“Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and 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.”
Justin Gillis, climate science reporter:This agreement adopts a more ambitious target for limiting global warming than in the past by mentioning 1.5 degrees Celsius as part of the concrete goal to stay well below 2 degrees. If that were to be actually achieved, it would likely ward off some of the most severe effects of climate change. For example, although we don’t know the exact temperature, there is a trigger point at which the whole Greenland ice sheet and the West Antarctic ice sheet will melt. There is a chance that staying below 2 degrees Celsius would avoid that trigger point, and an even better chance if we stay below 1.5 degrees.
“Parties are encouraged to take action to implement and support, including through results-based payments, the existing framework as set out in related guidance and decisions already agreed under the Convention for: policy approaches and positive incentives for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries; and alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests, while reaffirming the importance of incentivizing, as appropriate, non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches.”
Justin Gillis, climate science reporter:This provision is the most significant recognition given in one of these agreements to the role forests play in offsetting human actions. It is meant as a political signal that countries should enact policies that have been developed over the last decade to save the world’s remaining intact forests. Tropical countries would likely be paid with both public and private money if they succeed in reducing or limiting destruction of their forests due to logging, or clearance for food production.
“As part of a global effort, developed country Parties should continue to take the lead in mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels, noting the significant role of public funds, through a variety of actions, including supporting country-driven strategies, and taking into account the needs and priorities of developing country Parties. Such mobilization of climate finance should represent a progression beyond previous efforts.”
Melissa Eddy, Berlin correspondent:Many developing and smaller countries are disappointed that the agreement does not name a specific number – a goal of at least $100 billion a year in contributions from rich countries is mentioned only in the preamble, which is not legally binding. Developing nations maintain that even that sum would not be enough to help them build up a power system quickly or cheaply enough based on renewable energy sources rather than coal and oil.
“In order to build mutual trust and confidence and to promote effective implementation, an enhanced transparency framework for action and support, with built-in flexibility which takes into account Parties’ different capacities and builds upon collective experience is hereby established.”
Coral Davenport, environmental policy reporter:The issue of transparency was a hard red line for the United States, which argued for a single system through which the carbon reductions of all countries, whether industrialized or developing, could be evaluated. Establishing this system constitutes a success for the United States, and represents a key to establishing trust among all countries.
“In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties 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, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.”
Coral Davenport, environmental policy reporter:Advocates say this wording sends a clear message to the fossil-fuel industry that much of the world’s remaining reserves of coal, oil and gas must stay in the ground and cannot be burned. But the agreement does not call, as a previous version did, for “reaching greenhouse gas emissions neutrality in the second half of the century,” a provision that oil-producing countries fiercely resisted. The current language suggests that at least some fossil fuels can continue to burn, as long as the greenhouse gas emissions are absorbed by a larger number of “greenhouse sinks,” like new forests.
“Parties recognize the importance of averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including extreme weather events and slow onset events, and the role of sustainable development in reducing the risk of loss and damage.”
Melissa Eddy, Berlin correspondent:This is the first time the term “loss and damage” has been included in an international agreement, meeting a demand from smaller, island countries for acknowledgement of their suffering from the effects of climate change. Although the language stops short of mentioning liability – opposed by more heavily polluted industrialized nations – it is still considered a significant step toward recognition of the damage that results from rising global temperatures.
“Each Party shall communicate a nationally determined contribution every five years in accordance with decision 1/CP.21 and any relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement and be informed by the outcomes of the global stocktake referred to in Article 14.”
Sewell Chan, international news editor, London:This legally requires countries to come back every five years with new reduction targets for emissions that will be evaluated. Bringing the number down to five-year limits constitutes a tightening of the accord, as some countries, India in particular, had demanded 10-year cycles.
