One thing is certain: this agreement will not be enough to limit the average temperature of global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, let alone the 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature that the agreement itself considers necessary. However, for domestic policy reasons in most countries and in the current geopolitical reality, this is the best deal we have been able to reach. That is why we cannot place all our hope in such an international agreement and action must be taken at all levels at which we are all involved. On the other hand, there is a good chance that when this agreement comes into force in 2020, we will have exceeded the level of emissions that will keep us below 1.5 degrees Celsius and that the geopolitical reality of the climate will be marked by the most powerful countries. But this international process is not the only solution. We must not let our governments tackle this global challenge alone and we must all act at all levels to ensure a truly ecological and socially just transition everywhere, in all sectors! What can also be very worrying and a real danger to the environment is the inclusion of vague elements and concepts such as sinks to absorb carbon into the atmosphere, so that the door remains open to geoengineering and other technological approaches. This belief in unlimited technological progress pushes us in the opposite direction of this agreement, especially when Co2 capture projects do not work or are halted due to inefficiency. It creates the illusion that we can continue to pollute the environment, because one day we will find solutions and delay concrete action. This situation is doubly ill-advised if lower renewable energy costs cost less to switch to renewable and decentralized energy production. In addition to the mitigation column of the agreement, the other pillars, Adaptation and Loss – Damage, are also weaknesses, notably L-D. One of the main demands of small island and least developed countries was to recognize the need to find solutions to forced displacement, cross-border migration and relocations planned in response to climate change and sea level rise.
There is no longer any reference to this in the agreement, with the exception of an indirect reference to external UN bodies dealing with specific aspects of the DA, in reference to the UN ad hoc working group on climate-related migration. The United States also succeeded in concluding the accompanying decisions of the agreement with an exclusion clause on future liability related to L-D, while the G77 and China were already moving towards a compromise by removing any mention of compensation. According to U.S. administration negotiators, one of the key conditions for the Obama administration was to ensure that the deal was not rejected by a right-wing Congress. This situation was debatable, given that there is no precedent in international law for such an approach. Imagine being a pedestrian who gets hit by a car and is not able to seek compensation from the driver, however unfair that clause is. Paris Agreement, 2015. The most important global agreement to date, the Paris Agreement, obliges all countries to make commitments to reduce emissions. Governments set targets known as national contributions, with a view to preventing the average global temperature from rising by 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to strive to keep it below 1.5 degrees Celsius. It also aims to achieve zero net emissions globally, where the amount of greenhouse gases emitted is equivalent to the amount removed from the atmosphere in the second half of the century. (This is also called climate neutral or carbon neutral.) Twenty-five countries and the EU are currently working on some sort of net zero commitment (in many cases, until 2050, although some countries, such as Denmark and Finland, have previous deadlines). This year, several Asian economic powers have made net zero commitments, including South Korea and Japan (by 2050) and China, the world`s largest emitter, by 2060.