At the end of bargaining, when the last bracketed differences in diplomatic language were [glossed over], the global climate accord that emerged from two weeks of talks in Paris proved to be a very a la
carte deal.
The intentional flexibility of the Paris agreement was constructed not only to accommodate the diversity of 195 national interests. It had to compensate for its limited legal authority with enough aspirational language to send governments away confident that a global turn from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources was
inevitable.
Most countries in Paris accept that they face a wicked problem in trying to stop rising global temperatures. With some exceptions, there is a willingness to get off dirty energy sources, though many will still need to burn a lot of coal for quite a while. All know it will take billions of dollars to get there.
What no one wanted to accept was an onerous collection of international rules dictating how they do it.
The final accord therefore repeatedly “invites,” “urges,” “requests” and “further requests” countries to take action. The most ambitious goals - such as holding the increase in global temperatures to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels - are aspirational, requiring belief that technologies yet to be invented will offer a realistic route to achieving them.
A shift underway
With some passionate exceptions, civil society groups also appeared energised by the Paris deal. Many chose to see a half-full version of the text, vowing to seize the spirit of Paris to step up a global movement to get investors to divest their holdings from fossil fuel companies.
Still, countries face distinct hurdles in driving energy changes at home.
The Obama administration has come close to exhausting the use of executive authority to push new regulations that would cut carbon emissions.
Meanwhile in India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is determined to electrify rural India, a gargantuan feat only possible at the moment by producing and burning vast amounts of cheap coal. Modi sees electrification as the route to improving the lives of millions of Indians, as well as a way to entrench the political appeal of his Bharatiya Janata Party with voters in rural areas.
How to square those demands for social and economic justice with the promises made in Paris is the calibration politicians and business leaders will now have to make. Those choices will determine whether the architects of Paris showed foresight with their creative flexibility, or just let everyone off the hook.