Hello!

Welcome to the Insights, Innovation, and Economics blog. If you’re new here, feel free to read my general Introduction to the Blog to understand more about the blog. If you’re returning, thank you, and hope you have a great read!

Thesis: Climate pledges are being made constantly. Yet, it’s widely unclear whether or not they actually are helping or are merely a front put on by countries while they continue to produce and pollute. Even so, maybe just the act of making the pledge is good in of itself, even if countries don’t follow through.

If you’re new here, please consider subscribing :)

Credit American Family Insurance

Climate Pledges

Every year countries, commissions, and coalitions are making climate pledges.

But, do they actually work? Or, are they mainly smoke and mirrors?

Well, my goal today is to provide a solution to that key question and hopefully understand a little more about why nations make climate pledges.

Let’s dive in.

What are climate pledges?

Climate pledges, also known as climate agreements, are formal “statements” by countries or other entities with some goal related to the climate. These pledges are typically made under international agreements or initiatives related to climate change mitigation.

Popular goals historically have been limiting average global temperature increases, protecting the ozone layer, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Diving in deeper climate pledges usually includes the following elements:

• Nationally Determined Contributions: Countries/entities submit these statements that outline their planned targets and climate action plans. These NDCs are usually updated around every 5 years.
• Sectoral Pledges: In addition to these national pledges, some sectors/industries have made specific commitments related to climate goals.
• Non-state Actor Pledges: Cities, businesses, and other non-state actors have also made climate pledges.
• Monitoring and Accountability: Climate pledges are typically accompanied by mechanisms for monitoring progress and holding parties accountable for meeting their commitments.

When was the first climate pledge?

The first climate pledge, depending on who you ask, was the Montreal Protocol in 1987. Pledges have been made consistently since then.

Now that we know a bit more about climate pledges, let’s discuss whether they have been historical successes or failures, or maybe a mix of both.

Credit Reuters

Climate Pledges: Successes and Failures

Credit Our World In Data

1987: Montreal Protocol

In the 1970s, two chemists found that certain molecules might be the cause of the ozone breakdown.

The Montreal Protocol was not meant to be an official climate pledge, yet it ended up being the first one. The goal of the treaty was to require countries to stop producing and consuming substances that would damage the ozone layer (e.g., chlorofluorocarbons).

This groundbreaking global treaty, eventually signed by every country in the world, was the first to address an environmental problem that was still mainly theoretical.

What was the positive effect of the climate pledge?

The Montreal Protocol has been a resounding success, eliminating nearly 99% of these ozone-depleting substances. Without the Montreal Protocol, the ozone layer would likely have been destroyed, leaving us susceptible to the sun’s ultraviolet rays. Without this intervention, the environment could have been destroyed.

As a result of the Montreal Protocol, the ozone layer has begun to recover, expected to return to pre-1980s levels by 2050.

What was the negative effect of the climate pledge?

Some have criticized the treaty for being too backed by industry influence. Yet, the main downside to this treaty was the expansion of production of HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons). HFCs are similar to CFCs but don’t hurt the ozone. It was later discovered that these HFCs were potent greenhouse gases.

Credit Wikipedia

1992: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was the first formal climate pledge explicitly addressing climate change. Ratified by 197 countries, including the United States, this convention formally established the annual Conference of the Parties (COP)--international discussions aimed at stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

What was the positive effect of the climate pledge?

A major positive effect of the UNFCCC was it started conversations around and regarding climate change at a global level. It established a decent baseline framework for global cooperation and set the foundation for subsequent international agreements and negotiations.

The UNFCCC also played a crucial role in raising awareness of the risks of climate change and encouraged action.

What was the negative effect of the climate pledge?

Many see the UNFCCC as a complete failure. Since the UNFCCC’s inception, greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have reached record levels. This is in complete contrast to the goals set forward by the UNFCCC. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 358 parts per million (ppm) in 1994 to 412 ppm in 2018.

