Why you shouldn't expect much from Paris climate change negotiations

Unlike previous climate change negotiations, it seems, at least from social media, that there is more awareness about the upcoming 21st Conference of Parties (COP-21) summit beginning on 30th November in Paris. Climate change is the buzzword, and everyone is linking the eventual death of planet Earth as we know it with every other problem that surrounds the human race. Specifically, Prince Charles linked the civil war in Syria to climate change which, although just vaguely related, is not completely untrue.

Keeping aside the rhetoric, however, there is substantial truth in the fact that the deteriorating climate will create imbalance in the world: floods in some parts, drought in others; high temperatures here, sub-zero freezing conditions there. Such extreme conditions are undoubtedly going to make life hard, especially for the poverty stricken. It is thus fair to pin all hopes on the fact that luminaries gathering in Paris this year - leaders of different countries, their councils of experts, and scientists – will be able to cohesively negotiate a deal that would seem as if it was drafted by none other than Captain Planet himself.

The new feature of COP-21 is the submission of the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). After an honest assessment of the state of its infrastructure, its need to provide cheap energy to ensure access even to the poorest citizens, and its transformational possibilities in the following years in terms of efficiency, every country will bring to the table what it can contribute to mitigate climate change. Logically, and assuming that it makes an honest report of the possibilities, its contributions will therefore be constrained up to a level that does not sacrifice growth. Consequently, it is hardly a surprise that most of the industrialized nations barely acknowledge the idea of justice: given that they have been the largest contributors of carbon-dioxide emissions in the past, they should rightfully bear most of the responsibilities of cleaning the atmosphere up. In that sense, India's INDCs rightly concentrate on the need for differentiated responsibilities keeping in mind different countries’ respective capabilities and national circumstances.

Climate change negotiations is a case-study in the tragedy of the commons. The Earth's ecosphere, including its atmosphere, the oceans, and all the plants and animals that live on it, is a classic example of a public good which everybody uses but nobody pays for. It is similar to a fishing region over which no fisherman has rights, and all use to earn their livelihood. In a competitive set-up, when there isn't enough fish for everyone, every fisherman will inadvertently harvest as much as he possibly can, fearing that others will do the same and none will be left for him. As a result of everyone pursuing their greedy agendas of harvesting as much as they can, the common resource gets over exploited.

Building further on this example, let's say that the fishermen are intelligent, and realize that this trend of over exploitation cannot go on in the larger interest of everyone's survival. Just as the human race cannot find another planet to inhabit, the fishermen don’t have another pond to fish. So, they hold discussions to reach a mutual agreement to make the fishing region last as long as possible, and perhaps even start re-cultivating it. Who takes the responsibility? A middle ground is easier to find if, say, there are only 3-4 fishermen. What happens of the negotiations when there are over 190, just like this year's COP21 summit?

A historical analysis of climate change negotiations provides an answer. The UNFCC was formed in 1992. A quarter century later, in 2015, we are still determining what is the most each of us can do to stop climate change. The negotiations on climate change have fallen flat multiple times. The Kyoto Protocol was beautifully thought of but didn't work because the US didn't sign it in 1997. When Russia stepped in later in 2004, it was too late. The treaty still stands, but none of the countries which failed to meet their commitments were penalized. In 2007, in the Bali agreement, negotiations resumed to set the world on a new path post-Kyoto. In the Copenhagen conference in 2009, for the first time, all the countries managed to agree to limit their greenhouse gas emissions. A legally binding treaty, however, is still not signed. And now, here we are in Paris in 2015.

It seems very likely that we will be faced with effects of climate change much before we can manage to sign a legally binding treaty to curb emissions. And it is plain sad that it will be a monumental achievement if COP-21 manages that, because in the larger picture, we would barely be scraping the surface. Our battle against climate change is beginning to seem like a David vs. (self-created) Goliath match, and our efforts might be too little too late.