The climate change conference which took place in Paris in December of last year ended in an extended bout of back-slapping and self-congratulation. It was even suggested that the French chairman of the conference, the foreign minister Laurent Fabius, should win the Nobel Peace Prize.
So what was all the fuss about? And did the delegates really have cause for celebration? And, perhaps more importantly, how will the deal done in Paris affect the citizens of the EU in general, and Ireland in particular?
The background
First, the Paris meeting, has to be set in context. The countries who were represented at the conference were all signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention in Climate Change (the UNFCC). The 213 countries are called “Parties”, and yearly meetings of the UNFCCC signatories are called “Conferences of the Parties”, or COPs. The Paris conference was the 21st such meeting, and was therefore know for short as COP21.
The UNFCCC (and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol) are aimed at limiting emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere and thus preventing, or curtailing, anthropogenic (or man-made) climate change. Over the course of the 21 COPs, there have been various efforts at reaching a binding global agreement on reducing emissions; up until Paris, none had succeeded.
The closest the Parties came to a deal before Paris was COP15, which was held in Copenhagen in 2009. Back then, hopes were high for deal, but the conference was badly mismanaged by the Danish hosts and a cynical last-minute deal was hatched between rich countries. Everyone – politicians, activists, civil servants and journalists – left Copenhagen bruised and disillusioned.
Climate change fell of the media agenda after Copenhagen, and the banking crisis became the chief global concern. But little by little, momentum was built up again. The lessons of Copenhagen were learnt. Christina Figueres, the Costa Rican diplomat in charge of the UNFCCC, French environment minister Ségolène Royale and French prime minister François Hollande travelled the world seeking support for a climate change deal.
Why Paris was different
The mechanics and diplomatic choreography of the conference were tweaked for Paris. Each country was asked to supply an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) in advance of the meeting in Paris. Essentially, everyone’s cards were on the table before the conference even began, as the INDCs contained the emissions-reduction steps each country was prepared to take.
In Copenhagen, the leaders of the various countries arrived at the end of the conference, essentially took over the negotiations and hammered out a largely meaningless deal. The French arranged for the leaders to come at the beginning, which meant that nearly 200 presidents, sheikhs, princes and prime ministers had to say something positive about the need to do something about climate change.
Ireland’s position was, frankly, embarrassing. Taoiseach Enda Kenny addressed a plenary session of the COP and said that every country “big and small” had to play its part. Then, unprompted in a press briefing to journalists, he said climate change wasn’t a priority for his government. However, this double-speak was of only local interest, because the EU negotiates as a bloc and Ireland was already bound by the relatively ambitious INDC submitted by Europe pledging to reduce GHGs by 40pc by 2030.
The talks
Thus the stage was set. The world’s leaders had spoken – some very movingly – about the need for a strong global agreement. Each country had said what it was prepared to do about climate change. The big players – the US, China, India, Brazil, Australia and Canada – seemed ready to agree to an ambitious target.
Inevitably, there were problems. The INDCs were not enough to prevent serious climate change. When they were counted and analysed, it emerged that they would be enough to limit warming to about 2.70C. (The scientific consensus is that the Earth can handle about 20C of warming without the climate system collapsing. More than that and, while no one knows exactly what would happen, we know it’s all bad.)
Furthermore, even at 20C of warming, several low-lying island states would be submerged. Not surprisingly, these states (negotiating together as a group called SIDS – small island developing nations) wanted to limit global warming to 1.50C. There were also concerns over compensation to smaller countries for climate change damage, and funding for adaptation and mitigation measures in vulnerable regions.
The French diplomats worked away. A text was produced. It was 150 pages long and the issues that remained unresolved were contained between square brackets in the text. There were nearly 2000 sets of square brackets. The diplomats went back to work.
The French tried everything. They held “confessionals” – safe spaces were delegates could “speak from the heart” to a listening French diplomat and be assured of confidentiality. They held “indabas” – a Zulu word meaning a group of elders, but which in Paris meant a group of 80 or so delegates convening to thrash out an issue. And they held what were called “informal informals” – smaller groups of delegates from different countries tasked with agreeing a specific piece of the overall text.
The roadblocks
One by one, the square brackets were removed. But there were still problems. The US and other rich countries did not want to leave themselves open to being sued by smaller countries over the damage done by climate change. Other countries did not want to contribute to a mooted €100bn climate fund to help developing countries.
The talks stalled. The presentation of another version of the text was delayed. Then Tony de Brum, foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, a country near the Equator with a population of 50,000 (about the same as the number of delegates at the Paris conference), along with others, came up with an idea.
A “coalition of high ambition” was formed with three days to go before the deadline for doing a deal expired. The small island states and the EU were the first members, but eventually, others from the LDC (least developed countries) group joined and soon it had 100 members. By the end, the US, Canada and Australia were also on board. This coalition negotiated as one bloc and moved the talks firmly in the direction of an ambitious agreement.
A second text was produced, with just 40 sets of square brackets included. As the various delegations studied this text, concerns were raised. The EU wanted targets to be legally binding, but the US did not, as any legally binding agreement would have to be referred to the US Congress for ratification. South Africa was concerned over a clause on “loss and damage” – essentially compensation – while China was concerned by language around “differentiation”, the idea that some countries are more to blame for climate change than others.
The breakthrough
This time, Fabius and Hollande hit the phones. It was time to speak to the heads of state. Obama was contacted and Hollande phoned as many leaders as possible. Obama spoke directly to the Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Finally a consensus was reached. Everyone compromised and the deal was done.
On Saturday December 12, a day later than expected, COP21 chairman and French foreign minister Laurent Fabius brought down the gavel on the Paris Agreement. And the cheering, crying, back-slapping and congratulations began. The EU’s climate chief Miguel Arias Canete put it well. “This was the last chance. And we took it.”
The deal is a landmark. In many ways, it represents the very best of multilateralist diplomacy. However, it has its flaws. For instance, aviation and shipping, which emit as much CO2 as the UK and Germany combined, are not covered by the Paris Agreement. Its targets are not legally binding, and the climate finance being made available to poorer countries may not be enough. Indeed, the agreement to limit warming to 20 and to pursue measures to limit it to 1.50 may not be enough to stop climate change.
And Ireland?
As to what it means for Ireland? Well, Ireland is bound by EU emissions targets, and I will be dealing with that situation in another post. But Ireland is part of a world that has now agreed to move away from fossil fuels. The policy of a gradual move to zero-emissions economies has been set. And that will have repercussions for Irish policy too, in transport, energy, housing and agriculture.
We can expect, at some stage, carbon to be taxed as part of a raft of measures aimed at weaning us off digging things up and burning them. We can probably expect an extensive retrofitting programme and the expansion of tax incentives for wind and solar power generation.
Generally speaking, when governments want to change people’s behaviour, they have two options: the carrot (grant money) and the stick (taxes). Expect both the be waved vigorously in the next few years as Ireland comes to terms with what it has signed up to via the EU’s acceptance of the terms of the Paris Agreement.
If I had to guess, I would say that any Irish government forced to reduce the country’s GHG emissions is going to focus on housing and transport first. The other two big emitters – power generation and agriculture – are politically much more difficult to tackle.
Two Degrees 