14 Sep 2015: Analysis

Will the Paris Climate Talks
Be Too Little and Too Late?

At the upcoming U.N. climate conference, most of the world’s major nations will pledge to make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. But serious doubts remain as to whether these promised cuts will be nearly enough to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change.

by fred pearce

It’s Paris or bust. Climate diplomats are preparing for a United Nations climate conference in the French capital in December that scientists say is probably the last realistic chance for the world to prevent global warming going beyond 2 degrees Celsius. Some kind of a deal will probably be done. But will it be one more diplomatic fudge or a real triumph for the climate?

In the run-up to Paris, governments have been asked to deliver pledges to cut emissions of the greenhouse gases known to cause climate change. The
Christiana Figueres
Getty Images
Christiana Figueres, U.N. chief climate negotiator
pledges, covering the period between 2020, when the agreement should enter into force, and 2030, are known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or INDCs in the U.N. jargon.

Major nations including the United States, China, the European Union, and Russia have submitted their INDCs. But unlike the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, which only set targets for industrialized nations, all countries are expected to make pledges before Paris.

Many of the pledges sound ambitious, but analysis suggest they fall far short of what is likely to be needed to prevent warming beyond 2 degrees C (3.6 F) later this century — a goal set by nations at the Copenhagen climate negotiations in 2009. “It is clear that if the Paris meeting locks in present climate commitments for 2030, holding warming below 2 degrees could essentially become infeasible,” Bill Hare of Climate Analytics, a think tank, said during preliminary negotiations held in Bonn, Germany, this month.
‘The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is going to come out of the oven in Paris,’ says a U.N. official.
In fact, he said, they leave the world on course for at least 3 degrees C of warming.

But there is some good news out in the real world. The decade-long boom in coal burning across the world appears to be ending, and radically lower costs for renewables, especially solar power, make them increasingly attractive. One economic study published this summer concluded that green energy was usually “nationally beneficial,” regardless of the climate benefits. Indeed, there is a growing realization in many countries that cutting emissions is not just cheap, but could actually aid economic development.

Still, progress to a final agreement in Paris is proving painstakingly slow. Delegates left Bonn expressing frustration that too little had so far been settled. Fears were expressed of a repeat of Copenhagen six years ago, when similar talks collapsed in chaos, despite frantic efforts by a galaxy of world leaders, headed by Barack Obama, who flew in to do a deal.

But most delegates believe that this time, with the two biggest players, the U.S. and China, for the first time in broad agreement, there is a much greater chance of a deal. "The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding is going to come out of the oven in Paris," the U.N.’s chief climate negotiator, Christiana Figueres, insisted in Bonn.

Many key commitments are in place. So far, 60 countries have made formal emissions pledges. They cover more than 65 percent of current global emissions. The pledges vary. Some are absolute targets expressed as tons of carbon dioxide per year in 2030; others are targets measured against business as usual, or promises to reduce emissions for every dollar of economic activity.

Following a historic deal in Washington last fall between Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping, China has pledged that its emissions, which have been growing very rapidly for several decades, will peak by 2030. It has also promised to decrease burning of fossil fuels, to increase forest cover to absorb carbon dioxide, and to reduce emissions per unit of GDP by 60 to 65 percent by the same date. The U.S., the world’s second-biggest emitter after China, has pledged to cut its emissions by up to 28 percent between 2005 and 2025. That’s not as hard as it sounds, because after
The European Union has pledged to cut emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
peaking emissions a decade ago, the U.S. is already halfway there.

In July, Obama upped the U.S. commitment by announcing a plan to achieve 32-percent cuts in emissions from its power stations by 2030. China, meanwhile, revealed that its coal burning fell in 2014 and may already be in long-term decline. At the same time, the world’s third-largest emitter, the European Union, which has already cut its emissions substantially since 1990, has pledged to reach 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

A number of major emitters have yet to submit INDCs. They include India, currently the world’s fastest-growing economy, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia. Brazil has also yet to make its formal pledge. But during a visit to Washington in June, its president, Dilma Rousseff, promised to end net deforestation, which is still the main source of Brazil’s emissions. She also boasted that by reducing deforestation in the past decade, Brazil has already cuts its emissions by 40 percent – a greater reduction that any other large country.

