Is the Paris agreement on measures to curb climate change a success or failure? It is the first major international agreement on climate change in 18 years (since the Kyoto Accord in 1997). Evaluating the success of COP 21 involves a is a classic case of whether you think the glass is half full or half empty.
Some of the key elements of the agreement include:
• There is an aspirational target of limiting temperature increases to well below 2.0 C, and to pursue efforts to decrease warming to 1.5 C, a threshold around which the rising ocean levels will cover the island states in the Pacific, the Greenland ice sheet will collapse, and more dangerous effects of climate change will start to appear.
• Money has been committed to help developing countries transition to clean energy and adapt to climate change.
• There is language in the text to acknowledge the need to minimize and address loss and damage from climate change to the poorer nations.
• There is an agreement for all countries to submit updated plans, that would “rachet up” efforts to reduce GHG emissions by 2020 and every five years afterward.
• The agreement requires all countries to monitor, verify and report their greenhouse gas emissions.
• There is an agreement on mechanisms to enable developing countries to be more transparent in their monitoring and reporting of emissions, and progress to meet goals.
Many see these parts of the agreement as a positive indication of progress.
On the glass half-empty side of the ledger, the temperature targets that have collectively been agreed to, and the individual country commitments are not legally binding. So there are no consequences to anyone if they fail to live up to targets. Also, for most countries, there are no concrete plans as to how they will achieve their emissions targets. Further, there is no legally binding commitment to compensate developing countries for the losses and damages they will incur from climate change.
Let’s turn to varying assessments of the agreement, from leaders from different sectors.
U.S. President Barrack Obama said: “I believe this moment can be a turning point for the world,” and added that this is “the best chance we have to save the one planet that we’ve got.”
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that the agreement is “historic, ambitious and balanced.”
On the other hand, Bill McKibben, one of the world’s leading climate change activists, said: “Every government seems now to recognize that the fossil fuel era must end and soon. But the power of the fossil fuel industry is reflected in the text, which drags out the transition so far that endless climate damage will be done.”
And James Hansen, of the world’s leading climate scientists, as reported in the Guardian, stated: “It’s a fraud really, a fake … it’s worthless words, no action, just promises … as long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will continue to be burned.”
Not only was COP 21 the most important international climate change meeting since the failed Copenhagen meetings in 2009, it was the first meeting that Canada’s new federal Liberal government has participated in, after 10 years of limited involvement by the former federal Conservative government. So how was Canada’s role assessed?
I attended COP 21, and was struck by how excited and positive delegates were about Canada’s role — including, importantly, non-Canadian delegates.
I asked Claire Martin, a Canadian Green Party delegate, about Canada’s role. In talking about the Canadian team, and about Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna, Martin said: “ I am more than thrilled [with] McKenna. I think the team has been brilliant so far. Ask advice when they think they need it, gone ahead and made great decisions.”
I also asked Martin about the significance of McKenna being asked to be a co-facilitator of the negotiations for the second week of the COP 21 meetings. Her response was: “Massive. Oh, huge because now we are actively participating. We’re not just being ‘Canada’s back.’ We’re taking on the role of being ‘Oh we’ll even help you with the process.’”
Yet there was also concern about Canada’s lack of a concrete plan.
I asked Torrance Coste, a youth delegate and representative of the Wilderness Committee, about Canada’s role, and he replied: “The analogy that I’ve heard floating around the hallways here a little bit that I really like is that the prime minister and the climate change minister announced that they’re interested in a trip to Hawaii but they’ve yet to book flights or hotel rooms and they’ve yet to tell us when they are gonna make those plans, those purchases. So you know I think most people can get their head around that. You don’t sort of tell your friends and your friends don’t start getting excited about your upcoming vacation until you have those details sorted out.”
Mike Hudema, another delegate from Canada, and an activist with Greenpeace, offered pluses and minuses on Canada’s role at COP 21: “I’ve definitely heard a lot of people comment that they are really refreshed at the change of governments and surprised by a lot of announcements that Canada has made, especially committing to stabilizing the climate at 1.5 degrees which is vitally important especially for low-lying nations.”
“And then also their commitment to including indigenous rights in the text, really pushing for that. So I think the Canadian government is really to be credited for that.
“On the opposite side, we’ve heard that they’ve been real bullies when it comes to really talking about mitigation and compensation, when it comes to countries that have been already impacted by climate change and they were awarded second place Fossil yesterday.”
In sum, Canada “is back” as Trudeau is fond of saying. Delegates were generally impressed and enthusiastic about Canada’s role. Yet the federal government has not committed to new emissions targets at the federal level (though it pushed for 1.5 C at the COP 21 meetings), and the prime minister has said that rather than having a federal policy, he will work with provincial governments instead, and policy will vary from province to province.
Some observers have questioned whether it is possible for the country to successfully meet carbon emission targets (when they are announced) when there is no federal policy. And Canada was recognized multiple times with fossil awards at this year’s COP meetings, awards given by the Climate Action Network for behaviour that obstructs progress on climate change actions.
So the general perception is that Canada, with our change in government at the federal level, has changed perceptions. But there are still challenges to Canada becoming a world climate-change leader.
So, was COP 21 a success? Here is my analogy:
Imagine you are travelling for a meeting of absolutely critical importance. But you are utterly lost in terms of directions, and you are late.
We have now found our geographical bearings. We know roughly, but not exactly, how to get to the meeting. But we are still late, and will have to figure out a way to increase our speed to our destination. As stated in a number of headlines in recent days: “Now the hard work begins.”
David Tindall is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of British Columbia. He is also a Climate Reality Project Canada Leader.
