This is one of a six-part series ahead of the Paris climate summit in which we investigate both sides of the debate surrounding the major issues. Explore these articles and more on our Paris climate summit page
The optimistic view
A deal looks likely 鈥� the political will is there
Advertisement
The countries that signed up to the 1992 climate convention 鈥� the Conference of the Parties or COP in diplomatese 鈥� started meeting every year in 1995. The third COP meeting established the Kyoto Protocol, to run until 2012.
The infamous 2009 meeting in Copenhagen failed to extend the protocol beyond 2012. A major sticking point, as ever, was trying to get industrialised countries to sign up to bigger cuts when developing nations were allowed to increase their emissions.
In theory the Kyoto Protocol did get extended to 2020 after the 2012 talks, but efforts in the last few years shifted from extending Kyoto to setting up a whole new climate treaty to run from 2020 to 2030.
Instead of trying to impose targets on nations, individual countries have instead been asked to declare what they are prepared to do: their 鈥淚ntended Nationally Determined Contributions鈥�.
Negotiators say the INDCs have exceeded expectations, and they are optimistic that a deal can be agreed at COP21 in Paris. Unlike with previous meetings, they say, there is real political momentum.
听
听
The realistic view
Whether or not a deal is reached, it won鈥檛 be enough
For many, just getting nearly 200 countries to sign a climate deal would make the Paris meeting a success. And they have a point. There are still issues that could scupper any deal, such as developing countries seeking compensation from developed nations for losses and damage related to climate change.
The ultimate aim, however, is supposed to be to limit global warming to 2鈥壜癈 鈥� the questionable figure chosen as a 鈥渟afe鈥� limit. The chief UN negotiator, Christiana Figueres, has always made it clear that any deal in Paris will not be enough to achieve this. In fact, she has threatened to 鈥渃hop off the head鈥� of any journalist who is surprised to discover this upon arriving in Paris.
Despite this, Figueres still insists that Paris will put us 鈥渙n a pathway鈥� to 2鈥壜癈, or even to 1.5鈥壜癈. Yet to have a chance of staying below 2鈥壜癈, total emissions after 2011 can鈥檛 exceed 1000 gigatonnes of CO2. The UNFCCC鈥檚 own figures show that we will have burned through that budget by around 2036, even if countries stick to their INDCs.
There is also no guarantee that countries will meet their INDCs. For one thing, some developing countries have made offers that are conditional on funding from wealthy countries, and although rich countries have already pledged to provide $100 billion a year from 2020, they have a history of failing to pay up when the time comes.
Then there鈥檚 the question of whether any agreement will be legally binding. The US does not want this because a legally binding treaty might require the approval of the US Senate, which it is unlikely to get. , however, has said any agreement must be legally binding.
Even if it is, legally binding does not actually mean what you might think. As one negotiator puts it, legally binding merely means 鈥渕ore likely to be implemented than a non-binding deal鈥�.
Read more: 鈥�33 reasons why we can鈥檛 think clearly about climate change鈥�
Image credit: Charles Platiau/Reuters
