So what kind of a deal are we going to get from the Paris climate summit? With time fast running out, the shape of the final deal still remains unclear.
We know what the best possible outcome could be. Before the meeting, countries submitted proposals for cutting emissions, or at least restraining emissions growth, for the period between 2020 and 2030 鈥� their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions or INDCs. Any agreement should commit countries to meeting these proposals.
Advertisement
But as UN negotiator Christiana Figueres has repeatedly made clear, even if countries stick to their INDCs it鈥檚 not nearly enough to limit warming to 2聽掳C 鈥� the target adopted in 2010 鈥� let alone the 1.5聽掳C target now on the table.
Hence the importance of a 鈥渞atchet mechanism鈥� to encourage countries to take more ambitious action before 2030. The idea was that countries would have to rethink their contributions every five years, perhaps starting as early as 2018. The hope is that advances in technology and the falling costs of renewables would allow them to make more ambitious contributions.
This, according to Figueres, would help close the 鈥渆missions gap鈥� 鈥� the enormous chasm between what needs to be done and what is being done 鈥� and put us on 鈥渙n a pathway鈥� towards 2聽掳C.
The power of 鈥渟hall鈥�
In reality, it is almost certainly too late now to limit warming to 2聽掳C 鈥� much more drastic action than anything being discussed is now required. But a robust ratchet mechanism could at least stop us overshooting the target by too much.
鈥淭he revision of targets is really important,鈥� says Corinne Le Querre of the University of East Anglia, who studies global emissions.
Unfortunately, the ratchet in the latest draft is very weak. It 鈥渋nvites鈥� countries to review their contributions, rather than stipulating that they 鈥渟hall鈥� review their targets.
Negotiations are under way to change the 鈥渋nvites鈥� wording to 鈥渟hall鈥�, but some countries such as Malaysia are opposing this change. With no robust ratchet mechanism, the rhetoric about any agreement putting us on a pathway to 2聽掳C will be even less credible.
With the talks scheduled to finish on Friday evening, several highly contentious political issues are yet to be decided.
One huge issue is 鈥渄ifferentiation鈥� 鈥� under the original 1992 UN treaty, developing countries were not required to cut emissions, and some want to maintain this rigid distinction. Others argue that countries that can do more should do more.
And as South African negotiator Alf Wills pointed out this morning, these high level political issues need to be settled before more medium level and technical issues 鈥� such as market mechanisms 鈥� can be resolved. The atmosphere remains constructive, but one Chinese official suggested the talks could run as late as Sunday.
Read more more on our Paris climate summit page
Image credit: Reuters/Jacky Naegelen
