Concluding thoughts:

Distinct chapters can be seen throughout the evolution of my blog. First, I started by outlining the evidence behind why we really need a new international agreement, and science (or lack of) behind the 2C target. From here, the blogs assessed and analysed past climate negotiations within the framework of debates on 'top down' or 'bottom up' approaches. This included specific analysis of the INDC's and what, in their beta form, they really mean for climate progress. My blog also aimed to capture slightly less scientific elements of COP21, including the wider publics response  specifically though my own personal experience of the climate marches preceding the conference.  Finally, the blog aimed to analyse the key terms of the Paris agreement, highlighting areas of change, improvement and concern in the context of my previous blogs.

I personally think, all things considered, that the Paris agreement is a true landmark climate deal, exceeding many of my expectations going into the conference. Although it has been suggested the agreement does not go far enough, and in may ways it does not, I do not believe that COP21 is a "cop-out". The recognition of a 1.5 degree target, the long term goal of zero net emissions and the break down in differentiation alone make COP21 more successful than all the previous deals. Furthermore, despite its shortcomings in ensuring necessary emission reductions (yet), I do strongly believe that the agreement presents a significant signal to the business and financial communities, marking the beginning of the end for fossil fuels and promoting real change in the economy. Yes these are only signals, but responses to climate change are not just top down, they are also bottom up.

This is where the Paris Agreement marks its most significant departure from previous diplomacy.  The introduction of the INDC's and future progressive review mechanisms, asks nations what they are willing to do rather than telling them what they should do. For the sake of not killing their own population, peer pressure might just be enough to make countries really act on their laurels. The failure of previous top-down approaches led to strong arguments calling for a change in approach to climate governance. In my opinion the Paris agreements marks the best of both worlds, including overall governance and review by the UNFCCC, yet action from the bottom up where change is really going to originate from. As the Guardian review editorial on COP21 argues, the outcome of the Paris Agreement re-establishes a new form of progressive 'determined diplomacy' in increasingly narrow and nationalistic times.

However, although the adoption of the Paris agreement marks a significant new chapter in climate governance, the objectives are far from being achieved. One of my greatest disappointments with the deal is the fact that although the review mechanism and obligation to set nationally determined contributions are legally binding, their actual enforcement is not. This must be amended. Although country peer pressure has led to this agreement, and may in fact be enough, the health of the planet cannot be risked.

Furthermore, now an agreement has been made, I strongly believe the scientific targets and methods of reviewing progress should be refined and updated. Although a "well below" 2C target is a great starting point and effective way of communicating the importance of rising temperature, an improved method for assessing and defining the safe operating space for humanity is required. Although by no means perfect, approaches such as the Planetary Boundary Framework (Stefan et al. 2015), assessing the limits of the earth system appear to present one such solution.

Thank you for reading!

COP21: Key outcomes - Part 2

Laurent Fabius, chair of the 2015 UNFCCC and Christiana Figueres,
executive secretary of the UNFCCC celebrating the
adoption of the Paris agreement. Source: (BBC,2015).

For part 1 click here

Review mechanism 

A key component of the agreement, and a vital one to ensure that the 1.5 degree target is met is a reviewing mechanism. There will be a review of what countries are proposing by 2019 and followed by a global stocktake (review) in 2023 and every five years after used to enhance and update nationally determined contributions.

Progression over time:

The first thing to note is that although the original aim of the agreement (Paris, 2015) was to reach, for the first time, a universal, legally binding agreement, the Paris agreement is in fact part legally binding and partly voluntary.

The aspects of the agreement that are legal include the obligation for countries to set nationally determined contributions (emissions targets) and the review mechanism. Furthermore, each "successive nationally determined contribution will represent a progression". This is a vital component for reaching the 1.5C target as the current INDCs submitted, at best have the capability of limiting temperature rises to 2.7C by 2100 (see INDCs blog).

