Almost 200 nations came together in Paris to form a climate change agreement that wouldn’t be rejected by congressional Republicans, leaving countries to participate voluntarily.
Under the Paris Agreement, each country committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by as much, or as little, as it wants. While five-year reviews will be held to see how each country is doing on those commitments, there is no enforcement mechanism to punish countries that fail to live up to their commitments.
While many environmental groups may be celebrating the historic agreement reached Saturday, some hold the United States at fault for the lack of teeth in the deal.
Erich Picha, president of Friends of the Earth, said after the conference that the U.S. delegation may end up having blood on its hands.
“President Obama challenged the international community to act aggressively to combat climate chaos,” Picha said. “Instead of following his own words, the administration has systematically attempted to undermine some of the basic structures of the framework convention, abandoning the countries and communities most vulnerable to the effects of climate disruption.”
Picha blamed the U.S. delegation for keeping the most controversial portions of the agreement, financing for developing countries and carbon emissions reductions, out of the legally binding part of the agreement.
The Obama administration admitted over the weekend that the deal was crafted in such a way to avoid certain rejection from Republicans in Congress. Instead, the deal essentially will hinge on the 2016 presidential election: if a Democrat wins, many of Obama’s policies moving toward greenhouse gas reductions would remain, while a Republican likely would repeal many of his regulations.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee spoke out against the deal in a tweet Monday morning, pointing to its lack of bite as a major weakness.
Nations “sign a sprawling, unenforceable deal, and already there’s friction?” the Republican presidential candidate said. “Know what cures friction? Oil.”
In an interview with the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, House Speaker Paul Ryan said he’s not a fan of Obama’s plans to reach the emissions cuts promised by the American delegation and was skeptical of whether other countries would live up to their promises.
“It’s a purely voluntary agreement. It’s up to the decisions of individual countries,” he said. “That’s why I think they were able to get such a big buy-in.”
However, environmental groups said that making emissions reductions voluntary was not only done to avoid Congress but also because that was the only way to get a consensus deal.
John Coequyt, the Sierra Club’s director of federal and international climate campaigns, said energy policy is so critical to many countries’ economies that they wouldn’t have agreed to enforcement.
While many see that as proof that countries such as India and China will break their commitments and continue their coal use, Coequyt said residents of those countries know how much they need to work on reducing air pollution. He said that’s why India committed to producing 175 gigawatts of renewable energy.
“This is not a small problem. This is incredibly toxic air,” he said. “If you go to India or China … when the air quality is as low as it can be, I think it’s a life-altering experience.”
Coequyt said he believes Republican opposition to the Paris deal was a strategic political move that has been undermined by a worldwide consensus on the deal. Given the amount of buy-in from world leaders, it’s hard to imagine the United States being the only country that doesn’t live up to its commitments even if there is no punishment for failing to do so, he said.
The transparency requirements will be the biggest measure keeping nations working toward their emissions-reduction commitments. The five-year cycles in particular will reinforce their actions.
“I believe countries will really work together to make sure other countries are successful,” he said. “That dynamic is stronger than a sanctions regime would have been.”
