[fblike]
Starting next Monday, more than one hundred heads of state, climate activists, international officials, and scientists will convene in Paris for negotiations on a new global climate accord that can replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The conference, also referred to as COP21, will aim to install oversight of carbon emission reductions by the developed (and possibly developing world) and create a framework to aid developing nations in climate mitigation efforts. Those following environmental policy are hopeful that this conference, which has been promoted for two years, will not collapse like the Copenhagen talks did in 2009. However, limitations facing U.S. President Barack Obama, who once dreamed of a farther reaching and legally binding climate accord, may constrain the talks since the Republican Party is likely to reject any agreement that obligates the United States to reduce its carbon emissions. According to climate activists, the failure of the Paris talks would set the world on a dangerous path since the world is set to have its hottest year on record this year. According to these activists the time to act on climate change has finally arrived.
This topic brief will cover the aims of those meeting at the Paris climate talks, explain some of the possible outcomes of the talks, and then provide an evaluation of how extempers should interpret whether the talks are successful.
Readers are also encouraged to use the links below and in the related R&D to bolster their files about this topic.
The Aims of the Paris Climate Talks
The ultimate aim of the Paris climate talks is to find a way to sustainably manage an increase in global temperatures, which are projected to rise near four degrees Celsius by the end of the century unless action is taken. Former British Labour Party leader Ed Miliband writes in The Guardian on November 22 that although nations have made voluntary commitments to reduce their carbon output, these pledges would still lead to a three degree temperature increase, which would not be enough to stave off some of the dangerous effects of climate change such as major heatwaves, flooding, and population displacements. The UK Independent explains on November 22 that 160 nations have submitted pledges prior to next week’s conference to reduce their emissions by 2030. These include the United States, Canada, and the members of the European Union (EU). Newsweek notes on November 2 that the United States has proposed to cut its carbon emissions by 26-28% from 2005 levels by 2025, while the EU has proposed a 40% reduction over 1990 levels by 2030. Canada has proposed a 30% reduction over 2005 levels by 2030. There are some hopeful signs that the world might be able to encourage steeper cuts, thereby using some of these voluntary pledges as the framework for a future accord. Also, nations that have previously resisted establishing targets on their emissions are showing a greater willingness to work toward the idea. For example, China has pledged to cap its emissions by 2030, at which time it will begin reducing them, while India is reportedly moving toward the same goal. The problem is that both nations have yet to establish a clear reduction target, but the Paris talks may mark the first step toward achieving that goal.
It is also important for negotiators to create a framework to monitor reductions. Just like arms control, nations are not going to sign a climate accord unless there is a way for nations to check that others are living up to their obligations. What doomed the Kyoto Protocol, especially in the United States, is that it established legally binding targets on the developed world, but established nothing for emerging economic powers such as China and India. This lack of compliance was deemed as a non-starter and in fact, the Kyoto Protocol was unanimously rejected by the Senate. One idea that has been proposed is for periodic reviews to take place regarding a nation’s compliance with any climate targets, but these usually clash with the desire for national sovereignty.
Another point of discussion in Paris will be about the financing of climate mitigation efforts. Developing nations, especially those near coastal regions such as Bangladesh or that are island chains such as the Seychelles or Maldives, are threatened the most by climate change. According to Forbes on November 19, the African continent illustrates the problems faced by a changing climate as El Nino – the warming of waters in the Pacific Ocean near the Equator – is already wreaking havoc. For example, Zimbabwe has thus far seen 50% of its cereal crop fail (although this is partly due to bad agricultural policies), while Kenya has seen higher-than-expected rains flood fields and reduce agricultural output. African leaders argue that they need $200 billion in the near future to work on climate adaptation projects so that they can cope with environmental changes, but these nations are too poor to fund these initiatives. Newsweek also provides the example of India, which is attempting to create an alternative power model that will rely more on renewable energy resources. The Indian government is pioneering a project that will use solar panels on rooftops to assist in a cleaner national energy grid and Prime Minister Narendra Modi has aimed to expand India’s solar capacity five-fold by 2022. However, such a project is going to require $100 billion in funding, something that India cannot finance alone. In the lead up to the Paris talks, the United Nations established the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The Hill explains on November 20 that the aim of this fund will be to channel billions of public and private funds from developed to developing nations by 2020. Thus far, the United Nations has provided $168 million for infrastructure upgrades, wetland improvements, and other sustainable development-type proposals, but this is a proverbial “drop in the bucket” compared to the assistance that developing nations argue that they need. Conservative governments in the industrialized world are somewhat hostile to funding the GCF, arguing that it constitutes an unwarranted transfer of wealth to poorer parts of the world. These arguments become fiercer when some of these conservative voices question the existence of climate change as a problem. Nevertheless, the Paris talks will focus on this issue and developing nations will see it as a vital part of the negotiations.
