Win/Win CO₂  Solutions Group Policy and Analysis Brief

What the Paris Climate Accord Really Says

Overview

It is clear from the comments often made about the Paris Climate Accords by many policymakers, pundits, the media and advocates on all sides of the climate issue that most of them have never read this document even though it is only 25 pages long.  Or, if they have, then it is hard not to conclude that either they did not understand it or they are intentionally misrepresenting what it contains in pursuit of ulterior policy objectives.

The most common interpretation of the Paris Accords is that the 195 nations signing it agreed to drastically reduce fossil fuel use to achieve the agreement’s goal of limiting global greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) with CO₂ being the primary component.

But, in fact, that is not what the Paris Accords actually say.

The agreement does set the specific goal of reducing GHG emissions to a level calculated to limit the projected global temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees C above pre-industrial era levels by the end of the century and an aspirational goal of limiting global temperatures to no more than 1.5 degrees C.

However, it does not specify any particular methods or strategies that nations must adopt to accomplish these objectives.  In fact, the agreement does not even mention “fossil fuels” or, for that matter, “renewable energy.”

Rather, it establishes a mechanism for each signatory country to develop its own strategies, called its “Nationally Defined Contribution” (NDC), to meet its voluntary contribution to achieving the global temperature target.  Every five years each country is expected to resubmit its NDC with ever more ambitious reduction targets until the global emission target is reached.

The agreement does encourage signatory parties to emphasize specific mechanisms and approaches in developing their NDCs for emission reductions, such as taking into consideration protecting and expanding natural “sinks” and focusing on enhancing food security and protecting food production.  But it does not dictate any specific strategy or means for any country’s approach to achieving its overall emission reduction goal.  Reducing or eliminating the use of fossil fuels absolutely is one strategy a country could adopt to meet its NDC but it certainly is not the only way.

A simple proverbial “black box” example illustrates this flexibility.   Assume that a method for reducing CO₂ levels, a “black box,” was developed that not only offset a nation’s current fossil fuel CO₂ emissions and projected increases but also removed a substantial amount of the “legacy” CO₂ generated since the beginning of the industrial revolution.   In other words, it allowed that country to achieve the “net negative” emissions goal that many climate scientists say is essential to control temperatures by the end of the century.

Assume further that this black box technology could be rapidly employed at little or no net cost and, as an additional benefit, it generated many valuable co-benefits, such as enhancing food security, in the process of removing CO₂.   In this scenario, global fossil fuel use could continue at current levels, or even increase, and this would be in keeping with both the letter and the spirit of the Paris Accords so long as the black box achieved net negative emission levels by mid-century and beyond.

The invention of such a “black box” certainly would be earth-shaking in its significance.   Adopting such a technology would drastically alter virtually all elements of the current climate change calculus, forcing the re-calculation of such things as the overall economic benefits of various means of meeting future energy needs, the socioeconomic, geopolitical and national security parameters of responding to climate change concerns and even substantially refocusing climate research, among others.

There is no such “black box” device on the horizon, of course, and there likely will never be one developed.  But there is currently available an emissions offset strategy that comes very close.  It meets all these basic “black box” example criteria.  It has been developed, perfected and demonstrated over millions of years and is already functioning today on a global scale.

This process is enhancing the sequestration of carbon in the natural systems which are currently removing about half of the annual global CO2 emissions.   By applying the proven agricultural, forestry and rangeland management techniques that make up the win/win CO2 ecosolutions strategy outlined on this site just to the global terrestrial “sink,” the current rate of carbon sequestration could quickly, cheaply and effectively achieve the kind of results outlined in the hypothetical black box scenario above.

This win/win approach could buy at least 75 or 100 years (or perhaps even longer) in the effort to reduce global GHG emissions.  This extra time would allow for the development of alternatives and options to deal with global GHG emissions in a much more measured, thoughtful, integrated, and cost-effective way than is currently the case.   It would encourage the transition to a longer term energy future that is responsible, economical, equitable, sustainable and effective.  In addition, this approach generates a number of valuable co-benefits that are critically important in their own rights for dealing with other global problems such as food security and restoring environmental quality.  These co-benefits include greatly increased biodiversity, improved water quality and quantity, reduced flood danger, increased drought resistance, improved wildlife  habitat including for endangered species, increased crop and livestock productivity, higher profits for producers, increased food security and quality of life especial in developing areas, reduced wildland fire risk, and generally restored overall ecosystem quality and functioning.

