How Much Can “Climate Diplomacy” Accomplish? The Example of the Paris Agreement

The Paris Climate Agreement was hailed as “the world’s greatest diplomatic success” by The Guardian following its ratification in 2015. Countries agreed for the first time in history to collectively hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels [while] pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels” (Article 2-a).

The Agreement also stated that “parties [should] aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible…so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century…in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty” (Article 4-1).

The Agreement also fails to address some of the most polluting “patterns of consumption and production”, despite reiterating a total of 12 times the need for “sustainable development”.

However, as Dr. Raymond Clémençon of the University of California points out, “The agreement defines no emissions peak year, no specific emissions reduction timeline, and no concrete plans to phase out of fossil fuel subsidies, to stop construction of new coal-fired power plants, and to substantially and transparently increase financial support to developing countries” (Clémençon, R. (2016). The Two Sides of the Paris Climate Agreement. The Journal of Environment & Development, 25(1), 18).

The Agreement also fails to address some of the most polluting “patterns of consumption and production” linked to agriculture or the textile and plastics industry, for example, despite reiterating a total of 12 times the need for “sustainable development”.  Furthermore, only parts of the Agreement are legally binding, meaning that countries decide their own “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs) with communications occurring every five years.

So, what makes the Paris Climate Agreement different from past agreements, and what has been its role thus far in mitigating climate change?

A Brief History of Climate Agreements

The Paris Climate Agreement is the culmination of decades of “climate diplomacy”. The United Nations (UN) first acknowledged that human activities contribute to climate change at the Rio Earth Summit of 1992, which resulted in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The Kyoto Protocol, a legally binding amendment to the UNFCCC, required ratifying countries to reduce emissions by an average “of 5 percent below 1990 levels” (Article 3-1), although this only applied to developed countries, with underdeveloped countries following their own timetable. The Protocol also established an emissions trading – or “cap and trade” – system.

The United States withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 – 4 years before it entered into force – as it was not in the country’s “economic best interest”.

However, high carbon emitters such as China and India were exempt from the legally binding emission target, as they fell into the “underdeveloped” country list. Furthermore, the United States withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 – 4 years before it entered into force – as it was not in the country’s “economic best interest”.

The US’s lack of commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the early 2000s comes in stark contrast to its role in the Montreal Protocol of 1987, in which the country led the phasing out of harmful ozone-depleting substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons and halons. The Montreal Protocol became the first treaty to achieve universal ratification by all countries, with its implementation expected to bring about a full recovery of the ozone layer over the next few decades.

The Kyoto Protocol was followed by the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference of 2009 (COP 15), which only produced a nonbinding legal document known as the “Copenhagen Accord” that was to be “taken note of”, but not formally adopted.

COP 16 saw the development of the Green Climate Fund, designed to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate change.

A series of climate change talks following COP 15 all similarly resulted in failure, although COP 16 saw the development of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), designed to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate change. Only $21.2 billion has been allocated to GCF projects as of the 18th of June, 2020, despite pledges of $100 billion.

Negotiators for COP 18 in Doha, Qatar agreed to extend the Kyoto Protocol to 2020, but Canada had already withdrawn from the treaty at that time, and Japan and Russia refused to accept new commitments. It is thus in this context – following a series of diplomatic failures – that the Paris Agreement must be taken into consideration.

Meeting the Paris Agreement Objectives

The Paris Agreement was thus unique in that it was one of the first international treaties on climate change to be almost universally ratified, with the exception of seven countries, many of which are oil exporters such as Iran, Iraq, and Libya.

The treaty allows ratifying countries to choose their own NDCs, with the only collective cost being the $100 billion per year pledged to developing countries by 2020, most of which has yet to be donated. Other costs stem from countries’ NDCs, which are voluntary and can be changed.

For example, the United States, which has since withdrawn from the Paris Agreement as was the case with the Kyoto Protocol, set “a target of reducing its emissions by 26%-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, including land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF).”

Even countries that have ratified the Paris Agreement continue to fall short of their NDC targets, many of which are insufficient to keep global warming below 2°C.

The United Kingdom, by contrast, originally agreed to a 40% reduction in greenhouse gases below 1990 levels by the year 2030, in part of an EU-wide NDC scheme. The UK government will be obliged to formulate and submit its own NDCs following the country’s departure from the EU in what is known as “Brexit”.