Among the tabled INDCs, Mexico promised to peak its emissions by 2026 and reduce emissions to 25 percent below a business-as-usual level by 2030, or to 40 percent below if it receives technical and financial assistance. South Korea promised a 37-percent cut from business as usual, while Japan promised an absolute emissions cut of 26 percent from 2013 levels. Ethiopia, in one of the most ambitious pledges from a poor nation, pledged to curb emissions sufficiently to bring them back below 2010 levels by 2030, which it says will represent a 64-percent cut from business as usual.

Why do countries feel able to make such commitments? None expect to suffer serious economic harm as a result. The main reason is emerging trends in how the world generates its energy.

Most important is the end of the coal boom. The contribution of the dirtiest of the main fossil fuels to global energy production soared in the past decade, largely on the back of Chinese economic growth. But with Chinese coal-burning now apparently past its peak, many energy experts believe the world as a whole is close to "peak coal." Coal is costing more compared to
The presumption that economic growth inevitably leads to a rapid increase in CO2 emissions is fading fast.
other energy sources, and is a major contributor to choking smogs. Any alternative is better for the atmosphere, whether natural gas, nuclear, or renewables. Renewables in particular are becoming more economically competitive. The cost of solar energy is down 80 percent in the past decade, largely as a result of Chinese manufacture of cheap photovoltaic panels.

The Grantham Research Institute of the London School of Economics — which is headed by Lord (Nicholas) Stern, the former chief economist at the World Bank — concluded in July that most of the emissions cuts and other mitigation needed to decarbonize the global economy and stay within the 2-degree limit “is likely to be nationally beneficial, even leaving aside the climate benefits.”

The presumption among governments that economic growth inevitably leads to a rapid increase in CO2 emissions is fading fast – and with it their antipathy of accepting limits on those emissions. The days of climate negotiations being dogged by battles over “burden sharing” may be receding.

Are the current pledges enough to keep global warming below 2 degrees C? Nobody can be certain. There are too many scientific uncertainties about exactly how sensitive the atmosphere is to growing concentrations of greenhouse gases. We could get lucky, but equally there might be tipping points that could suddenly accelerate warming.

Most analysts agree that what is currently on the table is unlikely to be sufficient. Climate Action Tracker (CAT), a consortium of researchers that includes Hare’s Climate Analytics, calculates that the current pledges put annual global emissions of all greenhouse gases on track to rise from the current roughly 50 billion tons to 53 to 57 billion tons in 2025, and 55 to 59 billion tons in 2030. It reckons an optimum track to 2 degrees C would require emissions below 40 billion tons by 2030.

Higher emissions between now and 2030 would not inevitably take the world beyond 2 degrees, but they would certainly make the task more expensive and disruptive. It would probably leave the world requiring emissions cuts of more than 5 percent each year after 2030. Many
The debates that are likely to dominate the Paris talks will not be about emissions but about money.
technology analysts say that is next to impossible.

The Paris agreement is likely to include clauses that would allow stronger targets on the basis of new science, but the evidence is that the existing science already shows nations should be aiming higher. Nonetheless, diplomats expect the conference to sign off on the INDCs largely unaltered.

The debates that are likely to dominate the Paris talks will not be about emissions but about money — to help developing nations reduce their emissions, adapt to inevitable climate change, and be compensated for damage caused by extreme weather.

In Copenhagen in 2009, rich nations agreed to establish a Green Climate Fund to help poorer nations both cut emissions and adapt to climate change by building national resilience. They promised to collectively put $100 billion annually into the fund beginning in 2020.

