By Matthew Hoffmann
Well, this is beginning to feel old: 2021 was another year of climate catastrophes — just like the one before it.
Yet another year of fires and floods, with more beckoning for 2022. And, like last year, there are desperate calls for 2022 to be a year of accelerated climate action. It has to be, in so many ways (technological, social, economic, political), if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
Yet one thing that’s different in 2022 than years past is that we we now have a completed, functioning global climate treaty. At the November 2021 COP26 meeting in Glasgow, the international community finalized the remaining details of the Paris Agreement.
Much of the world, or at least the media in North America and the United Kingdom, met this news with confusion. CNN, the Economist, the Globe and Mail and even CBC Kids ran stories asking the same question: “Was COP26 a Success?”
The consensus that emerged in the media and among columnists was that some progress was made even if it didn’t fix climate change. Environmental activists were more certain: COP26 was a failure.
Both reactions are reasonable because two facts about climate action uncomfortably coexist.
- The Paris Agreement is working as it was designed, doing what it is supposed to do and what it can do as an international agreement.
- The Paris Agreement agreement alone can’t save us. The global response to climate change is not generating transformation at the pace or scale we need to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
Paris is a means, not an end
The Paris Agreement is a context for climate action, not action itself. Its main substance is a collectively agreed goal (keep warming to 1.5 C) and it mandates that countries develop their own climate plans, which they have mostly done and some have even ratcheted them up since 2015.
It also provides infrastructure for collective reporting and monitoring of plans with common metrics, for taking stock of how states’ commitments translate to the overarching goal, for developing a global carbon market and mobilizing finance for the Global South. After Glasgow, most of this is now in place.
Yay! The Paris Agreement is working … and yet the climate is still burning.
Unfortunately, the Paris Agreement can work perfectly and states’ individual efforts can still come up short. The Paris Agreement is a means, not an end.
Turning this global institutional context into an effective global response to climate change requires ambitious national action. The Paris Agreement will succeed in the broader sense if states ramp up the ambition and implementation of their climate plans. That’s the whole ballgame. Fortunately, the Paris Agreement infrastructure and approach provide some mechanisms to encourage this.
The co-operative infrastructure — especially transparency and common reporting timelines and metrics for greenhouse gas emissions and national climate actions — may help catalyze virtuous cycles of increasing ambition. Even though the Paris Agreement relies on individual instead of joint commitments, countries are still wary about moving ahead of their peers and competitors. Having transparent national commitments with standardized reporting is potentially a way to alleviate those concerns.
Efforts to mobilize finance need to be drastically improved, however. This was a major sticking point at COP26 that almost derailed the conference.
States in the Global North are seriously underperforming on their pledged commitments on climate and adaptation finance. They have come up at least US$20 billion short on a US$100 billion per year pledge — an amount itself considered “miniscule” compared to what’s ultimately necessary. Mobilizing finance for the Global South was a key bargain that made the Paris Agreement itself possible and its future success depends on this commitment being fulfilled.
Accountability and inclusion can instigate change
These mechanisms, however, rely on countries wanting to act with enthusiasm and equity. That’s the necessary change and it’s what climate activists took to the streets around the world to demand. The logic of accountability and inclusion built into the Paris Agreement offers opportunities to instigate change.
First, accountability in the Paris Agreement is largely external — the agreement itself doesn’t have enforcement mechanisms because decisions and actions are taken domestically. This provides citizens and activists with concrete targets — national climate plans.
We need more national legislation like Canada’s Net Zero Accountability Act. We need citizen pressure to continue ratcheting up national ambition and implementation to ensure that such legislation isn’t greenwashing.
Second, the Paris Agreement recognizes the importance of mobilizing the full range of corporations, cities, provinces, NGOs, communities and so on to meet the 1.5 C target. The work done by these non-state and sub-state players can change what countries see as possible and appropriate climate action.
So, we have Paris and that’s a good thing, somewhat. It is working. It provides the infrastructure to do more; to do better. It’s not magic though. As Catherine Abreu, the executive director of the Climate Action Network, observed:
“The final outcomes of COP26 gives Canadians a clear image of where the world is at: united in the desperate hope to limit warming to 1.5 C and avoid the most irreversible impacts of climate change; divided on the scale of effort required to achieve that goal.”
The animating force for the Paris Agreement to truly succeed is the efforts that people, communities, NGOs and corporations deploy to make states see the necessity of the proper scale of effort. We have Paris, but hope for 2022 will be found in the movements and politics that are growing across the globe; in fighting for pandemic recovery plans that focus on justice, equity and sustainability; in the everyday actions of concerned individuals that build social momentum for change.
