Post COP21 - what to expect?

There was much rejoicing and shoulder patting when the COP21 climate conference in Paris came to an end almost three weeks ago. There was an air of triumph in the air and participants as well as observers agreed that history was written during the two weeks in Paris. But what exactly was agreed on and how likely is it, that we are really looking at a breakthrough deal that will finally cause nations to take meaningful and effective measures to combat climate change and decrease GHG emissions? 

Confident of victory. Source: http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/

It can be said with certainty that the global attention the Paris climate conference received was unprecedented. While the previous COPs, or at least the ones until the Copenhagen conference, were more like yearly side event next to major international meetings such as the G7 and G20 summits and the APEC meetings, this one had the world's attention. So what was the world hoping for, when it eagerly watched the events unfold in Paris? Reading through news articles and blogs in the run up to the COP21 I gathered that the major hope lies in all the aspects that were missed and neglected in the previous conferences. The lack of effective implementation of strategies set out in earlier conferences, as well as no adequate financing and the absence of accountability were all points that observers hoped will be addressed this time. 

So what was the actual outcome that led everybody to feel so euphoric about? A major reason was that for the first time the participating nations, 195 parties, agreed on the importance of clear and effective actions in order to phase out the era of fossil fuels and it signposted a clear shift to clean energy. Over 100 years of the fossil fuel dominance should come to an end and the conference showed that the world unanimously proclaims that climate change is a serious threat. However, it needs to be stated that the final agreement gives the nations considerable leeway in terms of how they go about cutting their emissions. The only mandatory points are that whatever the nations do to cut their emissions, their approach needs to be transparent and every five years their progress will be reviewed. This inevitably opens up the question of whether the agreement is binding. Something, that the previous conferences did not manage to achieve. Whether or not it should have binding targets and sanctions was a hotly debated topic again during the COP21. As already mentioned, some aspects of the agreements, such as the transparent reporting and revisiting the plans every five year are binding, however, the emissions targets and how those are expected to be achieved, are non-binding. This bottom-up approach goes in line with the host nation listening to all the concerns of the participating nations when writing the agreement and it tries to acknowledge the fact that a one size fits all plan is not going to work. Hence, it expects every country to work up their own emission reduction target and plan. 

While the COP21 is hailed as a major negotiation breakthrough and a new chapter in the fight against climate change, critical voices argue that nothing is being solved just by agreeing on some basic factors. They claim that the absence of any sanctions for those nations who do not meet their target, who do not do enough in order to make a meaningful change towards a greener future, will have no incentive to do so. Personally I believe that the UNFCC's solution to the lack of sanctions, namely "naming and shaming" is a very tricky and rudimental way of tackling such a major and important issue and they are walking a very fine line here. Hoping that nations will stay on track with their emission reductions out of fear of losing face in the international arena is a rather unstable basis in my opinion.

While people have every right to be optimistic about the future, based on the can do attitude of the participating nations in Paris, we should not forget that even if all nations who made their pledges do stick to their targets, we will be looking at a temperature increase in the atmosphere of 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, which is well beyond the proclaimed 2 degree goal, set out by UNFCC. So the question remains: does a deal that makes the rather unimportant parts of a contract binding, and the actual core issue non-binding, lead to the envisioned results? How the individual plans of each nations are going to unfold and whether we were right to praise the COP21 as a great success needs to be seen needs in the years to come.