Despite the urgency of the climate crisis, progress has been extremely slow, with many countries falling short of their commitments. In addition, the UNFCCC lacks a strong enforcement mechanism as countries’ commitments are largely voluntary. This makes it difficult to hold countries accountable for their pledges.

Credit Britannica

1997: Kyoto Protocol

In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted (but wasn’t entered into practice until 2005 due to a complex ratification process). 192 countries signed the treaty which set binding emission reduction targets for industrialized countries, economies in transition, and the EU.

These targets are estimated to reduce emissions to up to 5% lower than 1990 levels.

What was the positive effect of the climate pledge?

The Kyoto Protocol was the first legally binding treaty, requiring countries to act.

In addition, the Kyoto Protocol established a system to monitor countries’ progress.

What was the negative effect of the climate pledge?

The Kyoto Protocol has only made modest steps to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions. Some have speculated this is due to the actions of the United States. The treaty did not compel countries to take action. The United States signed the agreement in 1998 but never ratified it and later withdrew its signature.

2001: Kyoto Protocol - Marrakesh Accords

The Marrakesh Accords include a set of monitoring and compliance procedures to enforce the Kyoto Protocol’s rules. Among other things, the accords include rules for establishing a greenhouse gas emissions trading system and the creation of three funds to support efforts to adapt to climate change.

2005: Kyoto Protocol Enters Into Force

Credit The Baltic Review

2009: Copenhagen Accord

The Copenhagen Accord, part of COP15, was an agreement by countries to battle climate change further. The Accord recognized that the global temperature increase should be kept below 2 degrees Celsius. Developed countries agreed to implement country-wide emissions reduction targets, report their mitigation actions, and provide regular updates on climate change implementation.

In addition, financing of $30 billion and $100 billion were available for developing countries to support their mitigation and adaptation efforts.

What was the positive effect of the climate pledge?

The Copenhagen Accord was the first major recognition of the 2 degrees Celsius target. The Accord called on countries to submit emissions reduction targets or actions, which led to the first set of national pledges under the UNFCCC.

What was the negative effect of the climate pledge?

Again, the Copenhagen Accord was not legally binding. Furthermore, the Accord did not include specific emissions reduction targets or commitments, instead relying on voluntary pledges. Emissions reduction pledges submitted by countries were widely criticized as insufficient to meet the 2-degree target.

Financing commitments made by developed countries were seen as inefficient and lacked clear mechanisms for mobilization and distribution. There is no agreement on how much individual countries would contribute or benefit from any funds.

Credit The United Nations

2015: Paris Agreement

The Paris Agreement, passed at the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP21, is considered by most to be the most significant global climate agreement to date. The agreement requires all countries to set emissions-reduction pledges. The goal of the agreement was to prevent the global average temperature from rising 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. Countries were encouraged to pursue efforts to keep the global average temperature from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

After 2050, the goal is to reach net-zero emissions, meaning the amount of greenhouse gases emitted equals the amount removed from the atmosphere. This is known as carbon neutrality.

Each country’s plan is tailored to its unique economic, political, and social situation. In addition, the Paris Agreement includes an Enhanced Transparency Framework where countries can report their climate actions and progress.

What was the positive effect of the climate pledge?

Things are happening concerning climate change, but it’s unclear whether the Paris Agreement directly led to the reforms that reduced temperature predictions or if people who were already mobilizing against climate change would have taken the same actions regardless.

The Paris Agreement normalized the 1.5 Celsius limit, reinforcing the difference between 2 and 1.5 degrees on millions of people’s lives. In addition, the Paris Agreement sent decisive signals that shifts to clean energy were important and necessary.

What was the negative effect of the climate pledge?

Again, the main challenge associated with the Paris Agreement is the lack of enforceability. The Paris Agreement requires the monitoring and reporting of carbon emissions but lacks the measures to force a country to reduce emissions.

If a country that signs onto the Paris Agreement fails to meet its obligations, other countries could impose sanctions or diplomatic means, but major powers like the United States or China, who are responsible for the most emissions, are less susceptible to this form of pressure.