However, under the Paris agreement the targets themselves will not be legally binding. Instead the UN is banking on peer pressure to ensure that the INDCs achieve what they have been designed to do. That said, as Matt McGrath highlights, peer pressure has been successful thus far in ensuring 187 countries lodged INDCs in the run up to COP21 (BBC, 2015)

Equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities:

The Paris agreement marks a significant change from the Kyoto protocol which excluded developing countries and marks a positive shift from Copenhagen where developed/developing debates raged surrounding historical responsibility. The Paris agreement is designed to get around differentiation, recognising equity and the principle of common responsibilities (we are all in this together) and respective capabilities, in light of different national circumstances (levels of development). Over time developing countries will do more and more with assistance provided from developed countries.

Climate finance:

Climate finance and the $100 billion climate fund pledged in Copenhagen to help with adaption were predicted to be one of the biggest areas of contention going into COP21, and 'grey areas' such as where the money is coming from still remain. That said the agreement does include new legally binding financial commitments. The agreement requires rich nations to maintain a $100bn a year funding pledge beyond 2020, and to use that figure as a "floor" for further support agreed by 2025.

My thought so far:

There s no doubt that COP21 and the Paris Agreement have surpassed expectations (just look at my pre-COP predictions blog). No wonder they were cheering in the video - a spine tingling moment.

The Kyoto protocol set emission cutting targets for only a small group of developed countries and the US did not even ratify. The Paris agreement breaks down differentiation, uniting all nations regardless of development in a single (partially) legally binding agreement to tackle climate change for the first time in history.

However the Paris agreement and the nationally determined contributions must be stepped up and we can but hope that the legally binding review mechanisms will ensure this.

Although significant, the aspiration of a 1.5C target is meaningless unless the mechanism of the Paris Agreement and individual nations, through the nationally determined contributions really create rapid change. If not, 1.5C and maybe 2C+ will become out of reach before we know it. Only time will tell if the Paris agreement is enough. A long time and too long to have a second  chance. The Paris agreement is the best chance we have got.

COP21: Key outcomes - Part 1

To claps and cheers, on the evening of Saturday 12th of December,  a new landmark climate deal was born.

Barack Obama hailed the Paris agreement "the best chance we save the one planet we have" but noted that "the problem is not solved because of the accord". 

India's Prime minister Narendra Modi tweeted that COP21 had "no winners or losers. Climate justice has won & we are all working towards a greener future".

Matt McGrath, an environmental correspondent for the BBC summed up his thought, saying "I'm not a fan of hyperbole, but it would be churlish to say the adoption of the Paris Agreement was anything other than a globally historic moment". 

India's Prime minister Narendra Modi tweeted his reaction to COP21.

But before I analyse some of the deals components in greater detail - what are the key points? I have copied the key text surrounding what I think are the main areas and provided some additional commentary to help give context.

Keeping temperature rises "well below" 2C:

Article 2 of the Pairs Agreement, (UNFCCC, 2015)

Article 2 sets out to keep global temperatures "well below" 2C above pre-industrial levels and endeavors to limit them to 1.5C. This is one area where I am pleasantly surprised by the outcomes of COP21 and what it has achieved. A 1.5C target would have seemed unthinkable a few months ago and it is a big step froward from the 2C target agreed at Copenhagen. As my blog argued 2C is not enough and the risks associated with climate change are moderated with warming limited to 1.5C. However according to the Met Office global temperatures are already set to breach the 1C threshold in 2015. 

Long term goal of zero net emissions:

Article 4 of the Pairs Agreement, (UNFCCC, 2015)

The agreement, as in accordance with the IPCC (2014) findings, recognises the need for net emissions of zero (balance between anthropogenic sources and greenhouse gas sinks) by the second half of the century. The IPCC have , as part of the agreement been invited to provide a special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5C (because following Copenhagen they have focused on 2C!). Its is also worth noting the differentiation of responsibility - more on this later!

For Part 2: Click here

COP21: What is the outcome going to be?

COP21 is finally here: What is the outcome going to be? Source BBC/APF

I am very hopeful that a new legally binding agreement can be reached in Paris over the next two weeks. As I concluded in my blog on bottom up versus top down approaches, to me, it seems illogical to completely abandon a top down system that has been at the forefront of negotiations for a new system that is unproven and no more guaranteed to ensure success. Furthermore, the addition of the INDCs (see special blog) at COP21 not only signifies the modification of climate governance to include bottom up approaches but also constructs a path of ever-increasing emission reductions asking countries what they are willing and able to do. I am very hopeful that the INDCs will, as the UNFCCC claim, act as the foundations for a broader new climate agreement that will support sustainable actions nationally and globally.

