Mukul Sanwal writes that China and India played a defining role in shaping an agreement which goes beyond emission curbs.
The Climate Summit in Paris exemplifies the power of diplomacy and dialogue to resolve differences; but the protracted negotiations also illustrate the lag seen when international institutions need to catch up with an emerging world order where the United States no longer shapes multilateralism.
In many ways the outcome will have profound effects on the global environment, governance, economy and society. The new regime moves away from notions of burden sharing to cooperatively sharing risks and opportunities. The pessimists will argue that the Agreement does not contain legally binding obligations on developed countries to meet specific targets to cut emissions. That it only requires countries to "communicate and maintain" plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and the compliance system is to be explicitly "non-adversarial and non-punitive." The optimists will say that it includes an objective to reach a "balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century." It obliges all nations to subject their climate plans to public scrutiny every five years. Developing countries also secured a commitment to get more climate finance and pushed developed countries to set a new goal of more than $100bn a year by 2025.
At the heart of the deal is cutting back on the use of coal, oil and gas for energy, which has enabled the industrial revolution and urbanization. Both China and India sought to re-frame the debate around urban middle-class lifestyles as both the cause and the solution to the global problem. India argued that "the prosperous still have a strong carbon footprint. And, the world's billions at the bottom of the development ladder are seeking space to grow," while China stressed the required lifestyle and economic changes, pointing out that "we need heating. We need air conditioning. You need to drive your car." Since consumption patterns are now more important than production patterns as sources of missions, the post 2030 reviews must focus less on coal and more on energy efficiency buildings and transport emissions, as two-third emissions come from cities.
The Paris deal does not represent a transformational change in the global efforts to deal with climate change. It only modifies how countries approach the problem, and it is still not clear what a low-carbon world would look like. The attention now turns to the social sciences, distribution issues and to the obstacles and policy choices. This new climate research can drive the debate in a constructive manner that goes beyond emissions data to understanding the trade-offs. Exploring how climate change interacts with lifestyles, social norms and e-commerce is going to be crucial to politicians in designing practical policies. Including the social sciences into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change remains a vital task.
The Paris negotiations continued into over-time because of geo-politics. The toughest negotiations were around disagreement on whether the time has come to end "differentiation" between developed and developing countries within the United Nations, which has strategic significance for the trade negotiations. India and China successfully resisted this move because of their national circumstances, and the global goals have been agreed in the "context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty."
Since the Agreement responds to the concerns of all countries the collective effort has a good chance of keeping the Planet from heating beyond safe limits. It is also just a â€˜framework' and how the rules and guidelines are shaped will really determine how much of the multilateral consensus is translated into domestic political action.
