Matthew Paddock Blog Post #4

Blog Post #4: Paris Climate Accord

I read an article discussing the future of the Paris Climate Accord following our class discussions regarding the successes and failures of global environmental agreements such as the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols. Initially completed in 2015, the article assessed how the agreement had fared five years after its inception. The author believes the accord is working and will continue to yield positive results for the future. After conducting my own close analysis, I disagree with the author’s argument regarding the accord. 

In my view, the agreement is a respectable yet timid attempt to coordinate all global actors and encourage them to take steps to keep global temperature increases "well below" 2°C by 2100. However, I argue the treaty itself is weak because it does not have any binding limits on emissions. In fact, the treaty gives each respective country the authority to craft its own climate plan. I assert that this is a major risk and a primary reason as to why the plan has not been successful thus far. Countries have not been able to meet the guidelines outlined in their initial plans because they can move the goalposts whenever they wish and face no penalty if they fall short of their benchmarks. As a result, many countries have slowed their process toward carbon neutrality and have not even met their baseline goals. As UNEP stresses in its Emissions Gap report, “there is inconsistency between the emission levels implied by current policies and those projected under current NDCs by 2030, and, more importantly, those necessary for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050”. Other countries who remain unpunished have unequivocally refuted the ideals written in their outlines. For example, Brazil fell below their established goal after promising to slash carbon emissions by 43 percent. Even worse, the practice of deforestation (a major contributor to carbon emissions) has increased greatly under the presidency of Jair Bolsonaro. This is a clear case of the ‘free-rider problem’ in which some countries do not have to match the same goals as others. Instead, they can remain flexible with their own interests in mind at the expense of others who may be investing more of their resources into climate action.

I argue funding is another major problem within the accord that has generated great controversy. To make the accord a global, inclusive project, developed nations have been called upon to aid economically weaker countries who cannot afford to participate. The type of funding is another issue, since 71% of all funds provided by wealthy nations are made available through loans that poor countries, already downtrodden by debt, will eventually have to repay. It is obvious that wealthy countries already dislike the prospect of paying more than their ‘fair share,’ and will have to spend more as the climate situation worsens with every passing year. ‘Dependent’ countries rebuke the narrative that they are not paying enough. Such nations argue that they have historically contributed little to climate change and its subsequent effects compared to European and other Western powers. In my view, determining the providers and recipients of monetary aid (and the respective amounts being disbursed) has and will continue to generate tension between wealthy and developing countries alike. This is yet another shortfall of the agreement. 

The author of the Science article offers counterarguments. He believes that having an agreement like this in place is necessary to establish some goals or ambitions that countries can strive to achieve. Without this accord, there would be no attempt at global cooperation in any form. Additionally, he argues the accord has brought the issue of climate change to the forefront and cemented its status as a top priority that must be addressed in due time. Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist and policy expert at Princeton University also believes the pact has made a "real difference" by helping make climate change "a top concern of all countries." 

While this may be true, I think publicizing the issue can only do so much. Concrete results need to be recorded if states truly want to make a difference and effectuate positive change. Even the UN has stated that we will not be able to limit growth to 2 degrees celsius utilizing the current plans offered by the countries within the agreement. If there are no incentives for states to achieve their goals or punishments for those who do not meet their ambitions, government leaders have no reason to actively pursue improvements to our climate. Even with consistent debate and increased advocacy, no change will be made unless actual targets are written within the agreement and mandated to hold states accountable. 

Article: https://www.science.org/content/article/paris-climate-pact-5-years-old-it-working