But there appears to be backsliding. According to a recent analysis by the aid charity Oxfam, less than a fifth of this has so far been pledged from public funds. Instead, rich nations are talking increasingly about topping up with private finance. A statement from the G7 leaders summit in Germany in June said that “mobilizing of private sector finance is crucial” to the fund, and would “unlock the required investments in low-carbon technology, as well as in building resilience.”

Ideas include private funding of renewables and setting up insurance funds to protect poor farmers from the economic consequences of crop failure.


A Blueprint to End Paralysis
Over Global Action on Climate

Global climate blueprint
The international community should stop chasing the chimera of a binding treaty to limit CO2 emissions, argue former U.S. senators Timothy Wirth and Thomas Daschle. Instead, they say, it should pursue an approach that encourages countries to engage in a “race to the top” in low-carbon energy solutions.
The G7 statement called for 400 million people in the poorest countries to have access to such insurance by 2020. This is all useful stuff, but perhaps not what developing countries had in mind in Copenhagen. They expected rich-nation governments to dig into their own pockets.

Adapting to climate change will often not be possible. African countries, and others with little or no responsibility for climate change, want a separate fund to compensate them for “loss and damage” resulting from climate disasters such as extreme heat, wild weather, floods, and droughts. This would be a 21st century equivalent of war reparations — for climate crimes rather than war crimes.

The idea was first raised in earnest at negotiations in Warsaw in 2013. Both the U.S. and EU resisted the notion. But in Bonn, they appeared to relent, leaving some NGOs hopeful that an agreement can be reached on this.

Still, the French hosts remain worried that funding issues are the most likely deal breakers in Paris. That would be bad for the world, but bad also for France’s reputation. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who will be chairing the talks, said in June that “the question of financing is ... decisive for reaching an agreement in Paris. The promise of Copenhagen must be kept absolutely. It is the basis of trust, and for many countries it is the condition of reaching agreement.”

Plus ca change. The more things change...

POSTED ON 14 Sep 2015 IN Biodiversity Climate Energy Forests Policy & Politics Policy & Politics Central & South America 


Dear Fred Pearce,

The Cancun agreement clearly states that funds to meet the 100 billion target would be mobilised from a mix of public and private sources. So the G7 statement does not seem to be backsliding in this context.

On the contrary, it is making sure that sufficient financing is mobilised to achieve the 2 degrees temperature target, which cannot be achieved with public finance alone.

Having said that, there is a need for continued and scaled up public international climate finance, especially for adaptation and for those developing countries most in need.

How much public and private international climate finance is there today? To me, this appears to be a crucial question to reach further understanding on before the COP21, to ensure that new commitments on finance in Paris are made with greater clarity.

Sáni Zou
Posted by Sáni Zou on 14 Sep 2015

It's too bad you exaggerating liberals, pandering politicians and lazy news editors won't allow your sacred science Gods to say "proven" if it's a CO2 Armageddon. It is certain it could have prevented the last 34 years of climate action failure, debate and delay to save the planet.

So what's stopping another 34 years of global disbelief and climate action failure?

*Is this how you want your kids remembering you?*
Posted by mememine69 on 14 Sep 2015

Solar PV is cheap because the environmental damage caused by them is not factored.
These include toxic byproducts from their manufacture, leeching of toxic compounds from discarded panels and greenhouse gasses emitted as they deteriorate.

"What is it we are trying to sustain? A living planet, or industrial civilization? Because we can’t have both."
"Solar panels. The very latest in sustainability fashion. And in true sustainability style, incredibly destructive of life on earth."
"The production of solar panels causes nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) to be emitted into the atmosphere. This gas has 17,000 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide."

"Alternative sources of energy will never be very useful for several reasons, but mainly because of a problem of “net energy”: the amount of energy output is not sufficiently greater than the amount of energy input"
"At the same time, alternative forms of energy are so dependent on the very petroleum that they are intended to replace that the use of them is largely self-defeating and irrational. Petroleum is required to produce, process, and transport almost any other form of energy"
"The quest for alternative sources of energy is not merely illusory it is actually harmful. By daydreaming of a noiseless and odorless utopia of windmills and solar panels, we are reducing the effectiveness of whatever serious information is now being published."

