IN a significant development on international climate policy, the Paris Agreement, signed during COP-21 in 2015, has emerged as a more inclusive approach to combating global warming compared to its predecessor, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. This shift represents a major evolution in how the world addresses the pressing issue of climate change.
Key Differences Highlight Changing Approach
The Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol, while both aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, differ in several crucial aspects:
Legal Obligation: Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which imposed legally binding targets on signatories, the Paris Agreement is not legally obligatory. This change allows for more flexibility in implementation.
Targeted Countries: The Paris Agreement requires all countries, including developing nations, to establish emissions targets. This marks a departure from the Kyoto Protocol, which focused primarily on industrialized nations.
Scope of Objectives: While the Kyoto Protocol aimed to reduce emissions of six specific greenhouse gases by 5.2 per cent below pre-1990 levels, the Paris Agreement takes a broader approach. It seeks to limit the global average temperature rise to less than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, with efforts to restrict the increase to 1.5 degrees.
Timeframe: The initial phase of the Kyoto Protocol concluded in 2012. In contrast, the Paris Agreement has a variable timeline, with most nations expected to meet their targets between 2025 and 2030.
Number of Signatories: The Paris Agreement has gained wider acceptance, with 197 countries approving or acceding to its terms, compared to the Kyoto Protocol’s 192 signatories.
Paris Agreement: A Watershed Moment
The Paris Agreement, ratified by 196 Parties on Dec 12, 2015, and implemented on Nov 4, 2016, is being hailed as a landmark in the global climate change process. It establishes long-term objectives for all nations, including:
Dramatically reducing global greenhouse gas emissions
Reviewing countries’ obligations every five years
Providing financial support to developing nations for climate change mitigation and adaptation
“The Paris Agreement is a historic environmental accord agreed upon by nearly every nation to address climate change and its consequences,” said a spokesperson for the United Nations Environment Programme.
Kyoto Protocol: The Foundation of International Climate Action
The Kyoto Protocol, signed on Dec 11, 1997, and implemented on Feb 16, 2005, laid the groundwork for international climate action. It operationalised the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by committing developed countries to limit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The protocol acknowledged that industrialised countries were primarily responsible for the high levels of GHG emissions in the atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of industrial activity.
Similarities Underscore Shared Goals
Despite their differences, both agreements share common ground:
Both are international treaties aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas emissions
They deal with global warming and climate change implications
Both have involved participation from over a hundred nations
The Road Ahead
As the world continues to grapple with the challenges of climate change, the evolution from the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement reflects a growing understanding of the issue as a shared global concern.
“The road ahead appears to be difficult,” noted a climate policy expert. “However, each voice may make a difference by uniting the climate movement and putting pressure on political institutions to implement steps to decrease greenhouse gas emissions.”
The success of these global climate efforts will depend on the sustained commitment of all nations, as well as the engagement of businesses, civil society, and individuals.
As we face the ongoing climate crisis, the international community must build on the progress made through these landmark agreements, striving for more ambitious targets and more effective implementation strategies.
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the Sarawak Tribune.
