The journey to building a credible climate deal didn’t end in Paris. In fact, many say that Paris isn’t a destination but a beginning of a new path towards a climate agenda that adheres to scientific advice to aim for below the 2°C “safe” warming limit that will keep the planet habitable.
The global optimism from what many dubbed as a landmark Paris climate agreement in December 2015 sets up the momentum for reaching ambition for more defined temperature targets in the next meetings. And the real work, as they say, now begins.
While there’s still debate if the Paris summit can be considered a success, the deal, although not perfect, has its merits. The Paris agreement made leaders agree to decarbonize nations with a warming limit goal, a move to address the “ambition gap” from previous derailed deals. Clearly, the 2°C goal is not enough for island nations and vulnerable communities like the Philippines that eye a target of 1.5°C limit.
Notable improvements
For the first time, though, human rights was included in the draft’s preamble upheld by almost 200 countries. An earlier draft made several mentions of human rights in the text references but this was struck down in the final copy, to the dismay of activists and negotiators of developing countries. Nonetheless, some are optimistic of this progress to lay groundwork for future provisions on human rights protection in the context of climate change.
This is a departure from a previous carbon market-driven agenda that hasn’t succeeded. Many laud this welcome shift from an economic to a human rights standpoint, especially after it became more visible in the existing narrative that climate change can drive people away from their homes due to the loss of land to rising seas, and thus giving birth to the term climate refugees. To date, 26 million people flee their homes due to climate impacts, including those internally displaced in their own countries, such as those in Haiyan-hit provinces.
Another thing of note is the conduct of small meetings outside the big negotiation to resolve disagreements on the text and speed up discussions at the main floor. Members of the country’s delegation lauded the effectiveness of holding these side meetings to resolve conflict on terms, which usually take time for deliberation and consensus in a big plenary hall.
Moving forward
As mentioned, the Paris climate pact commits countries to keep global temperature below the safety level of 2°C and “pursue efforts” to limit warming at 1.5°C.
The world can only afford to release a maximum of 886 billion tonnes (GT) of heat-trapping carbon dioxide by 2050 to stay below 2°C levels, according to Potsdam Climate Institute. Nonetheless, a report called “Unburnable Carbon” noted that only a fraction of the world’s total 2,860GT of fossil fuel reserves can be used and most of it must remain underground. Some climate activists go as far to say that 80 percent of the coal must be kept underground to prevent irreversible effects of a warming planet beyond the allowable level.
This means it pays to have a deadline on the global and country peak emission checks, especially the big emitters. The London-based Climate Tracker Initiative said oil reserves of big companies are unburnable, which now challenges current business models for energy.
The temperature goals help serve as basis for what actions countries plan to pledge. These pledges are called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and are up for review over the next four years. For its part, the Philippines vowed to curb emissions by 70 percent, which is quite an ambitious goal according to civic society organizations.
The tricky issue here is that the INDCs remain a voluntary action among countries and the current climate pact doesn’t yet include penalties for those who can’t implement their pledges. To remedy this, the agreement has a transparency clause that requires countries to report their progress during the annual summits and not to “backslide” on their performance. One issue that can be discussed in future meetings is on how to keep countries on track of the global target in case of unfulfilled pledges.
Monitoring and revising the government-led INDCs are good steps but the mechanism for accountability remains unclear, and it’s something that needs to be fleshed out. The lack of accountability metrics made it difficult for the previous carbon markets to succeed and that’s one lesson that the current system can learn from. Some experts said that having a third-party reviewer is necessary to keep the country reviews independent, but it’s unclear who should serve as the third-party reviewer. At this rate, most civil society organizations and NGOs perform this role but it can be strengthened with the additional representation from marginalized and vulnerable groups such as the youth, women, and indigenous people.
Now, from a business perspective, integrating more renewables in energy models entail investment and thus, require more concrete guidelines from governments in terms of benchmarks for the transition. The business sector is a strong partner in the shift to a carbon-neutral world but at present, most approach the renewables on a voluntary action. One positive development is the continuous drop in the prices of solar panels, which is good for sunny countries like ours. It’s hoped that increase adoption will further bring down costs of the technology.
