SE2 have been the perfect partner. The team are passionate and committed, but also practical; they have an impressive eye for detail, and know exactly what delivers a successful project.
Jake Reynolds, CPSL and former senior advisor to Department for Education
We'll always have Paris...
Good news this week on the international stage! The US and China have agreed to ratify the Paris Agreement, committing to national carbon reduction targets. The two countries account for 38% of global carbon emissions, meaning that the level for full ratification of Paris (55 nations accounting for 55% of emissions) feels within reach.
All well and good, but in the long run, will it stick? Will we always have Paris?
Obviously, the US election will be a key moment in the future of international agreement on carbon emissions and climate change. The Presidential election offers a binary choice between someone who will remain committed to climate action and someone who doesn't even think there's a problem. The landscape is more complex though: it's all about the balance of power between the White House, the Senate (with 34 of 100 seats up for election in November) and the House of Representatives (full election in November). A boisterous Republican Senate or House could lead to a lot of blocking of action on emissions, making ratification of the Paris Agreement feel hollow. That said, Scientific American reported in April that growing numbers of Republican voters believe in climate change, no doubt the learned effect of years of drought and increasingly extreme weather in a lot of traditionally conservative areas.
China will go through its own change of leadership next year; every five years, there is a change in high-ranking officials within the Communist Party, although that does not necessarily mean a shift in policy or ideology. China's challenge, perhaps, is more one of transparency and communication, ensuring that the UN and other observers trust that the data on emissions is accurate in the face of public concern about pollution episodes in recent years.
And what about the other 17% needed to hit the magic 55% figure? At the time of writing, 26 countries had ratified the agreement, accounting for 39% of global emissions; given the scale of China and the US' contributions to emissions, you can see that the other 24 signatories are at the smaller end of the scale. So we're still 17% but also 29 countries short. Here the good news is that 180 nations in total signed up to the Paris Agreement, so there is a good pool of countries available to move to ratification, including Russia (7%), India (just over 4%), Japan (just shy of 4%) and Brazil (2.5%). And the EU.
Which brings us to another thorn in the side...
Historically, the EU has led the way on climate agreements, often operating en bloc, and pushing further and faster than other nations (including the US and China). However, the blanket of uncertainty that Europe is now hidden beneath following the vote for Brexit means that it may take longer and be more arduous than usual to bring ratification through the European nations. It's a decision at a national scale (so the UK (1.5%), Germany (2.5%) or any other nation could sign up unilaterally), but that is perhaps counter to the way that previous negotiations have been delivered. I'd be interested in any fly-on-the-wall perspective from those of you with close ties to European policymaking as to whether nerves around the process and implications of Brexit are having an effect on discussions...
I'm going to stay optimistic. Action by the US and China should trigger further action by other nations, emboldened by what they have seen and encouraged to ratify the Agreement. I think we can get to the point of 55 nations and 55% of global emissions needed for the treaty to come into force, and I think it can happen quickly. What happens after that is less clear: will nations take sufficient action towards the targets they have committed? If they do, then it could be a fantastic time for all those working tirelessly in energy efficiency and renewable energy, and it could send the shock signals that the markets need to disinvest from traditional fossil fuels and to move into new, environmentally sustainable markets. Will nations hold to their commitments even with changes of Government or administration? Harder to predict, and in part it depends on how embedded change is within the popular and political will at the time of a new leader or party coming to power. Perhaps we can even turn emissions reduction into a vote-winner...!
As always, thoughts welcomed. I'm keen to hear from those with more insight and different views - what do you think the future holds for the Paris Agreement? Email me on liz.warren@se-2.co.uk or tweet to @se2limited.