the only way to get the signatories to reach an agreement. A similar compromise was made at the COP26, with India and China successfully insisting that the phrase “phasing out” coal be reworded to “phasing down” coal.
Current emission reduction pledges by countries will lead to around 2.4 °C of warming instead of 1.5 °C. To keep 1.5 alive, the world needs countries to step up their pledges and formulate concrete domestic policies for their execution. It is also essential that wealthy countries take the lead in supporting the green transition in countries that are still developing. Climate change is a global issue and only global action is sufficient enough to address it. Thankfully, however, this story isn’t all doom and gloom. There was a small ray of hope at Glasgow in the form of a joint declaration by the US and China, the world’s two largest emitters, that commits the two countries to cooperate over the next 10 years to make 1.5 achievable. We need many more such international commitments to ensure that the proceedings at Paris and Glasgow are not just empty talk.
