International Agreement on Climate Change Reached.

[Crazedwraith]

A deal to attempt to limit the rise in global temperatures to less than 2C has been agreed at the climate change summit in Paris after two weeks of negotiations.

The pact is the first to commit all countries to cut carbon emissions.

The agreement is partly legally binding and partly voluntary.

Earlier, key blocs, including the G77 group of developing countries, and nations such as China and India said they supported the proposals.

President of the UN climate conference of parties (COP) and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said: "I now invite the COP to adopt the decision entitled Paris Agreement outlined in the document.

"Looking out to the room I see that the reaction is positive, I see no objections. The Paris agreement is adopted."

As he struck the gavel to signal the adoption of the deal, delegates rose to their feet cheering and applauding.

Nearly 200 countries have been attempting to strike the first climate deal to commit all countries to cut emissions, which would come into being in 2020.

US President Obama was among the first world leaders to tweet his congratulations, describing the deal as "huge".

The chairman of the group representing some of the world's poorest countries called the deal historic, adding: "We are living in unprecedented times, which call for unprecedented measures.

"It is the best outcome we could have hoped for, not just for the Least Developed Countries, but for all citizens of the world."

Key points

The measures in the agreement included:
• To peak greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and achieve a balance between sources and sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century
• To keep global temperature increase "well below" 2C (3.6F) and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C
• To review progress every five years
• $100 billion a year in climate finance for developing countries by 2020, with a commitment to further finance in the future.

Ahead of the deal being struck, delegates were in a buoyant mood as they gathered in the hall waiting for the plenary session to resume.
Mr Fabius was applauded as he entered the hall ahead of the announcement.

Earlier, French President Francois Hollande called the proposals unprecedented, while UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on negotiators to "finish the job".

However, the celebratory mood has not been shared among all observers.


'Almost nothing binding'
Nick Dearden, director of campaign group Global Justice Now, said: "It's outrageous that the deal that's on the table is being spun as a success when it undermines the rights of the world's most vulnerable communities and has almost nothing binding to ensure a safe and liveable climate for future generations."

Some aspects of the agreement will be legally binding, such as submitting an emissions reduction target and the regular review of that goal.
However, the targets set by nations will not be binding under the deal struck in Paris.

Observers say the attempt to impose emissions targets on countries was one of the main reasons why the Copenhagen talks in 2009 failed.

At the time, nations including China, India and South Africa were unwilling to sign up to a condition that they felt could hamper economic growth and development.

The latest negotiations managed to avoid such an impasse by developing a system of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).

In these, which form the basis of the Paris agreement goal of keeping global temperature rise "well below" 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels, nations outline their plans on cutting their post-2020 emissions.

An assessment published during the two-week talks suggested that the emission reductions currently outlined in the INDCs submitted by countries would only limit global temperature rise by 2.7C.

Nick Mabey, chief executive of climate diplomacy organisation E3G, said the agreement was an ambitious one that would require serious political commitment to deliver.

"Paris means governments will go further and faster to tackle climate change than ever before," he said.

"The transition to a low carbon economy is now unstoppable, ensuring the end of the fossil fuel age."

A step in the right direction at least. But I'm worried about how much is binding and even if it is. How much will be ignored/wriggled out of.

[Thanas]

Russia, China and India will most likely ignore it anway, thus rendering any gains made by the EU moot.

[madd0ct0r]

India, maybe
China, probably not. They're taking this seriously.

[Adam Reynolds]

From what I had previously read, the US also refused to agree to anything that would make them liable to pay developing nations in Africa. So as usual screw poor people.

As for China they indeed seem to care about this. It helps to have a government made up of individuals who are literate in science.

[mr friendly guy]

Russia, China and India will most likely ignore it anyway, thus rendering any gains made by the EU moot.

China's carbon emissions are already decreasing as of 2014, even as energy use increased. The numbers so far this year look like its decreasing again as well. And before someone says the Chinese have allowed themselves quite a bit of leeway with emissions peaking in 2030, they already seem to be well on the way of thrashing their 2030 peaking target if emissions have already decreased in 2014.

Russia produces less than China, US, India and EU alone, and I don't foresee growth rates of the order China and India are getting, so they will be a smaller factor.

India could be a potential problem if in the next few years it becomes like China did in the early 2000s. While I agree they are one to watch, I just cannot imagine them doing China mark II just yet especially with their growth through services, as opposed to China's growth through manufacturing /infrastructure building, which required lots of energy.

[Wild Zontargs]

Layman's attempted summary of what's binding and non-binding, listing only the articles that actually deal with results rather than methodology:

Article 4 - Binding
Set a national targets (this seems to include targets for emissions and targets for financial contributions). Help developing countries set targets. Share your targets with us. Oh, and you can change your targets whenever you want.

