Stella Dimoko The Paris Agreement On Climate Change And Everything You Need To Know


Advertisement - Mobile In-Article

Friday, June 02, 2017

The Paris Agreement On Climate Change And Everything You Need To Know

US President Donald Trump sent shock waves through the international community this week after rumours swirled that he would back out of a global agreement to tackle climate change.

The Paris Agreement was hailed as a landmark international deal when 194 countries, including the EU and China, signed up to sweeping pledges on the environment at a UN meeting in the French capital in late 2015.

The US is the second biggest polluter behind China and its potential exit has raised questions over whether the goals set by the Paris Agreement can still be met.

But what exactly does the agreement entail?

Limit global warming to 'well below' 2°C, or 1.5°C if possible

The agreement aims to limit the increase in global average temperatures to “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” – the level beyond which scientists say we will see the worst extremes of global warming.

It also aims to “pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change”.

In order to actually limit warming to that level, the aim is to “achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century” – in other words, net carbon emissions to be zero.

To get there, countries should aim to “reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science”.

Cut greenhouse gas emissions in the 2020s

Ahead of (and even during) the Paris summit, countries made so-called "Intended Nationally Determined Contributions" (INDCs) – voluntary pledges setting out how they plan to limit their greenhouse gas emissions during the 2020s.

Some 158 submissions covering 185 countries (the European Union submits one pledge covering all its member states) and covering more than 90pc of global emissions were made. These were not up for negotiation during the talks.

The proposed deal commits countries to “pursue domestic mitigation measures with the aim of achieving the objectives”.

However, the targets themselves are not legally binding and a country will not be penalised if it fails to meet them.

The INDCs formally became Nationally Determined Contributions at the time each country ratified the Paris Agreement.

A pledge for deeper emissions cuts in future

The emissions cuts pledges made so far still leave the world on track for at least 2.7°C warming this century. A key part of the deal is therefore the mechanism designed to make countries pledge deeper emissions cuts in future.

The non-binding decision text asks countries to come back before 2020 and to revisit the pledges they have made, and to then make new pledges every five years thereafter.

The binding deal – covering the period after 2020 – also commits countries to “communicate a nationally determined contribution every five years”.

Each country’s pledge must “represent a progression” on their previous one “and reflect its highest possible ambition”

Rich nations to provide funding to poorer ones

The agreement requires that “developed” nations – as defined by the UN Framework in 1992 - will continue to help developing countries with the costs of going green, and the costs of coping with the effects of climate change.

The thorny question of how much money rich nations must give only appears in a non-legally binding 'decision text' accompanying the Paris Agreement.

Currently, developed countries are obliged to 'mobilise' $100bn a year of public and private finance to help developing countries by 2020 – a target set in Copenhagen in 2009.

The Paris decision says they "intend to continue their existing collective mobilization goal through 2025" - in other words continue the $100bn a year, and then by 2025 set a new goal "from a floor of $100bn".

Finance was one of the biggest rows of the talks, with developing nations demanding more cash (and arguing that developed nations haven’t even met their $100bn pledge). Although many poorer countries wanted increased finance to be a legally binding requirement, the US made it clear it would never ratify such a deal.

Developed nations meanwhile argued for an end to the crude 1992 definition – which sees six of the 10 wealthiest counties in the world classed as “developing” and under no obligation to contribute financially.

They were pushing for a wording suggesting other countries “in a position to do so” should also contribute (especially as some, such as China, already are in practice). But developing nations resisted this wording and in the final agreement there is a much weaker commitment that non-developed nations are “encouraged to provide or continue to provide such support voluntarily”.

Holding countries to account

There is to be a global “stock-take” in 2023, and every five years thereafter, to assess progress toward the aims of the agreement and to encourage countries to make deeper pledges (see point 3).

The text sets out plans for a new transparency framework to see whether countries are actually carrying out their pledges, in order to hold them account and inform the stocktake.

Countries will have to disclose an inventory of their emissions and information to track their progress in hitting their national target, while developed countries should also give information on the finance they are providing or mobilising.

This will be subject to a “technical expert review” to check their progress and highlight areas where improvement is needed.

However, the whole transparency framework will have “built-in flexibility” offering leeway to developing countries “that need it in the light of their capacities”.

