COP21, we got a Deal!

A final deal has been signed in Paris last Saturday. After two weeks of negotiations, the almost 200 countries present at the conference have reached an agreement. Historical, it has been called by several commenters, while a broad range of different reactions, coming from political leaders, diplomats and entrepreneurs have already made the news.

 

The facts

 

What’s inside?

 

In the end, we can say that the pre-COP promises were eventually maintained. On the final document, it’s stated that: “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.” Participating countries have therefore not only reached an agreement for staying under the 2°C threshold, but tried to go even farther. This is certainly a victory for small islands, the most concerned about the rising of the oceans’ levels, and in general all those countries that pushed for stricter norms. At the same time, it’s a big defeat for Saudi Arabia and other oil exporting countries, who strongly opposed such a reduction.   

 

Another point regards directly the usage of fossil fuels. Countries have agreed to reach the pick of emissions as soon as possible and then start reducing them soon after. The wording reads “undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases”. This is surely the most ambitious part, and if it will eventually be respected, it will mark the final passage from a fossil-fuels driven economy to a more energy-efficient one.

 

A crucial point that will check whether and how countries are progressing toward the stated goals is the five years pledge plans. All signatories countries are required to make a new pledging plan every five years, that should be more ambitious than the previous one.

 

Another deeply divisive topic was about who should contribute more to this effort. Should already developed countries employ most resources than the others? And what is the role of newly industrialized countries such as China and India?  To respond partly to this questions a clause was introduced: “shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation.”  This means that on one side, developed countries have some sort of obligations toward “those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change and have significant capacity constraints, such as the least developed countries and small island developing States.”  However, that word shall also implies that richer countries don’t really have to contribute to these projects if they don’t want to. And the use of that same word, instead of the similar, but more binding ,should, was at the center of a diplomatic case that was about to wreck the whole deal, and even saw secretary of state John Kerry himself acting on it.

 

Reactions

 

A lot of enthusiasm was shown for the deal by the majority of countries and by the International community. According to this article published on the Financial Times, that collects reactions from different delegates, both USA and China, have spent really positive words on the final outcome. While John Kerry called this treaty a “Tremendous victory”, according to Xie Zhenhua, China’s chief climate negotiator, this is a “milestone in the global efforts to respond to climate change”.  France’s president Holland praised the deal as well, pledging to set up a coalition of countries on carbon pricing.

 

At the same time, other countries didn’t look so satisfied. South Africa, by its environmental minister Edna Molewa, called the deal “not perfect”, while the Indonesia’s government completely bashed it.

 

On the American internal political scenario, however, president Obama is already facing challenges by GOP candidates. Several republican law-makers, among whom Bush and Cruz, have already spent harsh words criticizing the deal, threatening to repeal it if they win the next elections.  Furthermore different pro-industry lobbies either have an anti-deal position or, for the moment, withhold judgement.

 

And in fact the business community is the major stake-holder in this deal. If diplomacy and politics are to set the path toward a more sustainable and green future, the actual implementation of it will rely on investments and technology mainly driven by the private sector. Aim of the deal was also to “make investments on fossil fuels more risky”, and making investors shifting money toward new technologies. This decisions is not only a function of government’s subsidizations of energy saving technologies, but will also respond according to consumers’ preferences. Hence the necessity of having an informed public opinion that will make its consuming choices rationally.

 

Several positive reactions have arrived from important businesspeople. For instance this deal was praised by Stephanie Pfeifer, chief executive of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, who manages a fortune of over 13 trillion euros. Other positive reactions have arrived from both Stuart Gulliver, of HSBC and Paul Paulman, Unilever. In the end it’s funny to notice how business leaders’ reactions have been far more positive than environmental groups’ like Greenpeace or WWF.

 

In today’s post we have seen what is included into the final agreement and the main reactions to it. In order to deal with the enormous challenge and fulfil the ambitious goals this COP21 has set in front of us, we will also need to use the best technology we can come up with. And on the technological level, where are we? This will be the theme of next article.