All of these many integrated co-benefits generated by the win/win CO₂ ecosolutions approach clearly meet many of the secondary objectives mentioned explicitly in the Paris Accords including protecting and enhancing natural sinks, developing effective adaptation, resilience and mitigation strategies, improving environmental quality, and enhancing food security.  These co-benefits are also going to be critical in meeting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.  Without question, this win/win approach achieves more of the primary and the secondary objectives of the Paris Accords than any other strategy under consideration and especially more than merely relying on reducing fossil fuel use and replacing it with renewables.

Beyond these inherent advantages, there also is an important “reality check” element to giving more serious consideration to the win/win CO₂ ecosolutions approach.   The initial round of NDCs made by the signatory nations to the Paris Accords do not even come close to putting the world on a path to meeting the 2 degrees C target much less the 1.5 degrees C goal.   It remains to be seen whether the next round of NDCs due in 2020 will be more ambitious but there are some interim results that raise doubts about the progress of countries meeting even their existing commitments.  For example, a report issued in mid-2018 found that none of the 28 EU countries were on track to meet the emission reduction targets in their initial commitments under the accords.   As the time of this update (late 2018), the signatory parties were still struggling with adopting the rules for how to implement the agreement, and there were fundamental disagreements between the developed donor countries and the recipient developing countries on funding and payouts for the Green Climate Fund.

At the same time, some scientists are concluding that the “tipping point” for the occurrence of irreversible climate change impacts is even closer than most had thought when the Paris Accords were adopted.  They are urgently calling for achieving net negative global emissions even earlier than initially planned and are concluding that meeting the 1.5 degrees C goal is essential.

In October 2018, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued an interim report that underscored the importance of meeting the 1.5 degrees C goal but also warning that to achieve it in time to avoid disastrous consequences “would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.”

But the experience so far under the Paris Accords framework suggests that it is highly unlikely to produce these results unless it is drastically modified and commitments are somehow made mandatory or at least some kind of penalty system is created to punish countries not doing their fair share.   The only “enforcement” mechanism available under the terms of the agreement presently is to “name and shame” countries which fail to meet the NDC targets.  This current situation is in profound contrast to emphasizing the win/win CO₂ solutions approach with its low cost, many co-benefits generated and the potential for rapidly and cheaply reducing GHG levels. It is emerging as the only politically and economically viable approach to meeting the global emission reduction targets of the Paris Accords within the time frame many climate scientists are increasingly and urgently warning is critical.

Agreement Calls for Each Signatory Party to Declare “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs) for Emission Reductions.

Those submitted by countries to date will fall well short of the 1.5 degree C goal.

INDCs are to be reported and reset every five years.

The only compliance mechanism is to “name and shame” countries not making goals.

Natural Sinks Can Combine Climate Mitigation and Climate Adaptation

The Paris Accord places nearly equal emphasis on “Climate Adaptation” as it does on “Climate Mitigation,” which in itself has been given much greater focus than in all previous climate agreements.

The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) defines climate mitigation this way:

Climate Change Mitigation refers to efforts to reduce or prevent emission of greenhouse gases. Mitigation can mean using new technologies and renewable energies, making older equipment more energy efficient, or changing management practices or consumer behavior. It can be as complex as a plan for a new city, or as a simple as improvements to a cook stove design. Efforts underway around the world range from high-tech subway systems to bicycling paths and walkways. Protecting natural carbon sinks like forests and oceans, or creating new sinks through silviculture or green agriculture are also elements of mitigation. UNEP takes a multifaceted approach towards climate change mitigation in its efforts to help countries move towards a low-carbon society.  (Emphasis added).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines climate adaptation and sinks:

Adaptation  Adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities. Various types of adaptation can be distinguished, including anticipatory, autonomous and planned adaptation:

Sink Any process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas or aerosol from the atmosphere.

“Climate Resilience” is a term that has overlaps with climate adaptation.  Academics generally define it in this way:

Climate resilience can be generally defined as the capacity for a socio-ecological system to: (1) absorb stresses and maintain function in the face of external stresses imposed upon it by climate change and (2) adapt, reorganize, and evolve into more desirable configurations that improve the sustainability of the system, leaving it better prepared for future climate change impacts.

Sequestering atmospheric carbon in natural systems, especially in croplands, pastures and grazable woodlands, is not only a mitigation activity but also an adaptive/resiliency activity.  In addition, it meets the goals of sustainability of food production, alleviating poverty, ecosystem restoration and sustainability and integrating traditional knowledge, knowledge of indigenous peoples and local knowledge systems, all of which are called for in the Paris Agreement.

