Introduction
In the recent past, climate change has become a growing concern worldwide. Nations have resorted to concerted efforts in a bid to possibly avert the adverse consequences of climate change at present and in the future. Conferences and forums have been held across the world to assess the situation and make pivotal deliberations on the topic. One such undertaking was the Paris Agreement of 2015, which majorly focused on the general mitigation of greenhouse gases. Though reaching the deal happened outside Paris,[1] the agreement is set for review after every five years. In November 2015, more than 150 national leaders from all over the world attended the climate conference where they pledged their unbridled and voluntary support of UNFCC’s ambitious climate change agreement.[2] The agreements were finally confirmed and adopted barely a month later on December 12th, the same year. In the wake of adoption and subsequent confirmations, countries are just beginning to realize the obstacles associated with the implementation of the Paris Agreement. These challenges span across sectors with the politics and economics of climate change policy rearing its head on a promising environmental sustainability agreement. Barely five years later, some countries have even pulled out of the agreement, thus threatening the very core of its framework. The ongoing research presents and examines the challenges threatening the successful implementation of the 2015 Paris Agreement in the context of potential international solutions for climate change and associated consequences.
The Scope of 2015 Paris Agreement: Goals and Feasibility
Understanding the implementation challenges requires a comprehensive presentation of specific goals and an examination of their feasibility. The primary aim of the agreement was to keep the average global temperature at less than 2 degrees Celsius, with a commitment to limit it at 1.5 degrees Celsius.[3] In this goal, the pact notes that in doing so, there is a high possibility of significantly reducing the risk and imminent negative impacts of climate change. The second primary goal concerned adaptation and aimed at equipping nations with the required ability to adapt to any fatal implications of climate change while fostering the lowest possible emission of greenhouse gases. One of the objectives of this goal was to allay any threats to food production and security across the globe. The third goal sought to introduce consistency in the flow of finances towards sustainable development and reduction in emission of greenhouse gases.[4]
Yet, it is through an examination of the feasibility of these goals that one truly understands the scale of the problem and how much is required of governments in implementing the specifics of the agreement. Essentially, most of the energy driving the global economy comes from fossil fuels. Considering the climate change observation uncertainties, among other factors, the best probability of keeping the global temperatures at 1.5 degrees Celsius and honoring the Paris Agreement would be 50%.[5] The probability simply means that then undertaking may or may not be possible depending on how well the players manipulate influencers to their advantage. However, it is important to note that the agreement takes a collaborative orientation, and any chance of success depends mostly on all the players pulling together.
Most researchers state that the ability to achieve the temperature threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius will mean that there is no further increase in the average global temperatures, which requires that the reduction efforts begin immediately after the adoption of the treaty. It is to be understood that with each insignificant delay, the emissions continue on a normal trajectory, which calls for even further stricter provisions in the pact. From this perspective, the feasibility of the emission goal hangs in the balance because it would be close to impossible to spontaneously implement the tenets of the agreement across the world due to specific geographical and political factors. Already, the major challenge with the collaborative approach, which affects the feasibility of these goals, seems like it could obscure the implementation of the agreements. It will be discussed in detail in the subsequent sections. Yet, it is important to understand that the approach is probably the only one given that climate change is a global problem[6] and efforts from one nation may not work without reciprocation from others across the world.
Obstacles: Politics and Economics of Climate Change Policy
There are numerous challenges affecting the implementation of the 2015 Paris Agreement as a microcosm of global climate change policies. The climate change debate is not a recent phenomenon, it has been around for years, yet no one-size-fits-all solution has been found. The ineffectiveness or small contribution of numerous agreements and efforts towards dealing with climate change is the primary testimony to the complexity of this issue. As the major challenge, such complexity affects every bit and aspect of any effort and differs from one country to the other. A more significant part of this complexity is a result of the inherent physical characteristics of climate change. Yet, a large number of socio-economic and political intricacies only make the major challenge worse. The result is complete confusion in how to implement most climate change policies, even before the actual implementation.
The Complex Relationship Between Emissions and Climate Change
In light of the inherent complexities of climate change discussed above, any efforts to solve the problem involve the arduous and painstaking task of comprehensively understanding the connection between elements such as human activity, emission of greenhouse gases, and specific fluctuations in atmospheric composition. It is not uncommon to come across contradicting research information in this regard, which is just an illustration of the difficulties in understanding the subject. While some connections among these elements are clear and direct, others, such as temporal impacts at various geographical locations, require massive resources and could be overly slow to understand given the scale. The net effect of this is that outcomes of most actions geared towards the reduction of elements such as emission have to be estimated or approximated,[7] thus failing to capture the exact situation. Such a probabilistic presentation could either underestimate or overestimate the problem, none of which positively influences the implementation of strategic preventative or combative actions. These probabilities could veer further from the mark depending on specific technologies used to obtain them.
