Paris Climate Agreement: Where do we stand?

When I say “Paris”, the first thing that may come to mind is the romantic city in France: shopping, sights, love. Recently, the word “Paris” is also associated with the climate agreement signed there. This agreement holds a lot of value for the development of a sustainable world. It’s one of the first legally binding agreements. At least, that’s what we’ve been told, right?

But with the United States’ abrupt (albeit predicted) departure, one can only wonder exactly how legally binding it is. Are there repercussions for not meeting your targets? Or for sudden departures like the one we have witnessed? The whole basis of this agreement was that developed countries would provide funding for the developing nations. With one major contributor already gone, what is the status of developing nations in this agreement? As the citizen of one, the thought of having to pull out of such an accord disappoints me; but what are we to do when we don’t have the funds?

Let’s look into the agreement to get a clearer picture.

The Paris Climate Agreement, formed within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), was adopted in Paris on the 12th of December 2015. This agreement focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by all the parties that have signed it. What makes this agreement so unique is that there is no unanimously set target for all the involved parties. The system of “Nationally Determined Contributions” (NDCs) drives this agreement forward. Each country determines their own targets to do their bit, hence, working in their own capacity. The only condition is to set higher targets each time, i.e. either achieve the same reduction in a shorter time span or a greater reduction in the same time span as the previous target. This bodes well for rapidly developing economies, like India and China, as they do not have to compromise as much on their development as they would have had to with a unanimous target.

But is this legally binding? The whole agreement is really based on free will, with no hard and fast rules or international laws to back it. The agreement only encourages the involved parties to be “ambitious” and set targets “with the view to achieving the purpose of this Agreement.” There really is no minimum target. The success of this agreement boils down to the honesty and willingness of the country leaders, and as we’re all aware, politics is dirty. And the economy is almost always favoured over the environment.

This is the small crack in the Agreement that gives way and caves in under the slightest pressure, causing total collapse and, therefore, failure. The stress on this is slowly increasing due to the announcement of the US’s unwillingness to partake.

Which brings us to the next problem: funding. In the pre-existing conditions discussed, developed countries agreed to gather US$ 100 billion in climate funding by 2020, and provide that same sum per annum thereafter till 2025. That’s a LOT of money, and we can’t really deny that the US was to have been the major contributor to this fund. The Obama administration granted US$ 500 million to the Green Climate Fund (GCF, said to be the backbone for funding for the Paris Agreement), the first installment of a supposed US $3 billion grant toward the Agreement. That’s how much their involvement would’ve helped.

(President Donald Trump has, however, openly criticised the GCF, calling it a scheme that redirected money from rich to poor countries. Ugh. *insert MAJOR eye roll*)

But, developed countries, specifically the G7, not only have to contribute to the GCF, but also have to provide a sum of US$ 240 million fro Climate Risk Insurance. This money will also help in setting up the Climate Risk and Early Warning Systems (CREWS) Initiative. And guess who’s also a G7 country? Yepp. It’s the US.

I guess the real fear isn’t that the US is leaving the Agreement. I mean, sure, they’re also taking a whole load of money out with them, but there’s also so many more countries involved, and with some developing nations also contributing monetarily, we should be good. The true fear is that some may be swayed by Trump’s words and follow suit, which is exactly the kind of pressure, that will cause the whole agreement to fall on itself.

And under all the rubble and destruction, you’ll find us, the developing nations, crushed under the one Agreement that gave us power to make our own choices in being environmentally sound and helped us develop sustainably.

Will economy take precedence over environment once again?