In addition, the combined efforts of the countries are still not enough to meet the 1.5-degree or even the 2-degree targets, leading to concerns about the agreement’s effectiveness. Compounding upon this, some have criticized the agreement for not addressing historical responsibilities–meaning not penalizing historical producers of CO2.

Furthermore, the agreement includes a provision that allows member parties to withdraw, leading to concerns about potential future withdrawals which would undermine the agreement’s effectiveness.

2016: Montreal Protocol - Kigali Amendment

In 2016, 197 countries signed the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. This amendment was a commitment to cut down on the production and consumption of HFCs by 80% in the following 30 years.

Credit The Climate Pledge

So, Do Climate Pledges Work?

It’s complicated.

Many of these climate pledges have been enacted in the last decade or two, meaning we haven’t had enough time to truly see the long-term effects.

What do we know?

Annual CO2 emissions have only increased over time.

Credit Our World In Data

Above is a graph of global emissions since 1987. As you can see, since climate pledges started being enacted in 1987, global emissions have only increased.

As it currently stands, historically 23 rich, developed countries can be considered responsible for half of these emissions, with 150 emerging countries responsible for the rest. So who should bear most of the burden of climate pledges? That’s for you to decide.

To break this down further, from 1987 until 2014, only 40 countries have reduced their CO2 emissions out of 201, meaning around 25% of countries have progressed significantly.

Here’s a graph, powered by Our World In Data, that shows where these countries are all located:

As you can see, these countries are mainly located in Europe. Notably missing are massive CO2-producing countries like China or the United States.

So, climate pledges have been working, but aren’t truly all successful, right?

Well, let’s take the most recent major climate pledge, the 2015 Paris Agreement. If you do the graph from 2015 onwards, 85 countries out of 214 have reduced emissions or become net neutral.

Again here’s another graph of where they are located:

There’s progress starting to be made in larger countries, which is great.

Breaking it down further, 59 new countries have become net zero or negative since 2015, which is fantastic progress.

Moving aside from CO2 emissions, let’s look at changes in average temperatures with a graph by the New York Times:

As you can see, over the last 40 or so years the temperature has been steadily increasing. We’re already close to our 1.5-degree threshold.

And, data only suggests we’re speeding up:

Credit The New York Times

So, since climate pledges have become official and their effects have potentially started to happen, we’re still increasing exponentially in temperature? Seems dismal.

But what does this mean in practicality?

Credit The New York Times

Here’s a graph of the major effects of a changing climate by 2040 per area. As you can see, almost every area is adversely affected.

So, are climate pledges the solution?

Below is a complicated chart by The New York Times. It details the effect of the Paris Agreement on temperature levels in the future. It is by far the most important chart you’ll see today.

Credit The New York Times

As you can see, the Paris Agreement, as it currently stands, is expected to significantly help curb global warming and climate change. Yet, this hasn’t always been the case.

Most, if not all, climate pledges have positives and negatives associated with them. So, to address our main question, are they worth it?

Climate Pledges - Please Continue to Pledge

Firstly, I’ll start by saying that any climate pledge is better than no climate pledge. Even if it’s you pledging to take public transportation one day a year instead of driving. That’s still better than nothing. This principle works on a global scale too–even if it’s all a façade, climate pledges are still better than nothing.

If anything, climate pledges start the conversation, and that’s sometimes the hardest part.

Yes, most pledges have been without enforcement measures and haven’t truly made a massive impact on the climate, but they have done something.

We’ve transitioned away from CFCs, we’ve begun to transition away from fossil fuels, and we have implemented ways to measure how everyone is doing.

That’s definitely better than nothing.

So, are climate pledges real or simply a façade?

It’s up to you to decide. Are there probably better measures to take to curb climate change? Yes, but also climate pledges are better than simply doing nothing, so sometimes we have to take what we can get.

To conclude, I’ll share this quote by William Ruto, the President of Kenya at COP27 in Egypt:

"In the face of impending catastrophe, whose warning signs are already unbearably disastrous, weak action is unwise. No action is dangerous."

Anywho, that’s all for today.

-Drew Jackson

If you enjoyed, please consider subscribing :)