The 147 leaders delivered strong speaches in favour of climate action on day one of the conference. Yet as Matt McGrath, environmental correspondent at the BBC argues they were 'fine words but divisions run deep'. Although Obama echoed his determined calls for strong action his commitment to an agreement is not a commitment to a legally binding treaty. It is very very unlikely that the US Republican dominated Senate would ratify such an agreement. That said many other leaders called for strong agreements including Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. However Xi Jining still used phrases such as the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities which ring back to the Kyoto days highlighting one area of contention already - fairness.

Now the political leaders have left and the negotiations are getting down to the nitty gritty as John Vidal, the environmental editor of the Guardian who is at the talks argues 'there are mountains to climb over cuts, long term goals, finance, equity, and the principle that the rich countries should act first and dig deeper because they are responsible for the historical emissions'.

As predicted the main areas of contention surround the use of the 2C limit, fairness of a top down approach and Finance. Although the Copenhagen Accord pledged to provide $100 billion a year in financial support for poorer countries from 2020, where that money will come from and how it will be distributed has yet to be agreed and is likely an area of serious contention (see future blog).

Although a legally binding agreement still remains the mantra of COP21 I don't think anyone knows what the outcome is going to really be. All we can do is hope the negotiations and UN conference are successful. As the blog title suggests, it really is Crunch time. I cannot bare to think about what the consequences of failure may be both for climate, but also the processes and methods of ever achieving success most notably the UNFCCC approach. If it fails an alternative will not be found in time.

INDCs - what are they and do they work?

Christiana Figueres thoughts on the INDCs, Source, Twitter.

The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) mark a change of tack in approaches to tackling climate change, utilising a bottom a bottom up approach in addition to top down governance (click here for debate on bottom up/top down approaches), in which countries put forward their pledges in the context of their own national circumstances, capabilities and priorities to reduce climate change.

146 countries representing 86% of the world's carbon emissions filed pledges (UNFCCC, 2015) in the lead up to Paris basically saying what they were willing to do straight up, before the negotiations. The plans represent a significant advance on current trends with much to positive about. One of the most significant findings is that according to the UNFCCC the INDCs will bring average emissions per capita down by as much as 8% in 2025 and 9% by 2030. Furthermore they have the capability of limiting temperature rise to around 2.7 °C by 2100. Other positive findings in the UNFCCC synthesis report (2015) highlight how:

•  The INDCs indicate a significant increase in the number of countries taking climate action
• National processes put in place to prepare the INDCs helped place climate change high on the political agenda of many governments and created a new and significant momentum for action
• Somewhat significantly, the majority of the INDCs also included an adaption component demonstrating the imperative to adapt alongside efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Past critiques of top down approaches have cited a lack of adaption.

Yet as highlighted in a Nature special the INDCs are still some way off reaching the 2 degree target. The IEA special briefing for COP21 found that the pledges would still result in a increase of 3.7 gigatonnes of CO2 from 2014 to 2030. By 2030 the annual growth in energy related emissions worldwide will slow to just 0.5% a year. Yet they will still be substantial, and will not have come to a halt - "a critical and urgent milestone to achieving the global climate goal". 

Furthermore, the think tank Climate Interactive argues that if no further action is taken after the end of the countries pledge period of 2030 will still result in expected warming in 2100 of 3.5 °C (fig. 1) (with a range of uncertainty of 2.0-4.6 °C). Furthermore, Joe Romm the author of a highly accredited blog argues that the UNFCCC press release above is in fact a little bit misleading in its use of its 2.7°C by 2100 statistic, successfully misleading the Guardian in a recent article. The majority of the INDC pledges end by 2030 so a 2.7 °C temperature change prediction is based on the rather large assumption that countries fulfill all their pledges up to 2030 and then continue to reduce emissions after 2030. The INDCs no longer seem so rosy.  However, if further action is taken these figures could improve. There are large unknowns. Yet the the 3.5 °C calculation does assume that no unmodeled carbon cycle feedback kicks in such as permafrost melting (Romm 2015).

