Paris Climate Talks – Environmental Success or Diplomatic Bluster?

Last Saturday, the crucial Paris climate change talks came to their momentous conclusion as 196 world leaders from around the globe put their names to a paper, pledging to address the issue of climate change.

Such an agreement was always invariably going to be imperfect; with so many voices being heard, so many interests at conflict and so much at stake, an ideal resolution was always impossible. But how far did the attending members go in achieving a real success in terms of diplomacy, environmentalism and affirmative action? Are the current plans to tackle pollution enough?

The Plus Points

• Inclusivity. There were many positive things to reflect upon in the aftermath of the Parisian talks, not least the fact that almost 200 countries had come together and agreed upon something – every voice was heard. Normally, meetings of this magnitude are confined to the developed nations of the world who tend to rule in their own interests, such as the G20, OPEC, etc. The UN climate summit, hosted by France, achieved the uncanny and uncommon feat of uniting all of the world’s nations, including the most impoverished and underprivileged.
• Temperature Consensus. A crucial bone of contention in the 2009 Copenhagen talks, which was ultimately one of the straws which broke that particular camel’s back and led to the disintegration of negotiation, was the 2°C temperature rise. Developing nations were keen to impose it as a non-negotiable factor (and were even pushing for 1.5°C), while many developed nations refused to commit. This time, the language has clearly stated an inflexible limit of 2°C, with an optimistic target of 1.5°C.
• Concessions all Round. As it was always impossible for all nations to walk away from this summit with all of their demands met, concessions were inevitable if a deal was to be struck. This time, they were made by all parties – the EU were forced to drop their insistence that individually agreed emissions cut not be legally binding, China and India agreed to the inclusion of the 1.5°C figure, the USA allowed the inclusion of the key terms “loss” and “damage” into the deal.

The Minus Points

• Methods and Tactics are Ill-Defined. Though the aims of the convention were set out clearly, the methods by which they are to be achieved were left vague and undefined. It’s all well and good stating the intention to curb emissions, improve air quality, reduce pollution  and prevent further damage to our planet, but without clarifying exactly how this is to be achieved, we run the risk of making the right sounds without actually taking any action.
• Developing Country Aid is Insufficient. Developed nations pledged to donate $100 billion per year to help struggling countries reach their emissions targets and receive aid and support in the event of environmental catastrophes. While such a figure sounds substantial, it pales in comparison to the $2,000 billion a year spent on the military or the $14,000 billion required to bail out ailing banks in recent memory. Significantly more aid will be required if targets are to be met.
• Reviews are not soon Enough. The first review is not scheduled to take place until 2020. By that time, it is theoretically possible that if we continue at the current rate of fossil fuel consumption (i.e. countries willingly or unwillingly do not meet their targets and fulfil their promises), avoiding a rise of more than 2°C will already be impossible. As such, developed nations will not be held accountable for their actions quickly enough.
• Developed Nations are not Pledging Enough. Many commentators have spectated that developed nations, including the US, Australia and the EU have not made sufficient contributions to the agreement in order to save smaller nations more at risk of the direct effects of climate change.

As such, the Paris summit represents a remarkable achievement on a global scale – but one which may simply be too little, too late without more clearly-worked and –worded follow-up resolutions.