Key to implementing the INDCs across countries is a shift from carbon to renewables to strictly slash out emissions. On this, developed nations, which contributed significantly to present emissions during the Industrial era have clear carbon reduction targets, while poor nations are “encouraged” to cut back on their emissions and have flexibilities for the implementation.
As the Paris climate deal signals the shift to a low-carbon world, these aspirations will remain on paper only unless they are implemented. This brings in the next piece of the puzzle: the funding needed to implement adaptation, mitigation, and ecosystems protection.
By 2020, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) aims to give developing countries US$100 billion a year, of which half will fund adaptation efforts. One issue is if the fund will be available in time for developing nations to start their projects. Corollary to this, it pays to look at where the funds will come from and how it will impact international aid and private financing in the future. At present, there’s no further mechanism to check if the investments on adaptation, mitigation, and ecosystems protection are made to support the global shift to renewables and green energy solutions.
In terms of technology transfer, there’s a global body called the Climate Technology Centre Network (CTCN) that promises the provision of trainings and technical assistance to developing nations to help build low-carbon, resilient communities. The idea to foster access to information and a network of partners is essential, but when it comes to implementing them, getting the funds is another matter. This then brings up again the challenge for developing nations on where and when to get the funding to implement the solutions if the GCF mechanism remains unclear.
One path that’s worth paying attention to is the grassroots efforts of social entrepreneurs that harness open design to share cheap but effective technologies that can be adopted in vulnerable communities and cities—spanning from standalone smart gardens for home-grown food to water filters that make muddy water drinkable on the spot.
Walking the talk
Since 2013, the Philippines has been a strong voice in the climate negotiations and in Paris, the country’s delegation was keen on influencing an aspiration for 1.5°C as a warming limit. When Haiyan hit the country in November 2013, the world saw first-hand how devastating future storms could be in most parts of the world if warming remains unabated.
Aside from taking diplomatic leadership in international meetings, Filipino climate activists expect more action from the country to remain true to its words in terms of divesting from coal as an energy source. While plants may seem to have lower capital outlays, coal is never cheap in the long run.
Climate Change Commissioner Emmanuel De Guzman, who headed the Philippine delegation in the Paris summit, said that coal’s never cheap because of its costly environmental and health costs. One thing to look forward when he mentioned during a media briefing prior to Paris is a stronger collaboration with the Department of Energy to help map the country’s renewable energy plan, especially in the context of disaster-resilient energy infrastructure. This should be an interesting development to track over the next years and to look for ways on how citizens can remain engaged in making the government accountable in approving solutions that harness renewables over coal. For example, it pays to ask if renewables and not coal-fired plants generate the electricity powering electric cars.
This strong voice for climate action should translate to on-ground work. The country has 246,000MW of potential renewable energy sources that can power even off-grid communities.
Everyone’s business
It’s clear that more work is needed. And while country representatives handle the negotiations front in the global meetings, everyone has a responsibility to make leaders and everyone else accountable in pushing for a clear and credible climate agenda.
While the shape of the mechanisms under the climate deal remains unclear, the momentum brought by the Paris meeting in tandem with a strong civil society movement as shown during the Dec. 12 march, signaled a promise that the world can unite on a common agenda.
Now, it’s up to everyone to make sure that the negotiations continue on the right track, especially at a meeting when every nation—no matter how big or small—has a voice.
We can’t afford to sit on the sidelines on the climate change issue, especially when we know that the impacts are happening today at our doorstep. The issues may still sound too technical but personal vigilance to learn about them and to ask our leaders where they are in implementing the country’s plans can be a good step forward.
Haiyan taught the world that inaction on this matter is costly and deadly. Let’s take those lessons to reverse the trend of destruction and rebuild communities better. Everyone is called to join the action and the time to act is now.
![](https://2ndopinion.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/300x250.png"")
