āLike hell itās non-binding,ā Donald Trump has said of the 2015 UN deal to cut carbon pollution. Is he right, ask Timmons Roberts and Angelica Arellano? The answer is not black or white. Article courtesy Climate Home News.
When Donald Trump announced he intended to leave the Paris climate deal,Ā he blamed the ādraconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our countryā.
In response, dozens of articles noted that the agreement was not legally binding, for the US or any other country. To which TrumpĀ responded: āLike hell itās non-bindingā. (i.e. he said it was binding, editor)
But commentators have pushed back against the president. TheĀ Washington Examiner, a staunchly conservative newspaper, noted āthere are no enforcement mechanisms under the deal through the United Nationsā.
So, which is the case? Is the agreement binding or not?
Much angst
The truth is that some parts of the deal are legally binding and some arenāt. The text is littered with modal verbs ā should, shall, may, etc. ā that carry different legal weight. Shall is the big one; it obliges countries to undertake that action. The Paris deal contains 117 āshallsā.
For example,Ā Article 4 of the Paris AgreementĀ reads: āEach Party shall prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions that it intends to achieve.ā
TheĀ US certainly pushed for flexibility, as the Obama administration feared a blockade in the US Senate to anything that was binding
āNationally determined contributionsā is the term the UN climate talks use to refer to pledges countries make to Ā reduce their emissions within a specific time frame. All nations must legally prepare one of these pledges, but the ambition of those pledges is a matter for the country.
Note here: āDeveloped country partiesĀ shouldĀ continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets.ā This particular āshouldā was theĀ source of much angstĀ in the final hours of the Paris negotiations.
Billions and billions and billions
Countries that have submitted their nationally determined contributions must update them every five years. In their effort to meet these NDCs, countries must beĀ transparentĀ about greenhouse gas emissions and the actions taken to reduce those emissions.
This transparency means that countries are required to report their greenhouse gas emissions ā with developed countries having to do so on an annual basis. This requirement is moreĀ flexibleĀ for least developed countries and small island developing states, which may choose to report as they wish. In addition to transparency about emissions, developed countries must also communicate the finance and other support given to developing countries to help meet their respective NDCs.
Article 4 also says āsupport shall be provided to developing country partiesā. While Trump described the ābillions and billions and billionsā of dollars that the US would be required to provide, the pledge is collective among all the wealthy nations: the US has noĀ requiredĀ contribution.
Naming and shaming
So why is the Paris Agreement so flexible? A look at previous international climate agreements might suggest that theĀ Paris Agreement aimed to change things up, steering away from the binding nature of previous agreements. That rigid structure had failed many times before.
TheĀ US certainly pushed for flexibility, as the Obama administration feared a blockade in the US Senate to anything that was binding. TheĀ French hostsĀ also had a negotiation strategy that prioritised flexibility.
All but two nations ā Syria and Nicaragua ā signed the Paris Agreement, and currently 172 have gone the final step to ratification. Nicaragua, which didnāt sign up because the agreement wasĀ not binding enough,Ā has in recent weeksĀ reversed its positionĀ in solidarity with Caribbean hurricane victims. (Syria has also indicated in recent days it wants to sign, editor.)
So how could the Paris Agreement actually work? Since it is mostly non-binding on substance but binding on reporting, the efficacy of the whole deal depends on countries ānaming and shamingā each other to do better.
Poorer countries may fear criticising nations on whom they depend for significant financial and military aid
With currentĀ estimates of warming that will occur even if countries meet their Paris pledgesĀ varying from 2.7C to 3.5C, there will need to be a lot of effective shaming.
However, it is unusual for countries to call each other out in public venues for fear that they will themselves face such an attack. And, of course, poorer countries may fear criticising nations on whom they depend for significant financial and military aid.
Proponents argue that the Paris system of accountability might work by allowing nations to take greater action voluntarily than they would have if they were forced.
Todd Stern, former US lead negotiator,Ā said in June: āThis structure recognises that norms and expectations can often be more effective in encouraging robust action than legally binding requirements, which, paradoxically, can yield weaker action as some countries low-ball their targets for fear of legal liability.ā
āThe Paris Agreement built a regime that was not only acceptable to all from the start, but designed to evolve in precisely the direction needed to meet our profound climate challenge,ā he said.
Editorās Note
Timmons Roberts is a USĀ sociologist and Ittleson Professor of Environmental Studies at Brown University.Ā Angelica Arellano is an undergraduate student at Brown University.
This article first appeared on Climate Home News and is republished here under this websiteās Creative Commons licence.
[adrotate banner=”78″]
Nicaragua signed the Paris Accord in October. They had held out because they said it did not go far enough.
Syria, as Karel has stated, has just agreed to sign.
This leaves Donald Trump as the only holdout. (The US’s attitudes are not represented by the Orange Idiot.)