"Mukul Sanwal aliandika kuwa ""China na India walifanya kazi muhimu katika kuunda makubaliano ambayo yanazidi vizuizi vya uzalishaji.""" Mkutano wa hali ya hewa wa Paris unaonyesha nguvu ya diplomasia na mazungumzo ya kutatua tofauti, lakini mazungumzo ya muda mrefu pia yanaonyesha kuchelewesha kwa taasisi za kimataifa zinahitaji kukabiliana na utaratibu wa ulimwengu unaojitokeza ambapo Marekani haifanyi tena multilateralism. Kwa njia nyingi matokeo yatakuwa na athari kubwa kwa mazingira ya kimataifa, utawala, uchumi na jamii. Mfumo mpya unahama kutoka kwa dhana za kushiriki mzigo kwa kushirikiana kushiriki hatari na fursa. "Watu wenye kutarajia mabaya watasema kwamba Mkataba huo hauna wajibu wa kisheria kwa nchi zilizoendelea kutimiza malengo maalum ya kupunguza uzalishaji wa gesi.""" "Hii inahitaji tu nchi ""kuwasiliana na kudumisha"" mipango ya kupunguza uzalishaji wa gesi za chafu, na mfumo wa kufuata ni kuwa wazi ""si-adversarial na non-punitive.""" "Wenye matumaini watasema kwamba inatia ndani lengo la kufikia ""msawaziko kati ya uzalishaji wa binadamu na uondoaji wa gesi za chafu katika nusu ya pili ya karne hii.""" Mkataba huo unawajibika mataifa yote kuwasilisha mipango yao ya hali ya hewa kwa uchunguzi wa umma kila baada ya miaka mitano. Nchi zinazoendelea pia zilijitolea kupata fedha zaidi za hali ya hewa na kushinikiza nchi zilizoendelea kuweka lengo jipya la zaidi ya dola bilioni 100 kwa mwaka ifikapo 2025. Mkataba huo unazingatia kupunguza matumizi ya makaa ya mawe, mafuta na gesi kwa ajili ya nishati, ambayo imefanya iwezekane kwa ajili ya mapinduzi ya viwanda na mijini. China na India zilijaribu kuunda upya mjadala kuhusu mtindo wa maisha wa watu wa tabaka la kati katika miji kama sababu na suluhisho la tatizo la kimataifa. India ilisema kwamba "watu matajiri bado wana athari kubwa ya kaboni. "Mabilioni ya watu duniani ambao wako chini ya ngazi ya maendeleo wanatafuta nafasi ya kukua, ""alipokuwa akisisitiza mabadiliko ya maisha na kiuchumi yanayohitajika, akisema ""tunahitaji joto.""" Tunahitaji kiyoyozi. Unahitaji kuendesha gari lako". Kwa kuwa mifumo ya matumizi sasa ni muhimu zaidi kuliko mifumo ya uzalishaji kama vyanzo vya kazi, ukaguzi wa baada ya 2030 lazima uzingatia chini juu ya makaa ya mawe na zaidi juu ya majengo ya ufanisi wa nishati na uzalishaji wa usafiri, kwani theluthi mbili ya uzalishaji hutoka kwa miji. Mkataba wa Paris haujitokezi mabadiliko ya mabadiliko katika juhudi za kimataifa za kukabiliana na mabadiliko ya hali ya hewa. "Hii inabadilisha tu jinsi nchi zinavyoshughulikia tatizo hilo, na bado haijulikani wazi ulimwengu wenye kaboni ya chini ungeonekanaje.""" Uangalifu sasa unageuka kwa sayansi ya kijamii, masuala ya usambazaji na kwa vikwazo na uchaguzi wa sera. Utafiti huu mpya wa hali ya hewa unaweza kuendesha mjadala kwa njia ya kujenga ambayo inakwenda zaidi ya data ya uzalishaji ili kuelewa biashara. Kujifunza jinsi mabadiliko ya hali ya hewa yanavyoingiliana na mtindo wa maisha, kanuni za kijamii na biashara ya mtandaoni itakuwa muhimu kwa wanasiasa katika kubuni sera za vitendo. Kujumuisha sayansi ya kijamii katika Jopo la Serikali za Kati juu ya Mabadiliko ya Hali ya Hewa bado ni kazi muhimu. Mazungumzo ya Paris yaliendelea kwa muda mrefu kwa sababu ya kijiografia na siasa. Mazungumzo makali zaidi yalitokana na kutokubaliana juu ya kama wakati umefika wa kumaliza "tofauti" kati ya nchi zilizoendelea na zinazoendelea ndani ya Umoja wa Mataifa, ambayo ina umuhimu wa kimkakati kwa mazungumzo ya biashara. India na China zilishinda hatua hiyo kwa sababu ya hali zao za kitaifa, na malengo ya kimataifa yamekubaliwa katika "mtazamo wa maendeleo endelevu na juhudi za kuondoa umaskini." Kwa kuwa Mkataba huo unakidhi wasiwasi wa nchi zote, juhudi za pamoja zina nafasi nzuri ya kuzuia Jua lisijoto zaidi ya mipaka salama. Pia ni tu'mfumo' na jinsi sheria na miongozo ni umbo kweli kuamua jinsi mengi ya makubaliano ya kimataifa ni kutafsiriwa katika hatua ya kisiasa ya ndani.