Posted by Harquebus on 18 Sep 2015

The 2 degree pledge is a travesty. Scientifically, it just dumbs down a target properly expressed in ppm. Morally, no government that made the pledge had the right to allow any such increase in such a global average, which in fact is a precedent for geo-engineering. Practically, 2 degrees is vacuous, and says nothing about how the 2 degrees gets spread across regions, does not distinguish temperature disruption from changes in the hydrologic cycle, and states nothing about what happens when we go over the 2 degrees. In summary, it is policy convention designed to fail.
Posted by Andrew McCammon on 21 Sep 2015

The 2 C goal is one of international calamity.
Based on new understanding of climate science,
by 2 C rise the planet will automatically outgass
both CH4 and CO2 while moving toward higher
temps and a geologic scale extinction event,
including carbonic acidification of oceans.

Paris is already a disgrace and a failure. The UN
seems to be unduly influenced by petro-politics,
such as the US-Saudi "fuels" and armaments
nexus, while they disregard hundreds of trillions
of dollars of impending damages over the next
century and an (sustainable) economic
development opportunity not to be missed.
Posted by Solar Jim on 01 Oct 2015

I actually wanted to jot down a comment in order to thank you for all the splendid points you are posting on this website. My timnc-onsumieg internet search has now been rewarded with good quality know-how to share with my co-workers. I would mention that we readers actually are definitely lucky to live in a fantastic community with many perfect individuals with insightful secrets. I feel extremely blessed to have discovered your entire web page and look forward to plenty of more cool moments reading here. Thanks a lot once again for everything.
Posted by Caden on 17 Jul 2016


Comments are moderated and will be reviewed before they are posted to ensure they are on topic, relevant, and not abusive. They may be edited for length and clarity. By filling out this form, you give Yale Environment 360 permission to publish this comment.

Email address 
Please type the text shown in the graphic.

Fred Pearce is a freelance author and journalist based in the U.K. He serves as environmental consultant for New Scientist magazine and is the author of numerous books, including The Land Grabbers. Previously for Yale Environment 360, he has written about threats to Oman's ancient water systems and major discrepancies in tallying extinction rates of species across the globe.



For European Wind Industry,
Offshore Projects Are Booming

As Europe’s wind energy production rises dramatically, offshore turbines are proliferating from the Irish Sea to the Baltic Sea. It’s all part of the European Union’s strong push away from fossil fuels and toward renewables.

The Rising Environmental Toll
Of China’s Offshore Island Grab

To stake its claim in the strategic South China Sea, China is building airstrips, ports, and other facilities on disputed islands and reefs. Scientists say the activities are destroying key coral reef ecosystems and will heighten the risks of a fisheries collapse in the region.

How the Attack on Science Is
Becoming a Global Contagion

Assaults on the science behind climate change research and conservation policies are spreading from the U.S. to Europe and beyond. If this wave of “post-fact” thinking triumphs, the world will face a future dominated by pure ideology.

High Stakes on the High Seas:
A Call for International Reserves

Marine protected areas in national waters have proven successful in helping depleted fish stocks to recover. Now, there is growing momentum for the creation of extensive reserves on the high seas as a way of reversing decades of rampant overfishing.

In Fukushima, A Bitter Legacy
Of Radiation, Trauma and Fear

Five years after the nuclear power plant meltdown, a journey through the Fukushima evacuation zone reveals some high levels of radiation and an overriding sense of fear. For many, the psychological damage is far more profound than the health effects.


MORE IN Analysis

As Arctic Ocean Ice Disappears,
Global Climate Impacts Intensify

by peter wadhams
The top of the world is turning from white to blue in summer as the ice that has long covered the north polar seas melts away. This monumental change is triggering a cascade of effects that will amplify global warming and could destabilize the global climate system.

