Hiranmay Karlekar
The report by Justin Gillis in The New York Times last week that scientists have identified 2015 as the warmest year recorded in history – overtaking 2014, which had the distinction earlier – is hardly surprising. That it would be so was predicted months ago. That is, however, no consolation. Two years being declared the warmest ever in succession, suggests that the world might be warming at a faster rate than thought.
All this once again brings into focus the recommendations of the climate talks in Paris in December, 2015, hailed by many as the turning point in the fight against global warming. While the outcome, the Paris agreement, stands in refreshing contrast to that of the Copenhagen meeting in December 2009, which ended fruitlessly amid bitter acrimony, optimism needs to be reined in. This is not to ignore the encouraging dimensions of the Paris agreement. Given the highly contentious debate on global warming that had continued until quite close to the summit, the fact that it was reached and adhered to by 195 countries, is clearly one of them. It indicates a growing realisation that global warming is a serious threat to the earth’s future and the time to spar over who should bear how much of the burden of controlling it, is over.
The second feature is that the accord has a clear basic target, which is to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below two degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels, recognising that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.” Any increase above two degree Celsius would expose the planet to catastrophic rise in sea levels, devastating storms and droughts and widespread food and water shortages besides the continued extinction of species. This assumes a heightened significance in view of the fact that even before the agreement, 186 of the 195 countries agreeing to sign it had submitted detailed plans showing how they would reduce their greenhouse gas emission by 2025 or 2030.
The agreement further requires all countries to submit detailed plans that would increase the stringency of emission control by 2020 and every five following years. It further requires, beginning 2023, a five-yearly stock-taking of how the countries are faring in implementing their national plans for reducing emissions. More, they have to monitor, verify and report the levels of their greenhouse gas emissions by using the same global system.
The agreement also calls for the establishment of a capacity-building initiative for transparency to help developing countries to meet the new requirement of each of them regularly providing a national “inventory report” of emissions caused by humans, their sources and track their progress in meeting their national goals. Finally, it asks nations to establish “a new collective quantified goal” of annually providing at least $100 billion to enable poor countries to mitigate and adapt to the challenge of climate change and reduce emissions, and mentions that the target of allocating $100 billion, mentioned in Copenhagen in 2009, as the bare minimum for going ahead.
The need for caution arises from the fact that low-lying island nations would face the danger of inundation even if the rise in temperature is restricted to 1.5 degree Celsius, which is more of an aspirational figure than a target, and that the national plans submitted to the Paris conference would probably lead to a three-degree-not two-increase, which is not good enough. Secondly, while laws and rules are essential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, accelerated research and investments and technological breakthroughs is needed to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources. What is most needed, however, is political will to implement the recommendations. Its absence may lead to consequences that may well include the extinction of the human race.