Prudence
Dato, prudence.dato@univ-savoie.fr, IREGE/University of Savoie (France)
Before submitting to the
assembly for final agreement, the President of COP21, Laurent Fabius declared
with emotion that the compromise text is “fair, sustainable, dynamic, balanced
and legally binding”. However, it seems to be very difficult to find how it is
legally binding by reading the final agreement.[1] But there are nice
promises. The agreement that was unanimously voted confirms the goal of
maintaining the increase in average temperature to 2°C below the pre-industrial
average (the 1850-1900 reference period) and intends to pursue efforts to limit
this increase to 1.5°C. This limit of 1.5 °C would require negative emissions that
suppose a quick transition to renewable energy and energy efficiency; and the
adoption of biofuels combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS)
technologies according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mitigation pathways. While
the group of developing countries, which include most vulnerable countries and also
both less and more polluting countries like China and India supports this
target, its requirements are less favorable to them. For instance, biofuels are
competitive with food production[2] and may reduce their
possibilities to reduce poverty[3], while developing
countries are most affected by both climate change and poverty. Also, up to now the CCS technologies are too
costly[4] and renewable energy is
not affordable in developing countries[5]. This would not be
possible unless there is a transfer of technologies and financial aids.
These issues of transfer of
technologies and financial aids were also important parts of the COP21
agreement. Fund of $100 billion a year was promised by developed countries
to support climate policies in developing countries such as conservation and sustainable
management of forests and promotion of renewable energy through new aids or
greening existing ones[6]. Additionally, there were
side commitments from some countries like France and US. For instance, France has decided to cut subsidies
for overseas coal-fired power stations without a CCS and has promised €2
billion by 2020 to African countries. Also by the year 2020, the United States
has promised to double its funding from $430 million in 2014, for poor
countries to help them adapt to the effects of climate change. But all this is
only promises…In addition, developing countries may be careful of the euphoria
of green that may redirect aids to green projects which may not socially
efficient instead of investing in development projects such as infrastructures,
education, health, etc. Overall, nothing will happen if developed countries do
not fulfill their promises…and why would they? Even worse: even if developing
countries really receive the $100 billion, will they have any incentive to
reduce their GHG emissions? No sign of that in China or Hong Kong.
[1] http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf
[2] For more details,
see Condon, Nicole, Heather Klemick, and Ann Wolverton. "Impacts of
ethanol policy on corn prices: A review and meta-analysis of recent
evidence." Food Policy 51 (2015): 63-73.
[3] https://www.foreignaffairs.org/articles/2007-05-01/how-biofuels-could-starve-poor
[4]http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/technologyroadmapcarboncaptureandstorage.pdf
[5] Martinot, Eric,
Akanksha Chaurey, Debra Lew, José Roberto Moreira, and Njeri Wamukonya.
"Renewable energy markets in developing countries*."Annual Review of
Energy and the Environment 27, no. 1 (2002): 309-348.
[6] http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf
