OPINION: 2015 Paris Agreement and the future of COP meetings

Ten years into the ‘Paris Agreement’ or the internationally tapped ‘implementation decade’ since the landmark agreement in 2015 – which was rightly indicated generally as a triumph of years of negotiations to meaningfully deal with the existential threat of climate change crisis, calling it the ‘diplomacy decade’ – has been lackluster to say the least. With global average annual temperature already crossing the critical threshold of 1.5C, it is high time that it does not happen over the long term.

In her article ‘Global climate policy is broken’ that was published in Foreign Affairs magazine, just a few days before the start of COP30 meetings, being held in Belem, Brazil during November 10 – 21, Jessica F. Green pointed out in this regard: ‘It’s time for a climate reckoning. Global climate cooperation has been underway for more than three decades, since the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed in 1992. In 2015, governments adopted the Paris agreement to limit average global temperature increase to two degrees Celsius (and, ideally, to 1.5 degrees).

Annual meetings of the Conference of the Parties (COP) have focused on making progress toward this goal. Yet as countries prepare to gather in Brazil for COP30, the Paris agreement, and by extension the UNFCCC itself, is teetering on the brink of irrelevance. In the decade since the Paris agreement, countries have made some progress, including by creating national plans to reduce emissions… only 67 countries have submitted their updated national plans. …The world has already exceeded average warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Extreme weather is increasingly common… Even the UNFCCC secretariat, traditionally restrained in its language and conduct, noted last year that “greenhouse gas pollution at these levels will guarantee a human and economic trainwreck for every country, without exception.” The Paris agreement is failing to reverse these catastrophic trends.’

Although an agreement was reached during COP28 meetings over moving away from fossil fuel usage in a phased manner, apparently hurdling attitudes from reportedly vested interest groups backed by countries with high stakes in oil for instance, did not allow any meaningful discussion during last years’ meetings in Baku, Azerbaijan, while the matter was not even included in the initial agenda of topics to be discussed in COP30. With the intervention of around 80 countries, there is apparently a strong push to include this for discussion, while the language currently up for discussion is quite mild and functionally quite meaningless as it does not have any binding component. Having said that, given it has been two years since commitment to move away from fossil fuels was shown in COP28, it might just be that some meaningful timelines to phase out fossil fuel usage may become part of the final consensus document coming out of COP30.

A November 16, Guardian published article ‘Have courage to create fossil fuel phaseout roadmap at Cop30, Brazilian minister urges’ pointed out in this regard: ‘Scores of countries meeting in Belém for the UN climate summit, which is entering its second week, want to establish how a global phaseout of fossil fuels could work. They want to build on a historic resolution made two years ago at Cop28 in Dubai to “transition away from fossil fuels”. That promise had no timetable attached or details on how it could be achieved, and although it was passed unanimously, some countries have since attempted to disavow the pledge. Attempts last year to elaborate on what it would mean in practice were stymied by opposition from petrostates at Cop29 in Azerbaijan, which is heavily reliant on oil and gas exports.’

Moreover, a November 18, Guardian published article ‘More than 80 countries at Cop30 join call for roadmap to fossil fuel phase-out’ pointed out: ‘More than 80 countries have joined a call for a roadmap to phasing out fossil fuels, in a dramatic intervention into stuck negotiations at the UN Cop30 climate summit. …Tina Stege, climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, flanked by ministers from 20 countries, told a packed press conference in Belém: “Let’s get behind the idea of a fossil fuel roadmap, let’s work together and make it a plan.” …This year, the Brazilian hosts refused to put any mention of the “transition away from fossil fuels” on to the official agenda for the conference. It was even excluded from “presidency consultations” that have been taking place behind the scenes on the four trickiest issues on the agenda, which are finance, trade, transparency and the fact that countries’ emissions-cutting plans – known as NDCs, for nationally determined contributions – are too feeble to limit temperature rises to 1.5C, the goal of the Paris agreement. But the scores of countries that are in favour of a phase-out took a decision on Monday that they must make a stand. They believe there can be no response to the NDCs and no hope of maintaining the 1.5C goal without ending dependency on fossil fuels.’

Another important issue for dealing with climate change crisis, and which is something that the ‘Conference of the Parties’ (COP) during the last three decades of its existence has not been able to deliver, and that is creating the multilateral spirit that provides appropriate level of climate finance – the commitment by developed countries to provide US$100 billion annually by 2020, was met late by a few years, and while over a trillion dollars are needed in climate finance by 2035, commitments from developed countries have only reached provision at US$300 billion by that year.

It is for this reason that as countries across the globe, especially developing countries that are also highly climate change vulnerable, and which includes Pakistan, face more intense, and far more frequent climate catastrophes over the last decade or so, there is very little showing of commitment from developed countries, in particular those that have a high carbon footprint, both traditionally, and currently.

Moreover, COP meetings have also not dented the global financial architecture by taking it away from its neoliberal, and over-board austerity inclination, which significantly add to fiscal, and debt repayments related pressures, in addition to negative outcomes with regard to resilience.

A November 15 published article ‘Cop30 was meant to be a turning point, so why do some say the climate summit is broken?’, which was published in Guardian is highly critical of COP meetings as follows: ‘…there are fears that this 30th edition of the UN climate negotiations risks repeating the disappointments of previous years and that, rather than making material progress towards climate goals, the talks will once again be merely a jamboree of well-paid lobbyists and officials, while genuine climate concerns are sidelined. Less-developed countries left Cop last year describing its outcome as a “staggering betrayal”.

Critics have warned that the Cop process has become mired in misinformation and bad faith actors, that the travelling circus of the climate negotiations has become too big to be effective, and that it simply is not helping to secure a livable future. …Last year, an influential group of climate policy experts, including Ban Ki-moon, a former UN secretary general, and Christiana Figueres, a former UN climate chief, declared the Cop “no longer fit for purpose”.’

It needs to be mentioned here that it is a shame that so little discussion has been generated in policy circles, from the PM to the concerned ministers, including finance minister with regard to the issues surrounding the COP30 meetings. The same can be said about media, such lukewarm attitude does not reflect the seriousness policy corners/media should show given it is the same country that saw catastrophic flooding, and cloud bursts earlier in the summer.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025