A declaration was made at Paris’s climate talks at the plenary session: the introduction of a new initiative to save the world in a legal format.
According to the Japan Times, the agreed collective text stated that the total global “average temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels” and that the countries should “pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change”. This achievement comes after marathon negotiations, lasting two weeks, with representatives from 195 countries participating in the conference. The highlight of the conference is the pledge of $100 billion by developed countries to compensate the damage which the initiative will cause to the affected countries.
A material question here is whether this draft agreement in Paris will have the consequence of turning the focus of the global economy away from fossil fuels? Also important to query is what the consequences will be for developing countries? The answers to these age old questions from advanced countries during the conference had a familiar echo to it. Most of the contentions in the conference mad reference to a leading scientific report: that ‘the globe is getting warmer by day’ and so must be stopped, controlled or mitigated. Further, in the conference representatives from many weaker countries murmured that past polluters had actually dictated the terms in this draft in order to contain the future emission of the weaker countries. Therefore, such smaller and weaker countries have demonstrated their resulting displeasure during the conference but have accepted the position by considering the potential for future disaster. A classic statement by Thucydides is quite poignant here: “The strong do what they have the power to do, and the weak accept what they have to accept”.
This international conference arose because of a bilateral understanding that was made between the US and China and a joint declaration that was also announced in November 2014. This was the first time that China had departed from its previous alignment with India’s stance on the issue of climate change. By accepting the emission cuts proposed by the US, China is seeking to contain India’s path of development through a strategic understanding with the US. This is because it is known that if the emission is suddenly controlled to 2 °C, India will struggle without external support to continue their growth trajectory.
Indian Prime Minister Modi said in New Delhi that “this agreement has no winners or losers”. However, the Hindu news media reports that although many in India support the landmark agreement at Paris, some have raised the concern that this ‘should not be an impediment to development’. However, the Environmental Minister Prakash Javadekar hailed the COP21 climate pact said, “The actions of developed countries are far below their historical responsibilities and fair shares. We have in the spirit of compromise agreed on a number of phrases in the agreement”.
With the exception of doubts surrounding the next steps for implementation, ther is much room for optimism with the agreement. All the major countries including China, Russia, Brazil, India, and Arab states have agreed the final draft and have delivered a positive statement about the conference outcome. Such a situation is very rare in the context of previous climate change conferences. Therefore, this conference looks to have been a watershed moment in international initiatives aiming to protect the earth for future generations.
The BBC has commented that the implementation of the agreement will be very challenging. According to Janine Mistrick the “Kyoto protocol has good intentions but failed legislations”. For this reason President Obama argued that the Paris conference has a “strong accountability and transparency system for both developed and developing countries”.
However, an important question would be how the countries manage to raise the $100 billion required to support the affected countries. There has been much debate globally over the logistics and viability of this since this commitment was announced during the conference. A press release dated 9 December from the London School of Economics (LSE) stated that “Rich countries can and should provide $100 billion a year to support action on climate change in developing countries”.
Further, the LSE report estimates that, “between US $50 and 80 billion in public funding in rich countries could be raised from a mix of auctioning permits for greenhouse gas emissions, introducing carbon taxes and other measures. New taxes on international shipping and air travel could raise about US$10 billion, and the removal of rich country government subsidies for oil, coal and gas could add a further $10 billion”.
These are the estimations of research experts working for private institutions, and not from the policy papers of committed countries. Hence, the pledge of $100 billion from the developed countries has been subject to contested discussion. It is unsurprising because historically talks have essentially been lip service, with little progress made after commitment by developed countries. Indeed, India and China have already shown their frustration and displeasure at the failure of rich countries in not having a clear policy framework for raising funds to support climate change. The Guardian Newspaper has highlighted this by quoting the stances of India, China, Brazil and South Africa, each of whom have “made it clear developing countries could not be expected to cut greenhouse gas emissions without help”. Hence, the success of the much praised Paris climate draft will only be realised in the future when the commitment of developed countries is actually delivered.
Antony Clement is a writer on Strategic Affairs