Matthew Hoffmann is Professor of Political Science and Co-Director Environmental Governance Lab at the University of Toronto
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
FlaglerLive relies on a strong core of donors. But they’re just a fraction of the 25,000 readers who daily depend on FlaglerLive for reliable, fearless reporting and analysis you cannot get anywhere else. If you’re still on the sidelines, we need you to join the Friends of FlaglerLive today. Elections, storms, the latest catastrophe - when dependable and factual local reporting will be more essential than ever, take a stand for integrity and have a direct voice in fostering serious journalism in your community. As little as $10 makes a difference, or better still, become a monthly donor: Become a "Friend of" FlaglerLive, a 501(c)(3) non-profit news organization. Donations are tax deductible. Think of it as buying a "scoop", in every sense of the term!
Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Timothy Patrick Welch says
When you equate saving the planet to money, you loose the battle and the war. The greedy will never fully agree.
When countries large and small compete the outcome is driven by their laws. And since our complicated world does not follow the same set of laws, this also will fail.
Guiding impressionable youth to action will also fail, as we see in our society day.
The only solution is for an enlightened nation to take a stand and lead the way, so others can follow.
Ray W. says
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), worldwide demand for electricity was expected to rise by an additional 700 terawatt-hours in 2021, with the most significant possible variable that could impact the expected growth in demand expected to come from the spread of SARS-Covid2 and its effect on worldwide economic growth.
The IEA estimated that renewable photo-voltaic electrical energy capacity growth would be 145 terawatt-hours of capacity in 2021. Wind-generated electrical energy capacity growth would add another 275 terawatt-hours of capacity in 2021. Thus, a total of 420 additional terawatt-hours of electrical energy was expected to be generated worldwide by those two renewable sources, which total would fall roughly 280 terawatt-hours short of what was expected to be needed to satisfy the growth in demand. The 280 terawatt-hours difference in expected demand would have to be generated by biofuels, hydropower, nuclear facilities, combined cycle gas turbine facilities, coal facilities, or whatever other sources of electricity that could be built to meet the expected demand. Nearly four-fifths of the expected new electrical demand was to come from Asia, primarily China and India.
By the end of 2021, the worldwide share of overall electrical generating power derived from renewable energy sources was expected to grow from 27% to 29%.
Electrical generating capacity is but a part of the world’s overall demand for energy, though it comprises a significant part of that demand.
Based on these IEA predictions, the world is not yet in position to begin to replace already existing sources of carbon-based electrical generating power with renewable sources of electricity. One bit of good news is that the worldwide capacity to build renewable energy platforms is rapidly growing; it should soon match the ever-increasing worldwide demand for electricity. Only then can nations begin to phase out already existing carbon-based electrical generating plants. Another bit of good news is that utility-scale forms of renewable energy has become more and more efficient, with the latest forms of solar panels capable of producing electricity at a cost significantly below that for almost all other forms of energy production. A third bit of good news if that for the last 10 years or so, aging coal-fired electrical generating facilities have been replaced for the most part by far less polluting combined-cycle natural gas turbine electrical generating facilities. While that move has allowed the U.S. to voluntarily meet the terms of the Kyoto Accords signed in the 90’s, we are still emitting significant quantities of carbon-based emissions into the atmosphere.
Many months ago, I read a comment on FlaglerLive posted by a grandfather who announced that he had “lost” one of his two granddaughters; he blamed liberals for the loss. Given the possibility that a significant number of the youngest adults among us blame all older people for the climate condition they will have to surmount as they take control of the government, I suspect the commenter should really be looking in the mirror when he points fingers. Both political parties have kicked the can down the road for so long that it no longer seems reasonable to even attempt to assess which party is more responsible than the other for the belated effort to reduce emissions, though the gullible will continue to try to do so. We, as a nation, should have continued to build on the miniscule start in the effort to curtail carbon emissions that was implemented by President Carter. Nearly everyone in America since that time is to blame, including me.
Pogo says
@Ray W.
“…We, as a nation, should have continued to build on the miniscule start in the effort to curtail carbon emissions that was implemented by President Carter…”
Amen.
“…Nearly everyone in America since that time…”
I object. Most of us were livestock in a cargo hold, or maybe “passengers” in a steerage section, on this voyage of the damned, captained by a GDF oil company, aka, the Republican party of the USA.
And so it goes.
We’re terrible animals. I think that the Earth’s immune system is trying to get rid of us, as well it should.
— Kurt Vonnegut