However, even countries that have ratified the Paris Agreement continue to fall short of their NDC targets, many of which are insufficient to keep global warming below 2°C. For example, The Universal Ecological Fund’s report “The Truth Behind the Climate Pledges” found that around 70 percent of the 184 pledges for 2030 were “insufficient”.

According to Climate Action Tracker, an “independent scientific analysis that tracks government climate action”, out of the 36 countries analyzed only Morocco and Gambia had NDCs that were conscient with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit. The world’s biggest polluters, namely China and the United States, had NDCs that were “highly insufficient” and “critically insufficient”, respectively.

Environmental Externalities

Not only are the majority of countries falling short of their NDC targets, but many – predominantly Western nations – are actively contributing to climate change through contradictory public policies, all while reaffirming their commitment to a cleaner climate.

One of the reasons US President Donald Trump gave to justify leaving the Paris Agreement was its “draconian financial and economic burdens”. Since 2016, the United States has donated $1 billion to the GCF, the only payment “mandated” by the Paris Agreement.

The “global total, direct fossil-fuel subsidies in 2017”, according to an International Renewable Energy Agency report, totaled at least $447 billion.

Yet, how much did the US provide in fossil fuel subsidies? Conservative estimates put that number at about $20 billion, with “20 percent currently allocated to coal and 80 percent to natural gas and crude oil.” EU fossil fuel subsidies are estimated to be approximately €55 billion per year.

Furthermore, the “global total, direct fossil-fuel subsidies in 2017”, according to an International Renewable Energy Agency report, totaled at least $447 billion. Renewable energy subsidies, by contrast, only amounted to $128 billion in 2017.

Yet, this former number does not take into account many of the external costs associated with fossil fuels, such as air pollution and climate change, which may put the “true cost” at around $5.2 trillion, according to the International Monetary Fund (Coady, D., Parry, I. W., Le, N., & Shang, B. (2019). Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Remain Large: An Update Based on Country-Level Estimates. IMF Working Papers, 2019(89), 1–39).

For the United States, that number jumps up to about $649 billion and $289 billion for the EU. At a time when the cost of renewable energy continues to fall drastically, the “under-pricing” of fossil fuels not only makes little economic sense, but it continues to pose both significant health and environmental costs on society.

A carbon tax would charge corporations directly for their emissions, whereas the ETS simply reinforces the status quo by allowing wealthy countries to “pay away” their emissions instead of decreasing them.

The funds spent on fossil fuel subsidies should thus be redirected toward renewable energy. “Going green” tax breaks would also provide an incentive for individuals and companies to change their production and consumption habits, making the switch to “green” energy and technology more feasible.

Furthermore, the EU’s failure to implement an EU-wide carbon tax, relying instead on an emissions trading system (ETS), is rather revealing. A carbon tax would charge corporations directly for their emissions, whereas the ETS simply reinforces the status quo by allowing wealthy countries to “pay away” their emissions instead of decreasing them.

The EU ETS also favors some industries at the expense of others, providing a large number of “free allocations” to aircraft operators, as well as little to no tax on aviation fuel. Although the European Commission is considering a “border tax on imports of selected emissions-intensive products”, the role of aviation in EU carbon emissions continues to be largely ignored.

The Limits of Climate Diplomacy

So, while the Paris Climate Agreement may represent a milestone in international “climate diplomacy” – although the same was said of the Kyoto Agreement – it fails to private a pathway to keep the global average temperature below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

The Agreement fails to mention the redirection of fossil fuel subsidies to renewable energy or the implementation of a “carbon tax”. It reiterates the need to support developing countries via the GCF, but there is no specific wording regarding the monetary investment of “green” technologies that would assist these countries in their adaption to climate change.

To ratify the Agreement, the language needed to be vague, but in keeping the language vague, little is likely to get done, which is why “climate diplomacy” can only go so far.

For example, the Agreement fails to outline the need for geoengineering, which – although the technology is far from fool-proof – may need to be an “option” according to some climate scientists. So, although the world is undoubtedly better off with the Paris Climate Agreement than without it, countries should be realistic as to what it can accomplish.

However, many of the Paris Agreement’s shortcomings stem from the fact that international treaties are rarely legally binding, as there is no “real” sovereign international court. Despite the universal push to mitigate climate change, the agreement leaves too much discretion to individual countries.

To ratify the Agreement, the language needed to be vague, but in keeping the language vague, little is likely to get done, which is why “climate diplomacy” can only go so far. The real solutions come not only through furthered awareness, which the Paris Agreement rightly points out, but through investments in renewable energy, “green” and “natural” technologies, and sustainable consumption.