AN UPDATE ON THE PARIS AGREEMENT AND ITS GOALS
The Paris Agreement was signed under the UN Framework Convention on Climate change (UNFCCC) in Paris on 12 December 2015. At its outset, it was adopted by 196 parties. It is a legally binding document and international treaty concerning the world’s action on climate change. At the time, the treaty was widely celebrated due to its universality, with recognition by the negotiators that, without the inclusion of all states, the goals of the Agreement would not be reached.
The key goal of the Agreement is to keep the global temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels, with efforts to halt at 1.5 degrees. This was also a celebrated provision in many ways, despite some activists viewing a 1.5 degree rise as an absolute maximum. “In no way should 2 degrees - from a scientific perspective - be seen as a safe target” was the view of Peter Frumhoff, chief climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
This goal is important in many ways. It accepts that some heating will occur, but sets a realistic target to minimise the effects of climate change. It sets a lower, significantly better aim at 1.5 degrees, but further states a higher figure at which we can be perhaps modestly satisfied. However, even if the global temperature rise is capped, there is no doubt that that there will be several severe consequences. For many scientists, the 2 degree goal still constitutes a worst case scenario for what the Earth can handle.
Five years on from the Agreement, it would be wise to review the facts, especially as the Agreement appears not to have lived up to the hopes of climate campaigners. Reports point towards a completely different direction than those set in the agreement. The newly released Emissions Gap Report 2020, yearly published by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), shows a current trajectory of achieving between 3-4 degrees Celsius of heating. To be absolutely clear, that is more than double the Paris Agreement’s fantasy aim at 1.5 degrees, and double the worst-case scenario goal at 2 degrees.
But what is hidden in those small numbers? Would it really be that bad? Well, in many ways, the Earth is already at “bad”. Many of the horrific consequences of climate change and burning of fossil fuels are already being experienced globally today such as rising sea-levels, changing of natural eco-systems, increased and intensified droughts, flooding, fires, storms, dwindling water supplies, increased spread of diseases, famine, and exaggerated air pollution. These consequences on human lives are horrifying. According to the UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment, air pollution alone causes the premature death of 7 million people each year.
CURRENT PLEDGES
If we reach the goal of 1.5°C heating this century, which, as previously stated, we are far from reaching right now, the expected number of deaths due to climate change are estimated to be up to 150 million.
While there are some reasons for celebration over statements of net zero emissions at 2060 by China, 2050 by the EU, etc., recent scientific reports on the current trajectory of emissions show that, even if those big emitters reach those goals, which is a big if, we are still not even near reaching the goals set in the Paris Agreement. The lack of ambition is further reflected in their commitment to global climate meetings - the fifth anniversary of the Paris Agreement was intended to be a big progress check, putting pressure on states to increase their commitments and reduce their emissions. However, because of the pandemic, the meeting and negotiations were postponed until November 2021, with only a small Climate Ambitions Summit performed on 12 December 2020.
And while the universality of the Paris agreement was widely celebrated, it has also become its Achilles heel. One of the world’s biggest emitters, the United States, after originally signing and ratifying the agreement, decided to leave it. Even though the new president of the United States, Joe Biden, is re-joining the agreement, the somewhat easy way in which Trump defected from the Agreement has shown the fragility of its universality: if one leader with plenty of power wants to drop out, there is really nothing that can stop him. There are also still a few states that have not yet ratified the agreement at all: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Eritrea, Turkey, South Sudan, and Yemen.
CLIMATE LITIGATION – A POTENTAL SOURCE OF HOPE
The detrimental effects of climate change were set out almost 50 years ago at the UN Conference on the Human Environment in 1972, yet states are still proving unable or unwilling to implement legal or political measures to mitigate climate change. However, this inaction has led to the rise of a global phenomenon where citizens use rights-based arguments to persuade governments that they have duties to act in on climate change. Many of these arguments are based on state duties to act in accordance with their international contractual obligations regarding climate change, and in many cases, the Paris Agreement is used as a stepping stone.
This is called climate litigation. It has also been referred to as a global rights-turn, where the growing use of rights-claims, coupled with courts’ growing receptivity to this legal framing of human rights and states’ climate action obligations, imply that there now exists a perceived overlap in courts between human rights, environmental protection, and state obligations.