Finally, negotiators are going to have to talk about ways to depart from the fossil fuel infrastructure that has fueled industrial development for more than two centuries. Renewable technologies can be a good start, but government subsidies are still propping up some of the prices of solar, wind, and other renewable sources of energy. Part of the anxiety about taking action on climate change is what it would do to global economic development. Voters in developed nations, especially the United States, will not take kindly to agreements that significantly constrain economic output and result in joblessness and a lower standard of living. Take for example the current situation facing the Democratic Party in Appalachia, where it has lost ground due to the Obama administration’s efforts to close coal-fired power plants. Nevertheless, climate activists take hope that the economics of renewable energy are becoming better. Newsweek reports that since 2009 global investment in clean energy sources has risen from $45 billion to $270 billion and that while the United States gets 13% of its electricity from renewables now, that number is gradually increasing. Furthermore, the price of wind energy has declined by 58% since 2008, while the price of solar energy has fallen by 78%. It is hoped that the West can gradually phase in renewables and that the GCF can push an alternative to fossil fuels in developing countries, thereby producing a zero emissions world.
Possible Outcomes of the Talks
Arguably the most contentious issue in Paris is whether the final agreement – assuming one is reached – will be legally binding. The Obama administration would prefer a legally binding accord, just like the older Kyoto Protocol, but the problem is that such an agreement would have to be submitted to the U.S. Senate per Article II of the U.S. Constitution that gives the Senate “advice and consent” authority. Senate Republicans are still smarting over President Obama’s ability to circumvent them on the Iranian nuclear deal and would challenge any legally binding accord that was not submitted for their approval. The Guardian on November 12 writes that as a way to avoid facing the Senate, the Obama administration simply wants the agreement at Paris to avoid being a legally binding treaty, but other nations have argued that this is a ridiculous idea. The EU has reportedly told U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry that any climate accord must be legally binding and Reuters reports on November 19 that China favors a treaty. Nevertheless, climate negotiators may have to make any agreement non-binding because if the United States refuses to sign on that could significantly weaken the survivability and effectiveness of any climate mitigation efforts.
Finding a reliable source of funding of the GCF will also factor into the final agreement. The Atlantic reports on November 19 that the funding of the GCF is becoming a political hot potato in some nations as Senate Republicans are threatening to hold America’s $3 billion commitment to the fund hostage unless they get a say in the accord. In addition, The Sydney Morning Herald writes on November 22 that developing nations want to ensure that the developed nations at the conference provide funding to them. Developing nations dispute the fact that $62 billion has already been transferred by developed nations to them, so a better accounting of these funds is in order. There also needs to be a better framework for how these transfers of wealth will be monitored. After all, some nations asking for assistance such as Zimbabwe are notoriously corrupt, so skeptics are correct in noting that any climate funds must be tracked.
When it comes to monitoring compliance, nations will have to decide whether such monitoring should be mandatory or voluntary. As noted above, the monitoring of nations and the progress they are making toward certain targets is important because it can keep adherents to the agreement in line and encourage other nations to exercise good faith when implementing the agreement’s demands. One of the contentious issues surrounding monitoring is how often it should be conducted. Right now, there is an idea that international teams would visit nations once during a set period of years, but the problem is that nations have yet to agree on how long that period should be. The Sydney Morning Herald writes that the EU, China, and Australia favor every five years, but India is on the opposite side of the equation and argues that reviews should not take place before 2030. This is due to India’s concerns that it needs to have time to industrialize further before it is subjected to any investigation into its emissions levels.