The Next Battleground—Negative Emissions

Even though the Paris Accord has been formally implemented, there are increasing calls for net negative world emissions, going beyond the net zero emissions which are the goal of the agreement.  The 2011 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report suggested that Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (BECCS) may be necessary to meet emission reduction targets.  Proponents of negative emissions dismiss most biological sinks, such as forests and kelp beds, because they are not “permanent.” Soil sequestration, however, through the liquid carbon pathway and humification of carbon can sequester carbon for very long periods and, in the critical timeframe of climate change, essentially permanently.   The other methods being pushed are deep injection of CO_2, capturing it in insoluble and inert carbon compounds and utilizing it in some industrial processes.

Excerpts from the Paris Accord Highlighting Key Provisions Related to the Use of Natural Carbon Sinks

“Preamble” Language

Emphasizing the enduring benefits of ambitious and early action, including major reductions in the cost of future mitigation and adaptation efforts, p.2

27. Agrees that the information to be provided by Parties communicating their nationally determined contributions, in order to facilitate clarity, transparency and understanding, may include, as appropriate, inter alia, quantifiable information on the reference point (including, as appropriate, a base year), time frames and/or periods for implementation, scope and coverage, planning processes, assumptions and methodological approaches including those for estimating and accounting for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and, as appropriate, removals, and how the Party considers that its nationally determined contribution is fair and ambitious, in the light of its national circumstances, and how it contributes towards achieving the objective of the Convention as set out in its Article 2; p.4-5 (emphasis added)

(a) Parties account for anthropogenic emissions and removals in accordance with methodologies and common metrics assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement;  (emphasis added)

(c) Parties strive to include all categories of anthropogenic emissions or removals in their nationally determined contributions and, once a source, sink or activity is included, continue to include it;

(d) Parties shall provide an explanation of why any categories of anthropogenic emissions or removals are excluded; p.5 (emphasis added)

37. Requests the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice to develop and recommend the guidance referred to under Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Agreement for adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement at its first session, including guidance to ensure that double counting is avoided on the basis of a corresponding adjustment by Parties for both anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks covered by their nationally determined contributions under the Agreement; p.6 (emphasis added)

55. Recognizes the importance of adequate and predictable financial resources, including for results-based payments, as appropriate, for the implementation of policy approaches and positive incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks; as well as alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests; while reaffirming the importance of non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches; encouraging the coordination of support from, inter alia, public and private, bilateral and multilateral sources, such as the Green Climate Fund, and alternative sources in accordance with relevant decisions by the Conference of the Parties; p.8 (emphasis added)

Emphasizing the intrinsic relationship that climate change actions, responses and impacts have with equitable access to sustainable development and eradication of poverty, p.21 (emphasis added)

Recognizing the fundamental priority of safeguarding food security and ending hunger, and the particular vulnerabilities of food production systems to the adverse impacts of climate change, p.21 (emphasis added)

Recognizing the importance of the conservation and enhancement, as appropriate, of sinks and reservoirs of the greenhouse gases referred to in the Convention,  p.21 (emphasis added)

Noting the importance of ensuring the integrity of all ecosystems, including oceans, and the protection of biodiversity, recognized by some cultures as Mother Earth, and noting the importance for some of the concept of “climate justice”, when taking action to address climate change, p.21 (emphasis added)

Also recognizing that sustainable lifestyles and sustainable patterns of consumption and production, with developed country Parties taking the lead, play an important role in addressing climate change, p.21 (emphasis added)

Article 5

1. Parties should take action to conserve and enhance, as appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases as referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1(d), of the Convention, including forests.

2.  Parties are encouraged to take action to implement and support, including through results-based payments, the existing framework as set out in related guidance and decisions already agreed under the Convention for: policy approaches and positive incentives for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries; and alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests, while reaffirming the importance of incentivizing, as appropriate, non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches. (emphasis added)

Article 6

8.  Parties recognize the importance of integrated, holistic and balanced non-market approaches being available to Parties to assist in the implementation of their nationally determined contributions, in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, in a coordinated and effective manner, including through, inter alia, mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology transfer and capacity-building, as appropriate. These approaches shall aim to: (emphasis added)

(a) Promote mitigation and adaptation ambition;

(b) Enhance public and private sector participation in the implementation of nationally determined contributions; and

© Enable opportunities for coordination across instruments and relevant institutional arrangements.