Pulled from


  1. This developing nations are shameless they want som1 dashing them free money to be 'legally binding' they will stillmiss appropriate..I'm sure Nigeria was leading d pack...

  2. But God bless America sha the way they all carry d whole worlds problems on their head..while richer nations like china hide under d guise of 'developing'

  3. Stella God bless u for this!

  4. Vice and Virtue2 June 2017 at 10:10

    Global warming and climate change are two issues I'm still in doubt about. Trump pulling out of the Paris Agreement further stretches my doubt on this issues.

    With all the hysteria, all the fear, all the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming/climate change is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?

    I also strongly believe there's an economic aspect to it like Donald Trump opined in 2012 "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S manufacturing non-competetive".

    As for Nigeria being a signatory to the Paris deal, well aren't we a signatory to nearly every international deal? Did you know Nigeria once signed a deal that empowers her people to sue her to court if they ever turned on their taps and there's no water? But you don't know so its all good. Lol

    1. Vice and Virtue, I applaud your comment. The mainstream media in the west are a solid power bloc of their own and they use their power to influence perception irresponsibly.

      There are scientists, and on record too, ho dispute these silly global warming doomsday predictions and analyses. They are shouted down and discredited by the media, because people who sponsor them benefit greatly from the climate change scare. It is a muti-trillion dollar industry of lies and deceit.

      The climate of the world has been recorded for, at least, 300 years. Yes, 300 years. And in that time, before even the 20the century, the world has recorded hotter weathers that some recent years. That's why when they report about spikes in temperature, they usually add "in recent years".

      The media has killed discussion on this issue, effectively granting credibility to the side that propagates the hoax.

      I'm glad Trump has taken this decision. Hopefully, he can correct other things as well before his time in office is over.

    2. Both of u listen to yourselves ..everything is not a conspiracy theory..look around u..even d harmattan season while u were growing up is almost non existent in some parts of the country now..a climate is supposed to be fairly constant..if not certain species will be wiped off d face of d earth,u will see even more dreadful forms off cancer cause we are destroying d natural balance..isnt that even happening already..check d life expectancy in those heavily industralized nations n compare it to that in climate friendly nations

    3. Erm, Bambi, maybe you should listen to us before jumping in to disparage our comments.

      Everything is not a conspiracy theory, but please, could you kindly point out which conspiracy theories that are worth believing if any are? I would appreciate it since you sound like an authority on conspiracy theorising. Pray tell, what are the Bambi-approved conspiracy theories worth investing belief in?

      Secondly, layman over-simplistic comments like "look at harmattan" are not equal to scientific findings. I'm sure you know that. You should be attempting to convince me with raw data not your personal discomfort at chrismatime.

      Do you know that the year 1000 was way warmer than the year 1600. In fact, 1600 was known as the Little Ice Age. That's how cold the latter year was. Yet, the warmer early 1000s had no industrialisation to the point where carbon monoxide production would have caused the so-called ozone depletion the main "harbinger of global warming".

      It's way more complex than just using energy a efficient bulbs and air conditioners. Do your research and stop being deceived by sponsored "science" shows on CNN.

    4. Vice and Virtue2 June 2017 at 14:20

      Rambo, thank you for saving me the stress of replying Bambi's comment.

    5. N what make you think ur fancy figures aint part of the 'sponsored science'..u werent der..n yes i used practical examples that evryone can relate to..its stubborn people like u n trump that'll finally lead us to dat 'dooms day'

    6. Bambi, I know the data I've given above is genuine because it's universally accepted amongst scientist that support and reject the current claims of global warming and its causes. That is one thing on which they agree.

      Sorry, your examples aren't practical. December 2016/January 2017 recorded colder harmattan than the previous two years. So, going by those metrics, would you say we have global chilling? 😂

      Aunty, climate and weather isn't static, it is influence by other galactic elements and forces. Go and read, abeg.

  5. People certainly think Trump has no idea what he's doing... Trust me, he's a very intelligent man and knows what he's doing...

  6. God bless Trump


Disclaimer: Comments And Opinions On Any Part Of This Website Are Opinions Of The Writers Or Anonymous Persons And They Do Not Represent The Opinions Of

Pictures and culled stories posted on this site will be given due credit and is not the fault of if website culled from misrepresents source of story.

If you have a complaint or a story,Please Contact Via
Mobile Phone +4915210329280