The Paris Agreement: resolving the inconsistency between global goals and national contributions

Abstract

The adoption of the Paris Agreement in December 2015 moved the world a step closer to avoiding dangerous climate change. The aggregated individual intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) are not yet sufficient to be consistent with the long-term goals of the agreement of ‘holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C’ and ‘pursuing efforts’ towards 1.5°C. However, the Paris Agreement gives hope that this inconsistency can be resolved. We find that many of the contributions are conservative and in some cases may be overachieved. We also find that the preparation of the INDCs has advanced national climate policy-making, notably in developing countries. Moreover, provisions in the Paris Agreement require countries to regularly review, update and strengthen these actions. In addition, the significant number of non-state actions launched in recent years is not yet adequately captured in the INDCs. Finally, we discuss decarbonization, which has happened faster in some sectors than expected, giving hope that such a transition can also be accomplished in other sectors. Taken together, there is reason to be optimistic that eventually national action to reduce emissions will be more consistent with the agreed global temperature limits.

Policy relevance

The next step for the global response to climate change is not only implementation, but also strengthening, of the Paris Agreement. To this end, national governments must formulate and implement policies to meet their INDC pledges, and at the same time consider how to raise their level of ambition. For many developing countries, implementation and tougher targets will require financial, technological and other forms of support. The findings of this article are highly relevant for both national governments and support organizations in helping them to set their implementation priorities. Its findings also put existing INDCs in the context of the Paris Agreement's global goals, indicating the extent to which current national commitments need to be strengthened, and possible ways in which this could be done.

Keywords:

• ambition
• climate change
• INDCs
• mitigation
• Paris Agreement
• UNFCCC
• ambition

Acknowledgements

The calculations of the CAT were performed by the CAT team consisting of Louise Jeffery, Claire Fyson, Ryan Alexander, Johannes Gütschow (PIK), Marcia Rocha, Jasmin Cantzler, Michiel Schaeffer, Bill Hare (Climate Analytics), Markus Hagemann, Hanna Fekete, Sebastian Sterl, Takeshi Kuramochi, Niklas Höhne (NewClimate Institute), Pieter van Breevoort, Yvonne Deng, Karlien Wouters and Kornelis Blok (Ecofys). The survey on INDC preparation was performed by Thomas Day, Frauke Röser, Ritika Tewari, Marie Kurdziel and Niklas Höhne (NewClimate Institute).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at 10.1080/14693062.2016.1218320.

ORCiD

Niklas Höhne http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9246-8759

Takeshi Kuramochi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3976-0133

Carsten Warnecke http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0689-8897

Notes

1. A non-exhaustive list of commentaries can be found ina blog post of the Global Environmental Policy Program of the School of International Service, American University: http://teachingclimatelaw.org/compendium-of-commentary-on-the-paris-agreementcop21 (accessed 9 March, 2016).

2. The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is to stabilize GHG concentrations in the atmosphere ‘at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’ (UNFCCC, 1992, Article 2).

3. Inspired by http://www.carbonbrief.org/six-years-worth-of-current-emissions-would-blow-the-carbon-budget-for-1-5-degrees

4. For the 1.5°C, threshold values at which 50% of the simulations from the research projects reviewed in Collins et al. (2013) met the 1.5°C limit. Similarly for 2°C, threshold values at which 66% of the simulations from the research projects reviewed in Collins et al. (2013) met the 2°C limit. There is no data available for >66% for 1.5°C due to the limited number of scenarios. Nevertheless, the combination of >66% for 2°C and >50% for 1.5°C used here adequately represents the goal of the Paris Agreement.

5. CDR methods

refer to a set of techniques that aim to remove CO₂ directly from the atmosphere by either (1) increasing natural sinks for carbon or (2) using chemical engineering to remove the CO₂, with the intent of reducing the atmospheric CO₂ concentration (IPCC, 2013, p. 1449).

CDR methods include large-scale afforestation, BECCS and direct air capture and sequestration (Rogelj & Knutti, 2016).

6. Article 13.12. The relevant text reads

The review shall also identify areas of improvement for the Party, and include a review of the consistency of the information with the modalities, procedures and guidelines referred to in paragraph 13 of this Article, taking into account the flexibility accorded to the Party under paragraph 2 of this Article.

It is ambiguous if the ‘areas for improvement’ relate only to reporting or to improving policy implementation (UNFCCC, 2015a).

7. As of 2012, there are only two small-scale examples of commercial precursors to BECCS that capture CO₂ emissions from ethanol production facilities for enhanced oil recovery in close-proximity facilities (Bruckner et al., 2014, based on DiPietro, Balash, & Wallace, 2012).