Here’s Why You’re Hearing About The Paris Climate Change Agreement Again

Typos, magic numbers, big moves by China and the U.S.—it’s been a big few weeks for the treaty

A Chinese man wears a mask to protect against pollution as he visits Jingshan Park overlooking the Forbidden City in heavy smog in Beijing, China on December 8, 2015—a few days before COP21. Image via Getty images by Kevin Frayer

On December 12, 2015, the world did something remarkable: 180 countries came together in Paris for COP21 (here’s a refresher) and agreed to fight climate change, outlined in a document called the Paris Agreement. We solved climate change and saved the planet—right?

Well, the Paris Agreement was a huge step, but just the first of many that will actually compel countries to deal with climate change. (Not that the first step was a small one: In Paris, countries only agreed at the eleventh hour after lawyers, diplomats, and scientists pored over every. Single. Word.)

In order for us to actually come close to saving the planet, there are two more steps we need to take: Signing and joining.

What’s the difference?

The Paris Agreement is not officially a legally binding document, meaning none of the 180 countries that agreed to the final text face any real penalties if they decide not to follow through on commitments to reduce carbon emissions or fund the efforts of poorer countries to adapt to the damage already done by climate change.

[quote position="right" is_quote="true"]The Paris Agreement is not officially a legally binding document.[/quote]

However, countries had the option of signing the agreement as a first signal to their citizens of their commitment to fight climate change. On April 22, 2016, a ceremony took place at the United Nations headquarters in New York to mark the moment. That day, 180 countries participated.

Among those who signed were some of largest polluters on the planet: The United States, China, India, the European Union, and Russia. A historic step to be sure, but we aren’t done yet.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (right) with Xi Jinping (centre), President of the People's Republic of China, and Barack Obama, President of the United States, attend a special ceremony for the deposit of instruments by China and the United States to join the Paris Agreement. UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

Wait—didn’t everyone already join?

Joining, or ratifying, the agreement is actually an entirely different step in the process. The document is nothing if not steeped in comprehensive, far-reaching diplomatic and legal language. And in the context of this document, climate change ceases to be a mere environmental issue—it’s political. So language choice is important.

Equally important, of course, is the science. Climate scientists argue vehemently that limiting global warming to an increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius is the ideal in order to avoid more frequent, more devastating natural disasters, droughts, floods, and climate-related environmental damage.

[quote position="left" is_quote="true"]The correction of a typo eliminated the legal need for the Obama administration to pass the Paris Agreement through Congress.[/quote]

The politicians—along with the oil, gas, and manufacturing sectors—won out in the end and countries agreed to keep global temperature increase to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius because it requires fewer cuts to emissions.

Much like estimating how many games your team must win in order to make the playoffs while taking into account competitors’ wins and losses, a magic number was calculated by those in charge: 55. That’s 55 countries, accounting for 55 percent of the world’s carbon emissions, must ratify the agreement for it to “enter into force”—that’s legalese for “officially on the books” and science talk for “how many countries have to work on reducing carbon emissions for this to have any real impact.”

So, has anyone actually joined? Are we there yet?

Some of the early joiners at the April 22 event included island nations in the Pacific and Indian Oceans like Fiji, Maldives, Seychelles, Tuvalu, and Kiribati—as well as one of the least developed countries in the world: Somalia. For the island nations, it was an obvious and quick choice: Get the ball rolling on joining or our countries will sink into the ocean as levels continue to rise. Somalia, too, had an easy decision having been historically plagued by droughts and subsequent famines.

None of these 23 countries who joined early emit large amounts of carbon—their output only makes up about 1 percent of global emissions combined—so for several months, we were still far from that magic number.

Over the summer, though, countries with larger emissions rates like Norway and Peru also joined. And the real progress came last week when the U.S. and China ratified the agreement. They are two of the largest emitters of carbon and arguably the most visible during the climate negotiations process, along with India.

As of now, 27 countries accounting for 39.08 percent of global carbon emissions are on board.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (left) receives the legal instruments for joining the Paris Agreement from Barack Obama, President of the United States, at a special ceremony held in Hangzhou, China. UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

A Congress full of climate deniers won’t be a problem?

In addition to making headlines because the U.S. is one of the world’s largest polluters, the announcement was noteworthy because President Obama bypassed Congress—and he was able to do so due to a matter of grammar.

In the last moments at the COP21 venue in Le Bourget on the outskirts of Paris, the U.S. delegation realized there was a typo—small but sweeping in its implications—in the final text. The word “should” in one of the key paragraphs in the agreement needed to be replaced with the word “shall.”