The Climate Interactive scoreboard, Source Climate Interactive.

However, on balance I agree with Christiana Figueres, executive director of the UNFCCC when she argues that although the INDCs do not lower future temperatures enough they are significant improvement on the warming predicted by the IPCC. It would be somewhat naive to expect the INDCs to solve all the climate problems straight away. Figueres has stressed that the INDCs are just the first step. They are only relevant over the medium term and were never going to reach 2 degrees by themselves. The are "a departure point and not a destination, the Paris agreement will construct a path of ever-increasing emission reductions with periodic checkpoints of progress until we get to the 2 degree pathway" Figueres (2015). There are also hopes that a regular review mechanism will also be agreed in Paris, by which the INDCs could be ratcheted up in further steps providing a foundation for higher ambition. 

As the conclusion of the synthesis report reminds us "parties have submitted their INDCs with the understanding that they would be anchored in a broader new climate agreement that would support sustainable actions nationally and globally". We can but hope that this really happens in Paris over the next two weeks.

Global climate marches: Powerful, Inspiring and creating a sense of hope.

The London Climate March, Source: own photo.

I have just got back from the Climate March in London on the Eve of COP21 and what an experience. According to organisers a record-breaking 50,000 people attended in London, almost double last years London Climate March. 

I attended the march (my first) and found the experience powerful and inspiring.  Somewhat surprisingly it also filled me with a sense of hope. With 50,000 people marching alongside you calling for change it gave me a sense that climate is moving up our agendas and an agreement may be realised in Paris. As I have seen described elsewhere, it gave me that goose bump feeling. I met the march half way through at Trafalgar square and watched people go by for over fifteen minutes but there was still no impression that it would ever end. From then we walked as part of the crowds down Whitehall to Parliament square with people of all ages and from all over the world - surely a sign of solidarity on the streets of London. World leaders are you listening? The march was completely peaceful, respectful and friendly and very well organised. A massive thank you should go out to the organisers, volunteers and police.

The London Climate March, Source: own Photo.

Climate Marches began hours before in Australia moving east to west with 45,000 marchers in Sydney, 3,000 in the Philippines, 5,000 in Bangladesh, 20,000 in Madrid and Rome to name a few and the Americas still to come. In Paris, where protests were banned following the Paris attacks thousands of pairs of shoes have been left in the Place de la Republique as an instillation, including a pair of the Popes! A peaceful human chain was also created with 10,000 people holding hands in a human line over 3km stretching the originally proposed march route in Paris.

Source: David Shukman, Twitter.

Source: Jamie Henn, Twitter.

However, it appears as ever that a few make it their priority to undermine the peaceful climate marches of hundreds of thousands. Reports on the Guardian Live page claim that the day of peaceful, respectful and highly moving protests in Paris disintegrated into a stand off between groups of anarchist protesters and riot police, with police using tear gas to clear the area. Incredibly sad making is that according to another reporter many of the flowers and candles left in tribute to the 130 people who died in the attacks have been trampled on and destroyed. How disrespectful and distant from what the climate marches are about. No wonder 350.org the global march organiser has distanced itself from the violent protests. I cannot also help but feel that there is also a focus on the negative minority rather than the positive, peaceful and hopeful majority.

One of my favorite stories emerging from Paris is the 'Brandalism' campaign with more than 600 artworks critiquing corporate sponsors of the UN summit installed in advertising spaces across Paris, including some politicians too! - click here to see more. 

For a great gallery of the climate marches across the globe click here. Closer to home even the BT tower is getting involved!! Next couple of Blogs are on the INDCs and a final pre-summit synopsis.

Source: BT Better Future, Twitter.

Some videos!

So in a bit of a break from all my recent long blog posts on the history of climate change negotiations and on the debate between top down and bottom up approaches here are two videos which I have since found which explain the topics in a different light and outline some similar arguments (phew!).

Enjoy! 

A history of climate change negotiations:

The Paris Climate Conference explained.