By Dr. Adam Fenech

Following two weeks of intense negotiations, including an additional day added and lengthy overnight discussions, over 190 countries signed onto the Paris Agreement on Saturday to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. This legally-binding agreement marks the first time that all countries, both rich and poor, have committed to deep reductions in the pollutants that cause global warming – the previous emissions treaty, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, only included commitments from rich, developed nations.

The 31-page agreement includes a commitment to keep the rise in global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius (°C) compared to pre-industrial times, a level that scientists consider potentially dangerous, while striving to limit them even more, to 1.5°C. This will be difficult given that humans have raised global temperatures by 0.8°C since the industrial revolution, and that even if humans stopped increasing greenhouse gases today, global temperatures would likely rise another 0.8°C. This is due to the previously released greenhouse gases that continue to overheat the atmosphere due to their long lifetimes in the atmosphere as long as hundreds of years. So humans have committed the planet to a global temperature increase of 1.6°C already, leaving just 0.4°C wiggle room to keep temperatures below the dangerous level of 2°C, let alone the ambitious 1.5°C target. The Paris Agreement asks the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global authority on the science of global warming, to provide a special report in 2018 on how nations might be able to meet the 1.5°C target, a key demand of poorer, developing countries ravaged by the impacts of climate change and rising sea levels.

Another major commitment in the Paris Agreement is that richer, developed countries should provide $100 billion annually by 2020 to help poorer nations deal with the consequences of climate change and foster greener economies. The agreement promotes universal access to sustainable energy in developing countries, particularly in Africa, through the greater use of renewable energy. The Canadian government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised to spend $2.65 billion over five years to help developing countries reduce their emissions and adapt to climate change.

Under the Paris Agreement, countries are tasked with preparing, maintaining and publishing their own greenhouse gas reduction targets that the agreement says should be greater than the current ones and “reflect [the] highest possible ambition.” These targets will be reviewed and revised every five years starting in 2023.

As an overall aspirational target, the Paris Agreement sets the goal of a carbon-neutral world sometime after 2050 but before 2100, which means a commitment to limiting the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to levels that Nature can absorb through its trees, soils and oceans. Scientists believe the world will have to stop emitting greenhouse gases altogether in the next 50 years in order to achieve this goal.

While the Paris climate talks agreed upon the final draft Saturday afternoon, it must now be ratified, which for Canada consists of passing a bill through Parliament (the House of Commons and Senate), thus giving Canada’s commitment to the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement takes effect or as the United Nations puts it, “enters into force”, 30 days after 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions have ratified the agreement.

I have discussed with colleagues as to whether we should cheer or jeer the Paris Agreement signed this past weekend. Many were disappointed that a global carbon tax or some carbon pricing was not adopted especially given the political opportunity available since oil and gas prices are quite low at the moment. Discussions focused on whether to support a less satisfactory agreement, or hold out for something stronger, and it soon led to enforceability.

International agreements like the Paris Agreement cannot be enforced in the same sense as domestic law. Only rarely can countries be compelled to perform their legal obligations. There is a procedure for “going to court” in international law, which involves the International Court of Justice at the Hague, but these cases are rare, primarily because the results are seldom satisfactory. Greater attention has been given to developing non-enforceable techniques which, in practice, can be as effective a means of persuading countries to comply with their international obligations.

Simply by requiring countries to meet regularly to review implementation of the Paris Agreement can ensure that it stays at the forefront of attention. It may sound obvious, but it is important because an accord like the Paris Agreement can very easily turn into a “sleeping agreement” of little practical value unless countries are constantly reminded of their obligations.

Reporting requirements are also useful. If countries have to submit to regular reports on what they have done to meet the provisions of the Paris Agreement, they may prefer to comply with it rather that have to report that they have done nothing. The Paris Agreement will be implemented in Canada by national legislation, and national law is much easier to enforce than international law. Some groups may have no standing in the International Court of Justice but may, if the national laws permit it, be able to force its government to comply with an international agreement by bringing an action in its national courts.

As University of Toronto professor John Robinson so eloquently argued, “The power of a Paris agreement is not its enforceability, but the huge symbolic and political agenda and momentum it creates. Political expectations will be raised. A whole suite of activities will be set in place in different countries around the world. These activities will create momentum, which if sustained, can start to shift development pathways. And the legitimacy such an agreement will give to domestic efforts in countries around the world, from government policy-making, to private sector initiatives, to NGO activities, is very important. So to my mind it is more important to have some sort of agreement that is likely to create such momentum than to make sure the agreement is strong enough to reflect all our aspirations today.”

Robinson continued that “we should recognize that Paris can never be more than a signpost on the way. International agreements are only a part of the puzzle. The really hard work that needs to be done will occur at the national level and below. An international agreement can provide a positive context and very useful momentum for such efforts. And no such agreement can substitute for the huge, and much more local, efforts that must be undertaken if we are to realize the challenge that climate change poses to us: to create a truly sustainable world.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised to meet with the Canadian premiers within the next 90 days to discuss implementing the Paris agreement in Canada.