When it was signed, the Paris Agreement was widely hailed as a “historic breakthrough.” But how good is it really at mitigating the effects of climate change?
The Paris Agreement is a United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreement, negotiated in Paris in December 2015 and adopted in November 2016. The agreement is long. One of the UNFCCC agreement’s substantial statements, Article 2.1(a), states that the parties agree to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.”
Global temperature depends on many factors; the primary factor under human control is the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, most importantly carbon dioxide and methane. To limit the temperature rise, we must reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases. We all benefit from activities which release greenhouse gases. So, the nature of the problem is: how do we cooperate to manage our shared atmospheric resource?
Despite near global ratification, the Paris Agreement is failing. Nearly nine years after its adoption, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, with both carbon dioxide and methane concentrations rising faster now than they did nine years ago. To stabilize temperature, the rate of greenhouse gas concentration increase must be zero. The text of the agreement is too vague to determine when +1.5°C was or will be breached. But there is little doubt that, under any reasonable interpretation, we're on a path to violating both limits.
Why is the agreement failing? The answer lies in its flawed design, particularly its failure to foster cooperation. Fortunately, we know a lot about the conditions for effective cooperation. In her book “Governing the Commons,” political theorist Elinor Ostrom identifies key necessary conditions: binding commitments, mutual trust, transparency, reciprocity and enforceable sanctions. The Paris Agreement lacks every one of these properties, guaranteeing failure. Let's examine the details.
The commitment to hold the temperature below the limits is collective, but no participant takes responsibility for anything (in terms of emissions) individually. Anyone with practical organizational experience knows that relying solely on collective responsibility is a recipe for failure.
The Paris Agreement is built around Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which are lists of national emission targets specified every five years, looking 10 years into the future. NDCs are technically annexes to the agreement, and therefore not legally binding. It is hoped that countries will abide by their NDCs and will strengthen (ratchet up) ambition over time, but there are no meaningful consequences if not.
The 10-year timelines for the NDCs creates mistrust between partners. That is because the only way to know whether your partners will honor their NDCs is to wait and see. I live in the UK, which has submitted ambitious NDCs (emissions of ~3.7 tons per person per year in 2030 and ~2.2 tons per person per year in 2035, compared to current global average of ~5.0 tons per person per year). But the UK government's own independent advisory body, the Climate Change Committee, says that the UK is not on track to comply. What are our international partners to make of that?