Like any international compromise, it is not perfect: the emission limits are still too loose, which will probably cause a warming of 2.7 to 3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, exceeding the threshold of 2C, which scientists say is the limit of safety from which the effects – droughts, floods, heat waves and sea level rise – are likely to become catastrophic and irreversible. Poor countries are also concerned that the means available to them will not be enough to protect them. Not all agreements are legally binding, so future governments of the signatory countries could still renounce their obligations. “What people wanted to hear was that an agreement on climate change was reached to save the world, while lifestyles and aspirations remained unchanged. The solution is not to agree on an urgent mechanism to ensure an immediate reduction in emissions, but to throw the box on the road. Kyoto Protocol, 2005. The Kyoto Protocol [PDF], adopted in 1997 and entered into force in 2005, was the first legally binding climate treaty. It called on industrialized countries to reduce emissions by an average of 5% from 1990 levels and set up a system to monitor countries` progress. But the treaty did not force developing countries, including the major CO2 emitters China and India, to take action. The United States signed the agreement in 1998, but never ratified it and then withdrew its signature. 2. Closing the ambition gap before 2020: before the Paris Agreement comes into force, the EU must narrow the gap between what is needed to stay below 2oC and what countries have promised to do over the next five years. It could do this by removing its surplus permits to pollute, removing fossil fuel subsidies, dismantling the use of coal and accelerating the implementation of existing energy efficiency and renewable energy measures. The current ineffective climate policy undermines the EU`s leading role in the negotiations.
Paris has succeeded as a new type of climate agreement. The regulatory framework can help make it a strong and sustainable regime, provided it remains true to the Paris agreement itself. Paris presented an agreement that is considered “historic, sustainable and ambitious.” Both developed and developing countries must limit their emissions to a relatively safe level of 2oC, with a target of 1.5oC, and regular audits must be carried out to ensure that these obligations can be strengthened in accordance with scientific advice. Poor nations are funded through aid to help them reduce emissions and cope with the effects of extreme weather. Countries affected by climate disasters will receive urgent assistance. Saturday night was the culmination not only of two weeks of discussions, but also of more than 23 years of international attempts by the United Nations to fight together against this global problem. Since 1992, all governments around the world have committed to taking action to prevent dangerous warming. These efforts have been marked by discord and failure, the refusal of the largest emitters to participate, ineffective agreements and ignored contracts.
But it soon became clear that things would not go as planned. When countries reviewed the draft agreement, ministers began to raise their concerns. On Wednesday afternoon, the main delegations moved successively to Fabius` personal office: Edna Molewa of South Africa, Xie Zhenhua of China, John Kerry of the United States, Julie Bishop of Australia. Finally, a consensus was reached after two more days of negotiations. None of the major countries wanted to be seen as the redeemer of such a close agreement. Everyone agreed that he wanted an agreement and to make all the compromises. The EU has voted in favour of legally binding legislation on carbon emission reductions that have been agreed at national level; The language accepted by the United States about “loss and harm”; China and L