Sound silly? Those of us at the conference may have thought so when world leaders spent nearly two hours at the very last moment correcting the document, fearing further objections on seemingly small matters.

But the word “shall” would have legally obligated wealthy countries to cut carbon emissions, while “should” merely implies that these countries will try to do so. With “shall,” the Obama administration would have needed to submit the Paris Agreement to the Senate, as with prior global treaties. There, it would surely have died in the process—or at the very least, stalled for years beyond Obama’s time in office.

So, what now?

In Paris, the UN stressed the importance of “entering into force” by 2017. The process to transition global economies away from fossil fuels is complicated and will take years—not just because of politics, but everyday practicalities like stemming job losses by retraining people so they have “greener” skills, scaling up renewable energy alternatives by building new infrastructure, and finding the money to help developing countries adapt to all the climate damage that they are already facing.

[quote position="left" is_quote="true"]For the island nations, it was an obvious choice: Get the ball rolling or our countries will sink into the ocean. [/quote]

According to experts, we are on pace for at least 31 countries to join by the end of the year, accounting for 58.4 percent of global carbon emissions. But India, Russia, the UK, and the European Union will need to join in order to attain the required 55 percent and 55 countries.

If we reach the magic number by October 2016, we could see the first meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement—giving us a fun new acronym, CMA1—as early as November 2016. That’s when the next round of climate talks, COP22, will take place in Morocco. There, matters of finance and new programs will be discussed.

If we don’t reach the magic number in time, CMA1 will have to happen in 2017.

The big question for the moment is how to encourage wealthy countries to pledge $100 billion in annual funding by 2020 with a promise to continue funding beyond that, to help poorer, developing nations. But if a country full of climate deniers and a manufacturing juggernaut can join a deal to save the planet, anything is possible.

via Real Time with Bill Maher / YouTube and The Late Late Show with James Corden / YouTube

A controversial editorial on America's obesity epidemic and healthcare by comedian Bill Maher on his HBO show "Real Time" inspired a thoughtful, and funny, response by James Cordon. It also made for a great debate about healthcare that Americans are avoiding.

At the end of the September 6th episode of "Real Time, " Maher turned to the camera for his usual editorial and discussed how obesity is a huge part of the healthcare debate that no one is having.

"At Next Thursday's debate, one of the candidates has to say, 'The problem with our healthcare system is Americans eat shit and too much of it.' All the candidates will mention their health plans but no one will bring up the key factor: the citizens don't lift a finger to help," Maher said sternly.

Keep Reading Show less

There is no shortage of proposals from the, um, what's the word for it… huge, group of Democratic presidential candidates this year. But one may stand out from the pack as being not just bold but also necessary; during a CNN town hall about climate change Andrew Yang proposed a "green amendment" to the constitution.

Keep Reading Show less
Me Too Kit

The creator of the Me Too kit — an at home rape kit that has yet to hit the market — has come under fire as sexual assault advocates argue the kit is dangerous and misleading for women.

The kit is marketed as "the first ever at home kit for commercial use," according to the company's website. "Your experience. Your kit. Your story. Your life. Your choice. Every survivor has a story, every survivor has a voice." Customers will soon be able order one of the DIY kits in order to collect evidence "within the confines of the survivor's chosen place of safety" after an assault.

"With MeToo Kit, we are able to collect DNA samples and other tissues, which upon testing can provide the necessary time-sensitive evidence required in a court of law to identify a sexual predator's involvement with sexual assault," according to the website.

Keep Reading Show less

Villagers rejoice as they receive the first vaccines ever delivered via drone in the Congo

The area's topography makes transporting medicines a treacherous task.

Photo by Henry Sempangi Senyule

When we discuss barriers to healthcare in the developed world, affordability is commonly the biggest concern. But for some in the developing world, physical distance and topography can be the difference between life and death.

Widjifake, a hard-to-reach village in northwestern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) with a population of 6,500, struggles with having consistent access to healthcare supplies due to the Congo River and its winding tributaries.

It can take up to three hours for vehicles carrying supplies to reach the village.

Keep Reading Show less
via Keith Boykin / Twitter

Fox News and President Trump seem like they may be headed for a breakup. "Fox is a lot different than it used to be," Trump told reporters in August after one of the network's polls found him trailing for Democrats in the 2020 election.

"There's something going on at Fox, I'll tell you right now. And I'm not happy with it," he continued.

Some Fox anchors have hit back at the president over his criticisms. "Well, first of all, Mr. President, we don't work for you," Neil Cavuto said on the air. "I don't work for you. My job is to cover you, not fawn over you or rip you, just report on you."

Keep Reading Show less