The differing levels of political stabilities and technological advancements across the globe mean that countries that are less technologically advanced could grossly underestimate or overestimate their situations. Some may not even make any attempt at quantifying the problem for lack of finances and other factors. As a result, there are no factual figures for greenhouse gas emissions, for instance. A clear example of the complex relationship, in this case, is the carbon-dioxide emission increases two years after the ratification of the Paris Agreement. Global carbon dioxide emissions started to increase around 2017 following three years of constant figures. In fact, in that period, China’s emissions rose by a staggering 3.5%,[8] over twice the Paris Agreement target. The increase could be attributed to such human factors as increased coal and natural gas consumption.[9] Yet, China’s growth has been on the increase even during the period when these emissions were constant, creating an impression of the effects from other sectors or even weaknesses in the estimation criteria. Over the same period, emission of greenhouse gases in the U.S. continued to plummet probably because of policies disfavoring coal consumption. It would be inaccurate to peg the increase or reduction in these emissions to coal consumption alone. The use of aerosols and other factors also increase the emission of greenhouse gases, and this varies from one country to the other in accordance with their policies.
The difficulties in understanding certain aspects of the relationship between emissions and climate change[10] probably contributed to the different results in China and the U.S. It is to be noted that these changes happened at a time when the two nations had adopted the Paris Agreement, and at a time when emissions had been constant for a long time. The complexity and unpredictability of the trend would be a significant challenge to the successful implementation of the 2015 Paris Agreement. Another far-fetched but possible scenario is that some countries could fake these figures to achieve a particular political agenda. While discussing this challenge, it is also important to exploit the possibility of such ethical issues because the actions tamper with the global implementation roadmap for climate change treaties.
Different Levels of Development and Technological Advancement
While all the countries that attended the COP 21 late adopted the agreements in theory, their differing economic muscles do not allow uniformity in the implementation of the provisions. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change covers both first-world and developing countries. Even at a national level, climate changes cover a wide area and are often large scale undertakings, sometimes involving a rigorous restructuring of the system. Under this section, the financial ability of different nations becomes the biggest impediment to the implementation of the agreement. Before delving deep into the issue, it is important to note that the Paris Agreement set and facilitated an Adaptation Fund[11] to lessen the financial burden on partner countries. The funding is facilitated by such entities as the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), the Green Climate Fund (GCF), and the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF), among others. Yet, the effectiveness of the Adaptation Fund is limited, and countries have to still dig deep into their pockets to finance the Paris Agreement. In regards to the complexities of climate change discussed above, some countries need large amounts of money to deal with the issue, while others may require comparatively small amounts. Similarly, the level of economic development varies from one nation to the other. First-world countries, for instance, would find it easy to set additional funds aside for the implementation of climate change initiatives. However, poor and third-world countries may not have the same financial opportunities. Such countries may largely depend on the highly limited Adaptation Funds. Analysis of the variations in the UN Environment Program’s emission gap of 2018 reveals a trend where a majority of developing countries have higher emissions[12] compared to developed and first-world countries. This aspect is an indication that economic and financial muscle greatly hinders the realization of the 2015 Paris Agreement and general climate change initiatives.
The financial and economic capabilities of different countries affect technological development and transfer. Reduction of overall carbon emissions calls for the use of the advanced negative emission technologies alongside the capture and storage of carbon.[13] Such technologies are often costly and complex, and only some are commercially available with a greater percentage in the developed countries.[14] Geoengineering technologies, though controversial, could provide a ready technological solution. It involves injecting sulfate aerosol directly into the stratosphere.[15] Even so, the technology comes with diverse geopolitical and environmental risks. The efficiency of geoengineering should start as a policy issue accompanied by a positive societal response. Before any other factor is considered, there should be a firm political resolve and commitment towards emissions reduction to motivate large scale deployment of these technologies. As will be seen in later sections, such a resolve would require a radical change of attitude as a starting point. Before that, financial constraints and knowledge barriers mean that certain countries find it hard to acquire and operate some of these technologies. Apart from skills transfer, the only solution to this would be reviewing the education system to provide for the necessary knowledge. That would consume more finances despite the existing constraints. In some cases, policies are needed to procure and protect the technology and their operation, which consume time and create delays in the overall implementation of climate change initiatives. There also has to be the necessary human resource capacity to tailor the technology towards the reduction of climate change. Here, the magnitude and intricacy associated with the implementation of climate change policies is clear, and the situation is similar throughout the framework for the reduction of emissions and management of climate change.