How Climate Change Could Jam
The World's Ocean Circulation

by nicola jones
Scientists are closely monitoring a key current in the North Atlantic to see if rising sea temperatures and increased freshwater from melting ice are altering the “ocean conveyor belt” — a vast oceanic stream that plays a major role in the global climate system.

Wildlife Farming: Does It Help
Or Hurt Threatened Species?

by richard conniff
Wildlife farming is being touted as a way to protect endangered species while providing food and boosting incomes in rural areas. But some conservation scientists argue that such practices fail to benefit beleaguered wildlife.

What Would a Global Warming
Increase of 1.5 Degrees Be Like?

by fred pearce
The Paris climate conference set the ambitious goal of finding ways to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, rather than the previous threshold of 2 degrees. But what would be the difference between a 1.5 and 2 degree world? And how realistic is such a target?

After Paris, A Move to Rein In
Emissions by Ships and Planes

by fred pearce
As the world moves to slash CO2 emissions, the shipping and aviation sectors have managed to remain on the sidelines. But the pressure is now on these two major polluting industries to start controlling their emissions at last.

Abrupt Sea Level Rise Looms
As Increasingly Realistic Threat

by nicola jones
Ninety-nine percent of the planet's freshwater ice is locked up in the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps. Now, a growing number of studies are raising the possibility that as those ice sheets melt, sea levels could rise by six feet this century, and far higher in the next, flooding many of the world's populated coastal areas.

How Nations Are Chipping
Away at Their Protected Lands

by richard conniff
Winning protected status for key natural areas and habitat has long been seen as the gold standard of conservation. But these gains are increasingly being compromised as governments redraw park boundaries to accommodate mining, logging, and other development.

Can We Reduce CO2 Emissions
And Grow the Global Economy?

by fred pearce
Surprising new statistics show that the world economy is expanding while global carbon emissions remain at the same level. Is it possible that the elusive “decoupling” of emissions and economic growth could be happening?

On Fuel Economy Efforts,
U.S. Faces an Elusive Target

by marc gunther
One of President Obama’s signature achievements on climate has been strict standards aimed at improving auto fuel efficiency to nearly 55 miles per gallon by 2025. But credits and loopholes, coupled with low gas prices, may mean the U.S. will fall well short of this ambitious goal.

New Green Challenge: How to
Grow More Food on Less Land

by richard conniff
If the world is to have another Green Revolution to feed its soaring population, it must be far more sustainable than the first one. That means finding ways to boost yields with less fertilizer and rethinking the way food is distributed.

e360 digest
Yale Environment 360 is
a publication of the
Yale School of Forestry
& Environmental Studies


Donate to Yale Environment 360
Yale Environment 360 Newsletter



About e360
Submission Guidelines

E360 en Español

Universia partnership
Yale Environment 360 articles are now available in Spanish and Portuguese on Universia, the online educational network.
Visit the site.


e360 Digest
Video Reports


Business & Innovation
Policy & Politics
Pollution & Health
Science & Technology


Antarctica and the Arctic
Central & South America
Middle East
North America

e360 VIDEO

A look at how acidifying oceans could threaten the Dungeness crab, one of the most valuable fisheries on the U.S. West Coast.
Watch the video.


The latest
from Yale
Environment 360
is now available for mobile devices at e360.yale.edu/mobile.


An aerial view of why Europe’s per capita carbon emissions are less than 50 percent of those in the U.S.
View the photos.

e360 VIDEO

An indigenous tribe’s deadly fight to save its ancestral land in the Amazon rainforest from logging.
Learn more.

e360 VIDEO

Food waste
An e360 video series looks at the staggering amount of food wasted in the U.S. – a problem with major human and environmental costs.
Watch the video.

e360 VIDEO

Choco rainforest Cacao
Residents of the Chocó Rainforest in Ecuador are choosing to plant cacao over logging in an effort to slow deforestation.
Watch the video.

e360 VIDEO

Tribal people and ranchers join together to stop a project that would haul coal across their Montana land.
Watch the video.