Dangerous Incrementalism of the Paris Agreement

TLDR

After a decade of negotiation, the Paris Agreement was adopted as a legally binding climate accord, yet it largely continues existing policies rather than breaking new ground. The forum contends that the Paris Agreement represents dangerous incrementalism in two respects. It merely repackages inadequate existing rules, gains legitimacy from state and nonstate actors—who accepted it to secure U.S.

Abstract

After a decade of negotiation, countries adopted a new, legally binding agreement on climate change. Excitement for a new era in the climate regime is palpable among pundits and policy makers alike. But such enthusiasm largely overlooks that most of the Paris Agreement’s provisions represent continuity with existing climate policy, not a break with the past. This forum argues that the Paris Agreement is a dangerous form of incrementalism in two ways. First, it repackages existing rules that have already proven inadequate to reduce emissions and improve resilience. Second, state and nonstate actors celebrate the Agreement as a solution, conferring legitimacy on its rules; I suggest that, beyond the strong desire to avoid failure, developing countries and nongovernmental organizations accepted the Paris Agreement to secure the participation of the United States and to uphold previous agreements. Given the reification of existing rules, the ratchet-up mechanism and nonstate actors offer the last remaining hopes in global efforts to catalyze climate action on a scale necessary to safeguard the climate.