THE UN climate negotiations may have run over and everyone might have been exhausted but when the president finally brought down his gavel on Saturday evening, clapping and cheering erupted in the sprawling venue that has been my work-place for the past two weeks.
In my own team, there were hugs and even some tears.
Sure, we did not achieve all that we had wanted from the Paris agreement for people and nature most threatened by climate change. But I finally knew that we could all now return home with what we need to enable us to press our respective national governments on delivering on the promises they did make, as well as strengthening the national actions triggered by the deal.
As with anything requiring the approval of almost 200 countries, there was some behind-the-scenes drama toward the end, all to do with the use of the word “shall” instead of “should” in one sentence of one article within the 32-page document. Half an hour later, and probably after some telephone calls between the capitals of several nations, the word was eventually changed.
This was then followed by further delays caused by errors resulting from translating the text into multiple languages, and then back again.
However, eventually French foreign minister Laurent Fabius, who was chairing the talks, moved to adopt the agreement. Seeing no objections from any countries, the deal was then passed.
As a result, we now have an agreement that includes a target that commits governments to keeping global temperature rises “well below” 2C and further commits them to strive to curb increases to 1.5C.
It also includes a five-year review system to allow for increased ambition on cutting carbon emissions, differentiation between nations as to their responsibilities for action, and finance for poor countries to help them deal with rising temperatures.
In addition to the agreement itself, it should be remembered that the Paris moment also created several firsts, including the securing of pledges from more than 180 nations to limit their climate-change emissions, plus the announcement of transformative plans to massively scale up renewables across India, African nations, and many other countries.
To me it is clear from the agreement that the transition to a fully renewable future is unstoppable, with the fossil fuel industry living on borrowed time. If governments are to stay true to keeping global temperature rises well below 2C, then greater amounts of fossil fuels will now need to remain in the ground and unburned.
And now that the talks are over, it’s time for the real action to step up a gear.
Hundreds of thousands mobilised across the world on the opening weekend of the talks, including more than 5,000 in Edinburgh, to show they want our leaders at home and internationally to take meaningful action on climate change. The ambition shown by people, communities and businesses working towards positive solutions is already massive, and now governments must match that and harness the environmental, social and economic benefits of tackling climate change.
During the course of the talks, it was great to see the First Minister in Paris sharing Scotland’s ambitious climate story internationally. We can rightly be proud of Scotland’s climate legislation on the world stage but its true value lies in turning our ambitions into actions to create a thriving, low-carbon, socially just Scotland.
This week’s draft budget will be an acid test of the Scottish Government’s commitment to climate action. A clear, long-term funding plan for boosting the energy efficiency of our homes and tackling fuel poverty would send a strong signal about Scotland’s intent to meet future targets.
Indeed, all political parties should be responding to the global challenge that has been laid down in Paris by setting out manifesto pledges that will ensure we meet our climate act targets and fully grasp the benefits of Scotland’s climate change ambition.
Lang is the director of WWF Scotland and was part of the Stop Climate Chaos Scotland delegation to the UNFCCC.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here