Good COP, Bad COP: Climate Reality after Paris
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12370 |
| Date | 01 September 2016 |
| Author | Maria Ivanova |
| Published date | 01 September 2016 |
Good COP, Bad COP: Climate Reality after
Paris
Maria Ivanova
University of Massachusetts, Boston
Abstract
The twenty-first Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Paris
was a good COP in contrast to COP15 in Copenhagen, which will remain in history as the low point in climate policy. COP21
demonstrated unprecedented global collaboration when divisions were deep and stakes were high and resulted in the Paris
Agreement, the first legally binding document to articulate a clear global temperature goal and a commitment to reach global
net-zero emissions after 2050. The agreement is also universal, with developed and developing countries alike expected to
act. This article outlines key outcomes and explains what led to the shift from a bad to a good COP. It also examines the
threats and opportunities as the world moves from making commitments to implementing them and draws parallels to the
global agenda-setting process on sustainable development that is also unfolding in the United Nations at the same time.
The 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in
Paris was a good COP. It demonstrated unprecedented glo-
bal collaboration when divisions were deep and stakes were
high. Since 1995, when COP1 met in Berlin, governments
have been assembling annually in an effort to create a path
toward the ‘stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations
in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system’
(UNFCCC, 1992). The Kyoto Protocol was agreed at COP3 in
1997; and while it was envisioned as the first step toward
emission reductions and did bend the emissions curve for
many developed countries, it also launched a heated debate
about who is responsible and affected, and who should act
(Bodansky, 2010, p. 232). Political consensus eroded and
technical negotiations stalled over the years; and COP15 in
Copenhagen in 2009 became ‘the low-point in the history of
the climate regime’(Savaresi, 2016, p. 18) or the bad COP
(Lamotte et al., 2010, p. 540). Member states left the Danish
capital with an outcome that was not adopted but rather
‘taken note of.’
Six years later, 195 parties unanimously adopted the
ambitious Paris Agreement, which set a long-term goal of
‘holding the increase in the global average temperature to
well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue
efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-
industrial levels’(Art. 2.1). They also committed to ‘reach
peaking of [emissions] as soon as possible’with ‘rapid
reductions thereafter’, (Art. 4.1), and attain net zero emis-
sions in the second half of this century. Paris was hailed
as a monumental achievement and a game changer
(Davenport, 2015; Harvey, 2015).
The success of Paris, however, will be measured by what
happens in the next three to five years. In this article, I
outline the key outcomes and explain what led to the shift
from a bad to a good COP. I also examine the threats and
opportunities as the world moves from making commit-
ments to implementing them and draw parallels to the glo-
bal agenda-setting process on sustainable development that
is also unfolding in the United Nations at the same time.
Outcomes exceed expectations
Expectations for COP21 were low. This was because over
the past few decades three core problems had beleaguered
the climate regime: the convention and the Kyoto Protocol
had bifurcated the world into countries with responsibility
to mitigate emissions and countries without such responsi-
bility, embedding perceived free-riding into the system;
emission reduction goals were modest at best and pre-
sented no clear path to solving the global problem; and the
legal architecture was overly top-down and rigid, stifling
innovation (Rajamani, 2016, p. 494).
Responsibility for action had been decided based on the
level of development in the early 1990s and enshrined into
Annex I of the UNFCCC, which comprised developed coun-
tries and countries with economies in transition. These
countries were obliged to take the lead in global efforts by
limiting their emissions and by protecting and enhancing
their greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs (UNFCCC 1992,
Art. 4). Ultimately, after the United States and Canada with-
drew from the Kyoto Protocol, only thirty-six countries had
any emission reduction obligations. Developed countries
also committed, under Article 4, to provide new and addi-
tional financial resources to meet the agreed full costs
incurred by developing countries in complying with their
obligations to develop national inventories of emissions and
removals by sinks and to communicate actions to
Global Policy (2016) 7:3 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12370 ©2016 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 7 . Issue 3 . September 2016 411
Survey Article
To continue reading
Request your trial