Intense
negotiations aimed at reducing GHG emissions have been going on within the
framework of the UN for almost 30 years. No other international environmental
problem has been attacked with so much political, scientific and institutional
effort as this one. 

However, effectiveness has been exceedingly low: Emissions are some 60% higher today than they were when the UNFCCCwas adopted in 1992. Moreover, emissions rose more steeply after the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol than before, although at the time it was hailed as an innovative and effective instrument by policy-makers and analysts alike.

Analysts and policymakers have also hailed the Paris Agreement (PA) as a huge success. Beyond doubt, it was indeed a diplomatic success – but as regards the Nationally Determined Commitments (NDCs) it was no success in environmental terms. Moreover, the strong support from virtually all participants – with widely differing perceptions and interests – indicates that the PA is open to a wide range of interpretations, as clearly demonstrated with negotiations on the ‘Paris Rulebook’. Just as the Kyoto Protocol was full of ‘invisible’ brackets, so is the PA.

Moreover, the making of this Rulebook has dealt essentially with processesaimed at securing transparency and comparability in reporting procedures. The crucial issues of how to reduce emissions, and how to flesh out a stronger regime in terms of enforcement and compliance, are not yet on the table. The PA certainly contains important innovative elements and ambitious goals, but these alone will not be enough to halt global warming.

Why have achievements been so modest?

There are several reasons why climate change has been labelled an extremely politically ‘malign’ or ‘wicked’ problem, exceedingly difficult to solve. First, we should note that climate mitigation is a global public good, where most of the benefits from one country’s own mitigation efforts go to other countries. Thus, a government concerned primarily with the welfare of its own citizens will have little reason for action. Moreover, any one country’s contribution to climate mitigation makes only a very small difference on a global scale.

Second, while the costs of reducing emissions are high and up-front, the benefits are both long-term and diffuse. This represents a real challenge, as policymakers tend to operate with short time-frames. Third, very costly measures will be required if emissions reductions are to have a real impact on global warming. Finally, there are strong political asymmetries, particularly between the North and the Global South, in terms of interests, priorities and not least regarding justice and fairness in burden-sharing.