Back in 2009, the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference ended with a whimper, falling short of what most of the 115 leaders gathered in the Danish capital had been expecting after endless draft agreements and sleepless nights.
While acknowledging that temperature rises have to be kept to no more than 2°C, the Copenhagen accord contained no strong commitments. In a press conference held after the talks, US President Barack Obama admitted that “This progress is not enough” while then UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the agreement was a vital first step, yet there was a lot more work to do for assurances to be translated into legally-binding agreements.
Six years later, the atmosphere at the end of the Paris Climate Change Conference was certainly different. The climate deal agreed upon by the governments of 196 nations was hailed as a historic turning point for the world and the end of the fossil fuel era. It was, in the words of various commentators, one of the world’s greatest diplomatic successes.
Most were not expecting the 196 nations to reach a compromise. In fact, until the very last hours, the agreement looked unlikely – the announcement had been scheduled for 5.30pm, but, at 7pm, the stage at Le Bourget, north of Paris, was still empty. Then, at 7.16pm, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, flanked by UN officials, declared that an agreement had been signed. Delegates were on their feet, clapping and cheering.
The global agreement on climate change, reached against the backdrop of a French capital still reeling from the November 13 attacks, is indeed historic. The timing is also critical.
First of all, current commitments on greenhouse emissions run out in 2020, so governments were expected to reach an agreement on what happens beyond that critical expiry date.
Moreover, for decades, scientists have been warning that if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, we will pass the threshold beyond which global warming becomes irreversible and therefore catastrophic. That threshold is a temperature rise of about 5°C, which is the same difference between the present day and the last ice age.
The new global agreement on climate change, aimed at reducing global greenhouse emissions, binds developed and developing countries to limit their emissions to 2°C, with an aspiration of 1.5°C.
Moreover, regular reviews are intended to ensure that commitments can be increased according to scientific advice. Urgent aid will be given to countries affected by climate-related disasters while poor nations will be provided with finance to help them reduce emissions and cope with the effects of extreme weather.
Admittedly, the agreement is not perfect. Not all the commitments are legally binding and poor countries are worried that the finance available is not enough. There is also the element of timing.
On the one hand, all countries must act fast to avoid breaching the 2°C threshold, which scientists say is the limit of safety. But, on the other hand, these are the same countries that have been discussing how to take collective action on global warming since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992.
After more than two decades of discussions, will the Paris call for action be heeded?
“Since 1992, we have heard a lot of rhetoric, even in Paris,” Martin Galea De Giovanni, the director of Friends of the Earth Malta, says.
The Paris Climate Change Conference is only the beginning because, as soon as the ink on the agreement had dried, it was time to turn commitments into policy, investment and implementation.
After more than two decades of discussions, will the Paris call for action be heeded?
“The new global agreement on climate change is a tool which all the nations can start using,” Mr Galea De Giovanni adds. “Also, the ambition to keep global temperature rises below 1.5°C is a step in the right direction. However, the Paris agreement does not delineate a clear path of how to make this aspiration a reality.
“Moreover, while funds will be available for vulnerable nations, which are facing a crisis they did not create, these might not be sufficient. Overall, we need more community involvement in this global effort, such as community energy projects that are already being carried out in Germany and other countries. It is people who have the power to bring change.”
Alan Deidun, associate professor at the Physical Oceanography Unit within the Faculty of Science at the University of Malta, says that having all 196 nations commit to an agreement is very positive.
“This is a major development, especially considering that the US and China – which, together, contribute to around one third of global emissions – are not signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. Admittedly, the Paris agreement is not all mandatory, however, this is an understandable trade-off to get nations such as the US on board.
“Also, this is a first step. In the US, for instance, the agreement still has to go through the Senate. As Greenpeace International executive director, Kumi Naidoo, said, ‘This deal alone won’t dig us out the hole we’re in but it makes the sides less steep’.
“There is a sense or urgency to this agreement. This is because it is now acknowledged that global warming is a reality. Year after year, we are registering record temperatures and the impact of climate change is being felt in the northern hemisphere. We are beyond prevention – we must now adapt. In fact, the sceptics lobby present in Paris was largely silent.
“For Malta, if the EU pledges greater emission cuts, this will affect our renewable energy targets beyond 2020. We need to cut down on our emissions and be more reliant on renewables. Our main problem here is traffic – cutting down emissions from power generation will compensate for our traffic but this remains a huge problem,” Prof. Deidun said.
Paris climate agreement: key facts
• It is now acknowledged that the earth’s atmosphere is getting warmer, with potentially catastrophic results.
• The agreement establishes that temperature rises have to be kept to no more than 2°C and that we should be aiming for 1.5°C.
• All countries will need to review their contributions every five years from 2020. Also, they will not be able to lower their targets.
• Countries will aim to achieve carbon neutrality in the second half of the century.
• $100 billion in loans and donations will need to be raised each year from 2020 to finance projects that enable countries to adapt to the impacts of climate change or reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
• The agreement can only enter into force once it has been ratified by 55 countries, representing at least 55 per cent of emissions.