Along with simply monitoring compliance, the talks need to ensure that there is some penalty for nations that do not live up their pledges. Thus far, climate observers have talked about the mere fact of publishing findings and “shaming” nations, but this only goes so far as the UN Commission on Human Rights illustrates with its periodic reviews of member states human rights records. Far-reaching penalties could include economic sanctions or fines, but again, the UN’s authority is limited here. Developed nations are likely to balk at sizable penalties, but may warm to the idea if it holds China and India’s “feet to the fire” on emission reductions. However, it is more likely that the agreement will probably not include such sanctions due to the political firestorm that it could generate.
Evaluating the Success of the Talks
There are really two ways that someone could interpret the outcome of the Paris climate talks. On the one hand, the meeting could be viewed as a success if it gets attendees to treat the threat of climate change the same way. The Financial Times reports on November 22 that the Paris talks will feature delegates from 195 nations, business executives, and more than 3,000 journalists. Thousands of climate activists will also be present in Paris, although they are barred from holding demonstrations in light of the recent Parisian terror attacks. There will be a lot of pressure for nations to find a lasting agreement, but a recognition that climate change is a problem and establishing a framework for continuing to talk about the issue could be deemed as a success. Indeed, the Obama administration’s new aim, according to Newsweek, is for the talks to produce momentum that binds its successors to continue talking with other nations about climate mitigation. Therefore, while the Paris talks may not produce a legally binding treaty, may not fix a nation’s carbon targets, and may not provide a defined framework for GCF funding or oversight, if they lead to more meetings every four or five years they may one day produce more ambitious plans. For example, the U.S. has pledged to reduce its emissions by nearly 30% right now, but future talks may eventually lead to pledges to reduce that number even further.
Still, the lack of a legally binding treaty could also be viewed as a defeat. Activists are sounding the alarm over how the world must act quickly to avoid disastrous warming and they note that voluntary targets are still not enough to secure a manageable future. The Economist writes on November 18 that ambitious activists charge that the world is “aiming for too little” at Paris and these activists want a more efficient system that sets a price for carbon and taxes fossil fuels. They are also skeptical that China will live up to the aims that it has set for itself when it comes to the adoption of renewable energy. The Christian Science Monitor on November 20 explains that for China to achieve 20% of its electricity output from renewable sources by 2030 that it would have to generate the equivalent of the U.S. energy grid in renewables, but it is not on pace to do that. This could make some current climate projections irrelevant since those assume that nations will live up to pledges to either reduce or cap emissions at promised levels. And activists argue that even if the talks produce momentum, more definitive action needs to happen immediately since the world cannot keep talking as temperatures rise. The Guardian explains on November 20 that some allege that this shows a disconnect between negotiators and those most affected by climate change, who tend to be more economically disadvantaged. The inability of protesters to attract media attention to their concerns due to regulations passed by the French government may exacerbate this divide and thereby inhibit the drive toward “climate justice.”
When speaking on this topic, especially at tournaments the week after Thanksgiving, extempers should try to evaluate the talks from a realistic perspective. It is not logical to assume that the Obama administration will agree to a legally binding treaty since such a treaty would die a quick death in the Senate. Similarly, it is not logical to assume that India will suddenly decide that it is fine with strict cuts in its emissions. One of the problems of any global agreement, and the Doha talks are a perfect illustration of this, is that when tons of actors are involved (in this case various nations) the chances of acquiring a more definitive deal wane. In climate talks every nation is seeking to preserve its sovereignty, while also seeking to protect what it holds dear. This means that developed nations want to protect economic growth, while developing nations want compensation or enough time to experience the benefits of industrialization. In this type of environment, the Obama administration’s goal of continuing the momentum of the talks is probably the best possible outcome, even if such a result does not please those who wish more action could be taken to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change.