The application and conceptualization of human rights obligations in climate change related cases has steadily increased worldwide and has, in some cases, proved to be more successful than initially thought. The ground-breaking Urgenda case in the Netherlands was a significant milestone in the use of courts and human rights arguments to further climate objectives. While climate litigation had existed for quite some time, surging in the 2000s in the US (which is still the country with the largest number of climate litigation cases), there has been a new explosion of cases. The most important part of the Urgenda case was that the state’s obligation to reduce greenhouse gases was based on international human rights duties and the Paris Agreement, because these are universal. The state’s obligations were further cemented by scientific reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), all pinpointing the need for more rigorous action on mitigating the climate crisis.
Due to these provisions, the Dutch court ruled that the Government had a duty to protect its people because it suffered from such a clear and imminent threat to the right to life. The state was also ordered to establish reasonable measures to combat the threat. When assessing those measure, the court ruled that the Dutch Government had to adopt a plan to reduce emissions to at least 25% in 2020, in line with the government’s promise by signing the Paris Agreement. This was a first in climate litigation and the reason why the Urgenda case has been widely celebrated.
A report on the occurrence of climate change litigation shows that cases are now being replicated in several jurisdictions. It has now spread to over eight regional or international jurisdictions and six continents. Many of the cases rely on international contractual obligations under the Paris Agreement. Many of these cases are brought by children, such as by climate activist Greta Thunberg and 15 other teenage climate activists. A recent case with successful outcome in France highlighted the popularity of these cases when a petition was presented with 2.3 million signatures in favour of the applicants.
These cases demonstrate the irony of states urging the need for immediate action against dangerous climate change, while at the same time continuing to contribute to the threat. The results of the Paris Agreement clearly highlight the gap between state promises and actions. While it might not in itself offer legal sanctions, it can be appealed to under international law and provide contractual obligations to which citizens can claim. Much of these climate litigation cases, of which there are currently around 1,700 around the world, base much of their argumentation on the Paris Agreement’s provisions. The case under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, brought by 16 youths all affected by climate change consequences and global warming in some ways, exemplifies this ambiguity:
Each of the respondents has known that global heating has threatened lives for decades. Since 1992, when they signed the Climate Change Convention, Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey have undertaken to protect children such as the petitioners from the foreseeable threats of climate change. It was clear then that every metric ton of CO2 that they emitted, or permitted, was adding to a life-threatening situation. In signing the 2015 Paris Agreement, each respondent further acknowledged the “urgent threat” of climate change in its Preamble... …Knowing these consequences, each of the respondents has endangered and continues to endanger the lives of the petitioners by perpetuating and exacerbating climate change. Not one of the respondents is on an emissions pathway that is consistent with safe levels established by the best available scientific evidence…
LOOKING FORWARD
It is highly likely that the number of climate litigation cases will continue to grow. Interestingly, many of the current cases have been brought by children. Not only have we seen important cases in the Netherlands, the US, Colombia, France, Ireland, and in other domestic courts, but climate litigation has spread to international jurisdictions such as the European Court of Human Rights, under the Convention of the Rights of the Child, and the European Court of Justice.
The growing number of climate litigation cases is a testament to the commitment of citizens to hold their governments accountable for their inaction. It is a phenomenon that puts human rights and justice in the centre of the issue of climate change. While the five-year anniversary of the Paris Agreement demonstrates the need for more real action regarding climate change – putting words into action – some citizens and NGOs leading climate litigation cases have already started. And while the issue of the climate cannot only be solved in the courts, it has proven to become a fruitful instrument - not only to put pressure on governments to act more swiftly, but also highlight the nexus of climate change and human rights and its effect on every ordinary citizen. The right to life is protected universally, and therefore the (somewhat simple) conclusion in these cases concerning the obligations under the right to life, could be said to be held in every state.
We badly need more governments to not only make promises, but to stick to them as well. There is also a vital need for the new presidential administration in the United States to become a global leader on climate mitigation. At least the Paris Agreement survived the temporary withdrawal of the US, as like-minded nationalists such as Bolsonaro were successfully persuaded to stay. What is needed now is a swift increase in concrete actions by governments and more ambitious plans. We need to commit to the lines drawn in the Paris Agreement if the gaps in the emission reports should become smaller. So, five years after the Agreement was signed, some silver linings can be seen in what has seemed like rather dim prospects. Let’s see what the next five years can bring us!
Isabella is Masters student of human rights at Uppsala University in Sweden. She focuses on women’s rights, as well as humanitarian and conflict studies.