This seemingly weaker approach had a surprising result: it led to greater global ambition. By removing the pressure of mandatory targets, almost every country has committed itself to tackling this problem. Much better prepared this time, the Obama administration negotiated directly with China, and both countries offered bold commitments to reduce emissions.
The climate and the world are changing. What challenges will the future bring and how to respond to them?
This approach culminated in late 2015 with the Paris Climate Agreement, which was created in a large plywood conference hall outside Paris, where cheering echoed and champagne flowed. Climate change has now been seen as a problem that every country must face.
Nevertheless, the national promises made in Paris were completely inadequate. If they were met, we would still allow global warming to rise to dangerous levels. Delegates in Paris were aware that they had adopted a “ratchet” mechanism that required countries to appear every five years and make new, bolder promises. That was supposed to happen in 2020, but the pandemic postponed it for a year. Thus, the first new promises are due in Glasgow this year.
The UK hosting the conference is urging world countries to become big. Many of them say they will reduce their emissions close to zero by 2050 or 2060, and the daring set targets by 2030. This is important as strict targets by 2030 make it difficult to delay; they demand action from politicians who are now in office.
Emissions in the United States have already fallen by about 20 percent from the 2005 high. Much of this effort has been made by state and local governments and industry, which is a real workhorse in America on the issue. President Biden has pledged to halve national emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels and largely eliminate them by 2050. However, he had difficulty drawing up his plans in Congress and arrived in Glasgow almost empty. year.
Given the long and difficult past of these international negotiations, did they have any real value? The best way to view history is to say that nearly a quarter of a century of failure has been followed by six years of moderate success.
Global international institutions and global treaties are inherently weak, and the climate agreement is among our weakest treaties. And yet it offers at these regular meetings a stage on which climate drama can be played.