Negative Attitudes and Uncertainties Surrounding the Benefits
1st June 2017 saw the U.S. begin its exit from the 2015 Paris Accord,[16] claiming that the agreement infringes on the sovereignty of America and terming climate change a hoax.[17] The event is a climax of the existence of negative attitudes towards the provisions of the Paris Agreement of 2015. When the process is complete, it is only America that will be out of the Accord, but what matters is the effect of these attitudes on the implementation of the agreement. At the national level, climate change is a societal issue, and any changes must be initiated from the society level. The national governments, therefore, play a pivotal role in leading through related policies. The governments are also responsible for tailoring the main framework of the agreement to fit into their context as well as seek suitable partnerships to advance the agenda. The government is also responsible for creating awareness and rallying potential partners into an effective and efficient force towards the reduction of emissions. Negative attitudes significantly hamper how governments perform these responsibilities and pledge their commitment to climate change initiatives. It is also important to acknowledge that individual level and household decisions play a vital role in the overall outcome. Governments require public support as an incentive to foster climate change initiatives and take any related actions. On the overall, the society and the government systems reinforce and motivate each other to execute climate change initiatives. Negative attitudes water down any potential motivation to do so.
The differences in attitudes further invite unnecessary reactionary resistance towards climate change policies. In the wake of Trump’s announcement that the U.S. will quit the Paris Agreement, politics has greatly shifted[18] and clear lines have been drawn between the supporters of the President and proponents of climate change. In fact, the debate has a potential impact on shaping the nature of 2020 politics in America. The move has attracted massive criticism from across the political divide, even prompting Donald Trump to explain his stance by providing evidence that the U.S.’s emission is on a downward trajectory even if these claims have not been formally confirmed. Meanwhile, amidst the war of words and political tussles is a continuously changing climate. The period of resistance is disorienting, brings to a halt any steps that had initially been initiated, and negates numerous gains that had been made until a clear national stance is reached. In a global context, the withdrawal has a ripple effect on the other nations of the world that may see the reactionary resistance in America as a perfect example to exercise their democracy and even uphold their belief systems. In this regard, small resistance groups existing in various countries, which may have been pacified by their government’s adoption of the agreement, could team up and rise to question the initiative. Eventually, the global adoption of the Paris Agreement would be in some sort of limbo as emission rates continue to soar.
The United States is also a major funding partner for climate change projects in developing countries; a majority of them are linked to the goals of the Paris Agreement. The country’s attitude towards climate change would greatly influence their willingness to be part of related projects in various regions. The impact of financial constraints in most countries on the Paris Agreement implementation has been discussed in the previous sections. Perhaps it would help to add that without funding, some of these countries may eventually drop the agreement not in solidarity with the attitude of the U.S. but because they can no longer sustain the projects.
Attitude towards climate change also affects the nature of governance. Effective climate governance[19] requires a societal consensus towards climate change. It is only through good climate governance that the Paris Agreement of 2015 can be appropriately implemented. All the three aspects, namely adaptation, mitigation, and funding, are only possible with the guidance of a transformative leader willing to leave a legacy of reduced emissions. Such a leader would organize their team and facilitate collaboration, set a clear climate goal, and minimize the adverse effects of condescending attitudes towards their achievement. The leader would also organize relevant institutions into a working hierarchy towards the reduction of emissions and fostering environmental sustainability. These benefits show just how much is lost when negative attitudes towards climate change lead to bad climate governance.
Lack of proper understanding of the benefits of low emissions and overall climate change could be a contributing factor towards a negative attitude and potential dissociation from related activities. Despite the fact that climate change initiatives are hugely costly, a more significant number of the natural assets bearing the direct brunt of climate change are valued in such a way that they do not reflect any social importance. For instance, a majority of the Americans supporting the President’s decision note that they are uncertain of the costs,[20] which, in part, could explain Trump's administration slow progress on the issue. In fact, the benefits of harmful technology, at face value, could be considered higher by people who do not understand. The efficiency that comes with cars could potentially outweigh their harm on the environment to someone with no sufficient knowledge of the link between the two. The result could be absolute resistance to the implementation of any counteractive measures or unwillingness to be part of a proposed change. In the case of the 2015 Paris Agreement, such a scenario could cripple funding, adaptation, and even mitigation towards climate change.
Conclusion
There are numerous challenges threatening the successful implementation of the 2015 Paris Agreement in the context of potential international solutions for climate change. The inherent intricacies between emissions and climate change, differing levels of economic and technological development, as well as lack of knowledge and negative attitudes are among the top challenges. Examination of the specific barriers related to each of these significant challenges reveals a complex mix of economic and political hindrances threatening the adoption, mitigation, and funding of initiatives towards the 1.5 degrees Celsius emission level and management of global climate change. These challenges could prolong, pause, or even halt the implementation, as is the case with the United States. The intertwinement of these challenges would require a strong solution framework and a review of the roadmap for implementation of the 2015 Paris Agreement and other climate change programs.