Help
Quote
The Paris climate treaty is, in Joe Biden's immortal phrase, "a big f**king deal." It is less a solution to the problem of climate change as everyone has already pointed out, it's only the beginning than a conceptual breakthrough, a shift in the way the world's countries approach their common task.
That core breakthrough has gotten somewhat lost in all the coverage of the details. So I'd like to pull back the lens a bit and look at the big picture, what Paris means in the larger arc of climate action.
What a global climate treaty can do, and Paris does
Broadly speaking, it can offer two things: transparency and moral suasion.
It can aggregate the voluntary national commitments into a common database and measure them by common metrics, so that they can be fairly compared. It can make sure each nation's progress is verified and made public. If done well, transparency can ensure that everyone is clear on who has made what commitments and whose commitments are and aren't being met.
Alongside transparency, a treaty can bring to bear the weight of shared principles and goals: to help poorer countries, to drive emissions to net zero by mid-century, and to limit temperature rise to "well below 2C." It can put nations on record behind not only specific policies but a promise to regularly review and strengthen those policies. And it can put them on record behind specific contributions to a fund to assist poor and low-lying nations.
That's the architecture of the Paris deal.
Ultimately, it relies on the only real weapons in the UNFCCC's arsenal: perception and peer pressure. The bet is that nations will behave differently when a) no one is telling them what to do, but b) everyone is watching. Social scientists know that for individuals, making goals public is one of the most effective ways of ensuring they're met. Perhaps the same is true of nations.
If the last two years are any indication, peer pressure works pretty well. After China and the US struck a bilateral deal, other countries had no political cover left for delay; virtually every one came to Paris with real commitments in hand.
By all accounts, Paris was a smoother and more congenial experience than previous climate talks, with fewer leaks, less sniping, and more flexibility. India, previously a determined foot-dragger, has emerged as a constructive partner and potential solar pioneer. Canada came out of nowhere supporting a 1.5 degree target. Hell, even Venezuela submitted an INDC. It was, for the first time in a long time, a unanimous and forward-looking agreement, an architecture that showed signs of being durable and effective over decades to come.
There's a real sense that the world has crested the hill; action is now rolling on, unstoppable. And as Michael Levi notes, that optimism, the impression of inevitability, may be the most important outcome of Paris.
It all comes back to nations
Nonetheless, nations remain primary. All the talk about whether the Paris treaty will "work" somewhat misses that point.
The UNFCCC has always been, and remains, subject to the vicissitudes of national politics. The main reasons nations have finally started coming together on climate have less to do with international negotiations than with the changing economics of energy, the surge in public interest, and the rising tide of global activism.
And the nascent unity could easily falter. If internal tensions and austerity weaken the EU's commitment; if India's massive solar push goes bust; if demographics or politics change the incentives of Chinese leaders; above all, if the climate denialists in the Republican Party gain control of the White House any of these national developments could delay or derail cooperative global action on climate. And there's little a UN treaty can do to prevent them.
What the Paris architecture can do is rationalize a process that is already underway and, at the margins, accelerate it. It can clarify shared aspirations, send clear market signals, and document ongoing progress, fostering a positive feedback cycle of ambition. It can serve as a reminder that the family of nations owes its poorest members a helping hand, and that current commitments fall far short of just or wise.
But it cannot impose or engineer a global energy transition. It is a reflection of national politics more than a driver. The architecture will grow stronger when and if countries become comfortable and confident on the path toward decarbonization. Whether that happens depends on forces far larger than the UN.
That core breakthrough has gotten somewhat lost in all the coverage of the details. So I'd like to pull back the lens a bit and look at the big picture, what Paris means in the larger arc of climate action.
What a global climate treaty can do, and Paris does
Broadly speaking, it can offer two things: transparency and moral suasion.
It can aggregate the voluntary national commitments into a common database and measure them by common metrics, so that they can be fairly compared. It can make sure each nation's progress is verified and made public. If done well, transparency can ensure that everyone is clear on who has made what commitments and whose commitments are and aren't being met.
Alongside transparency, a treaty can bring to bear the weight of shared principles and goals: to help poorer countries, to drive emissions to net zero by mid-century, and to limit temperature rise to "well below 2C." It can put nations on record behind not only specific policies but a promise to regularly review and strengthen those policies. And it can put them on record behind specific contributions to a fund to assist poor and low-lying nations.
That's the architecture of the Paris deal.
Ultimately, it relies on the only real weapons in the UNFCCC's arsenal: perception and peer pressure. The bet is that nations will behave differently when a) no one is telling them what to do, but b) everyone is watching. Social scientists know that for individuals, making goals public is one of the most effective ways of ensuring they're met. Perhaps the same is true of nations.
If the last two years are any indication, peer pressure works pretty well. After China and the US struck a bilateral deal, other countries had no political cover left for delay; virtually every one came to Paris with real commitments in hand.
By all accounts, Paris was a smoother and more congenial experience than previous climate talks, with fewer leaks, less sniping, and more flexibility. India, previously a determined foot-dragger, has emerged as a constructive partner and potential solar pioneer. Canada came out of nowhere supporting a 1.5 degree target. Hell, even Venezuela submitted an INDC. It was, for the first time in a long time, a unanimous and forward-looking agreement, an architecture that showed signs of being durable and effective over decades to come.
There's a real sense that the world has crested the hill; action is now rolling on, unstoppable. And as Michael Levi notes, that optimism, the impression of inevitability, may be the most important outcome of Paris.
It all comes back to nations
Nonetheless, nations remain primary. All the talk about whether the Paris treaty will "work" somewhat misses that point.
The UNFCCC has always been, and remains, subject to the vicissitudes of national politics. The main reasons nations have finally started coming together on climate have less to do with international negotiations than with the changing economics of energy, the surge in public interest, and the rising tide of global activism.
And the nascent unity could easily falter. If internal tensions and austerity weaken the EU's commitment; if India's massive solar push goes bust; if demographics or politics change the incentives of Chinese leaders; above all, if the climate denialists in the Republican Party gain control of the White House any of these national developments could delay or derail cooperative global action on climate. And there's little a UN treaty can do to prevent them.
What the Paris architecture can do is rationalize a process that is already underway and, at the margins, accelerate it. It can clarify shared aspirations, send clear market signals, and document ongoing progress, fostering a positive feedback cycle of ambition. It can serve as a reminder that the family of nations owes its poorest members a helping hand, and that current commitments fall far short of just or wise.
But it cannot impose or engineer a global energy transition. It is a reflection of national politics more than a driver. The architecture will grow stronger when and if countries become comfortable and confident on the path toward decarbonization. Whether that happens depends on forces far larger than the UN.