Article 5 - Non-Binding
Hey, maybe you should plant forests or other carbon sinks. Just an idea.

Article 6 - Non-Binding
Suggestions for methods of international cooperation.

Article 7 - Binding
Hey, we need plans. Make plans. Update plans. Share plans. Share the data you used to make your plans.

Article 8 - Non-Binding
Climate change is bad. We should admit that and share data about the damage it's doing.

Article 9 - Binding
Developed countries must send money to poor countries so they can limit the damage and try to do something about it. Keep your receipts, we're going to need to see them.

Article 10 - Binding
Quit hoarding your clean technology. Share it with poor countries, and send them money to help develop it.

Article 11 - Binding
Poor countries need institutions to fight climate change with. It needs to be done on the national level. Developed countries need to help build them. Send money.

Article 12 - Non-Binding
Hey, maybe we should educate the public? Just an idea.

Article 13 - Binding
We need transparency. Send us your real emissions data, using the measurement methods we all agreed on. Also send us the financial and other documentation we asked for in the other articles.

[Zaune]

Making #8 and #12 binding would have been helpful, but at this point the only people who who don't know that climate change is a) a bad thing and b) our fault are uncontacted tribes and the wilfully ignorant.

[Adam Reynolds]

Making #8 and #12 binding would have been helpful, but at this point the only people who who don't know that climate change is a) a bad thing and b) our fault are uncontacted tribes and the wilfully ignorant.

What makes utterly no sense is that we have to agree to solve a problem that we don't all agree is a problem.

[mr friendly guy]

Russia, China and India will most likely ignore it anyway, thus rendering any gains made by the EU moot.

China's carbon emissions are already decreasing as of 2014, even as energy use increased. The numbers so far this year look like its decreasing again as well. And before someone says the Chinese have allowed themselves quite a bit of leeway with emissions peaking in 2030, they already seem to be well on the way of thrashing their 2030 peaking target if emissions have already decreased in 2014.

Russia produces less than China, US, India and EU alone, and I don't foresee growth rates of the order China and India are getting, so they will be a smaller factor.

India could be a potential problem if in the next few years it becomes like China did in the early 2000s. While I agree they are one to watch, I just cannot imagine them doing China mark II just yet especially with their growth through services, as opposed to China's growth through manufacturing /infrastructure building, which required lots of energy.

Bit more information on the energy consumption of these nations.


Source from https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/e ... report.pdf

Russia's energy usage isn't going up, in fact its gone slightly down. Not sure if they will be that big factor in this. China, the US and EU and perhaps a growing India will be the emitters that will need to show leadership on this issue. That being said, all countries particularly developed ones should do their part. Australia I am looking at you.

[Adam Reynolds]

Russia's energy usage isn't going up, in fact its gone slightly down. Not sure if they will be that big factor in this. China, the US and EU and perhaps a growing India will be the emitters that will need to show leadership on this issue. That being said, all countries particularly developed ones should do their part. Australia I am looking at you.

What is Australia doing that is problematic, something to do with the mining industry?

[K. A. Pital]

This.

[Channel72]

Making #8 and #12 binding would have been helpful, but at this point the only people who who don't know that climate change is a) a bad thing and b) our fault are uncontacted tribes and the wilfully ignorant.

What makes utterly no sense is that we have to agree to solve a problem that we don't all agree is a problem.

How much of a problem is institutional climate-change denial, outside of the US and Australia? I assume it's probably non-existent in China, but I don't know.

[Adam Reynolds]

I don't think it really is a problem in most of the world. It just seems utterly absurd to me that we can agree to solve a problem without actually agreeing that it is a problem.

Though it is better this is the area of debate rather than something serious.

[Jub]

Yeah, Australia is absolutely in love with coal to the point where they're burying their heads in the sands and ignoring China's decreasing demands for it. They also want to start fracking as well, just in case they've left any aquifers uncontaminated.

[Wild Zontargs]

I don't think it really is a problem in most of the world. It just seems utterly absurd to me that we can agree to solve a problem without actually agreeing that it is a problem.

Well, technically, we haven't agreed to solve the problem. We've agreed to set targets and make plans which may or may not be enough to solve the problem, if they're ambitious enough and actually met. However, nothing in there requires you to a) attempt anything that would actually work or b) put forth the effort necessary to succeed.

If the people put in charge of this don't act like Dilbert's Pointy-Haired Boss, we might get somewhere, but I'm not that optimistic.

[Zixinus]

It will need a while for things to get worse for politicians to go from investing their time and energy into "showing that they've done something" to "actually making solutions and investing into them".

Still though, it is baby steps forward. I just hope we pick up the pace before the problem becomes unsolvable.