An agreement on curbing global warming to succeed the Kyoto protocol on climate change has finally been adopted at the Paris climate summit. The new pact, even if drafted astutely to let some critical clauses be interpreted variously to suit different interests, has kept alive the spirit of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) of 1992 to steer the world towards relatively less environment-damaging economic growth. Several parts of the Paris accord are nonbinding in nature. It attempts to compensate for that, however, by stipulating periodic review of the progress on the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) declared by different countries prior to the Paris meeting. Such an appraisal is mandatory for the developed countries - but without any punitive action for lapses - and optional for the others. Although the Paris deal makes no mention of the historic responsibilities of the industrialised countries in vitiating the environment, it differentiates between developed and developing countries in the mooted climate actions on all counts - mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology transfer, capacity building and transparency. But unlike the Kyoto accord, the Paris agreement does not exempt any country from contributing to climate mitigation efforts - a caveat laid down by the developed countries to participate in a new deal.
The negotiators at the Paris climate summit have also made several other compromises and knowingly kept some loopholes in the agreed deal to bring all the countries on board. For one, the issue of climate finance to be made available by the rich nations to the developing countries for their climate mitigation and adaptive efforts has been kept virtually open. The Paris text only mentions that the developed countries will provide $100 billion annually for this purpose by 2020 - as already agreed - and scale it up later but without making it mandatory. Also, the agreement puts loss and damage (financial help extended to vulnerable countries hit by climate-driven disasters) in a separate article but without elaborating on the basis for such compensation and liability.
Moreover, on the target for containing global warming within a limit, the Paris agreement chooses to incorporate some ambiguity in the text in order to accommodate the demand of the small island countries to reduce the cap on temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. It, consequently, stipulates that the nations will try to limit the increase in the global average temperature to below two degrees Celsius, possibly 1.5 degrees Celsius, from the pre-industrial era. This, in other words, means that the amount of greenhouse gases or GHGs emitted by different countries should gradually be brought down to the same level that the trees, soil and seas can absorb naturally between 2050 and 2100. For this, the world will need to stop polluting the environment through GHG emissions by 2070 to reach the two-degree-Celsius goal or by 2050 to hit the 1.5-degree target.
The Paris climate summit has, thus, managed to deliver an agreement which, despite being not being wholly binding, can achieve the twin goals of limiting global warming in the long run and promoting adaptive action in the short run to minimise the potential damage due to climate-induced disasters. The success of the accord will ultimately depend on the political will to mould economic policies towards non-fossil fuel-based development, and to stick to self-determined climate action targets.
