The Two Sides of the Paris Climate Agreement

TLDR

The Paris Climate Agreement, though lacking a detailed blueprint, is regarded as the best available effort to curb global warming, yet scientific evidence indicates the likelihood of staying below 2 °C is low and rapid, large‑scale action is required to avoid disastrous warming. The paper argues that the Agreement’s purpose is to inspire a rapid, fundamental energy transition that shapes social and political action. The study finds that achieving the Paris goals requires determined, far‑reaching government intervention in energy markets within the next few years, especially in the largest polluting nations.

Abstract

The December 2015 Paris Climate Agreement is better than no agreement. This is perhaps the best that can be said about it. The scientific evidence on global warming is alarming, and the likelihood depressingly small that the world can stay below a 2°C—even less a 1.5°C warming—over pre-industrial times. The Paris Agreement does not provide a blueprint for achieving these stabilization objectives. But it is ultimately the hope, however small, that a fundamental and rapid energy transition is achievable that must inform social and political behavior and activism in the coming years. In this sense, the Paris outcome is an aspirational global accord that will trigger and legitimize more climate action around the world. The question is whether this will happen quickly enough and at a sufficient scale to avoid disastrous warming of the planet. What is certain is that it will not occur without determined and far-reaching government intervention in energy markets in the next few years, particularly in the largest polluting countries.