The answer, I hope, leans towards optimists, but for reasons that go beyond their optimism. There is no doubt that the Paris Agreement alone will not enable human society to cope with climate change. The objectives are too weak and the governance too uncertain. In this way, critics are right to fear that the mere appearance of the agreement will lead to the perception that the problem is being solved. “Abandoning the Paris agreement is cruel for future generations,” said Andrew Steer, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, about the Trump administration`s decision to formally withdraw the United States from the agreement. The U.S. will lose much stronger jobs and economy that will bring a low-carbon future, Steer said in a statement. COP21 was a historic first step for the international community to recognize and combat climate change. In addition, its considerable shortcomings have established a roadmap on how philanthropists must fund to move the world faster on the next steps of climate justice and a colder planet. The “road through Paris” – what we need to do to take the Paris agreement to the next stage – has been defined. It is time that we follow our “Philanthropy After Paris” path and move forward deliberately.
5. Adaptation, loss and damage: the Paris Agreement must take into account the fact that the effects of climate change are already destroying livelihoods and exacerbating poverty. That is why the EU should work towards a long-term adjustment target that links adaptation efforts to emissions. Moreover, if the effects of climate change are too severe to adapt to it, the issue of loss and damage must be firmly entrenched in the agreement. Public financial support should be provided for adaptation, loss and damage. But for some climate activists, the agreement was an exercise in empty promises and well-being. For example, a group of climate scientists recently filed a letter to The Independent in which they called the agreement a “false hope” and a “fatal mistake.” They alluded to the fact that the CO2 reduction commitments in the agreement will not come into force until 2020. By then, scientists say, much more CO2 will have been injected into the atmosphere than we may already be caught in the warming that pushes us above the 2-degree line. As the scientists have said, Saturday night was the culmination not only of two weeks of discussions, but also of more than 23 years of international attempts by the United Nations to forge collective action against this global problem. Since 1992, all governments around the world have committed to taking action to prevent dangerous warming. These efforts have been marked by discord and failure, the refusal of the largest emitters to participate, ineffective agreements and ignored contracts.
While these measures have still not made sufficient progress, Fabius turned to “Indabas”, according to the Zulu tradition, it was groups of elders who were summoned to try to discuss conflicts in the communities. They were first tested at the climate talks in Durban, South Africa, in 2011, and, according to the French plan, were made up of groups of up to 80 delegates who met at one time to dispel the differences that remain. Paris Agreement, 2015. The most important global agreement to date, the Paris Agreement, obliges all countries to make commitments to reduce emissions. Governments set targets known as national contributions, with a view to preventing the average global temperature from rising by 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to strive to keep it below 1.5 degrees Celsius.