ANKARA
Despite its importance, the impact of the Paris Agreement, which is seen by many as the "last exit" before climate change catastrophe, remains in question, especially at a time when the U.S. is withdrawing from the non-binding pact.
Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reached an agreement to fight climate change and achieve a sustainable low-carbon future at COP21 in Paris on Dec. 12, 2015.
The Paris Agreement, defined as "a bridge between today's policies and climate-neutrality before the end of the 21st century", seeks to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping global temperatures from rising above 2C degrees of pre-industrial levels over the next century and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5C degrees if possible.
"Even if all parties fulfill their carbon emission commitments, the global temperature rise this century will be between 2.7C and 3C, which means the Paris Agreement already contradicts its content," Levent Kurnaz, a professor at the Center for Climate Change and Policy Studies of Istanbul-based Bogazici University, told Anadolu Agency.
Noting that the Paris Agreement is problematic in terms of some of its targets and operability, Kurnaz said it would not be adequately functional.
US withdrawal
Underlining that a past decision by the U.S. to withdraw from the agreement would not have an overly significant negative impact, Kurnaz said there were three reasons for this.
"First, it is difficult to pull out of the deal, but easy to get enter. The U.S. withdrawal process will take about a year and during this time the president's mind can be changed," he said.
Second, Kurnaz said that despite the president's policy, states, cities, businessmen were building a new lifestyle compatible with the Paris deal, as many are convinced that it is the future.
"Energy companies in Texas, one of the states that Trump received the most support, decided to shut down thermal power plants and shift to solar and wind power because coal-fired power plants are not profitable, their alternatives make more money," he added.
Kurnaz cited a third reason, being that the U.S. move did not affect "major players" such as EU countries, China and Japan. Trump's decision would only affect some mid-size nations whose estimated total carbon emissions probably reached about 10% out of the global total.
Future of agreement
In terms of countries' emission targets, he said at least several times more serious measures would need to be taken in order to reach a "healthy" agreement.
"If keeping the global temperature increase at 1.5C degrees is the basis [of the deal], the EU should've committed a 60-70% and the U.S. a 70-80% decrease in CO2 or total greenhouse gases emissions to be implemented by 2030," he said, thus concluding that the future of the agreement would be "hopeless".
Criticizing arguments that fighting climate change and setting carbon emission targets are financially unrealistic, Kurnaz said: "If a cancer patient finds medicine that provides the exact treatment, but would have to spend all their wealth, what would the person do? If the patient says the medicine is too expensive, they will die. Climate change is like this, we either do whatever is necessary, or we die."
Stressing the importance of lowering consumption as well as carbon emissions in the fight against climate change, he argued that people must completely change the way they live.
"Production models and lifestyles should change. This is not merely a matter of eliminating fossil fuels from energy production and using wind energy," he added.
Need for climate justice
Though the Paris accord does not have binding provisions, it sets critical goals. However, it excludes the goal of "climate justice", which should be an important addition to the agreement, Baran Bozoglu, head of Turkey's Chamber of Environmental Engineers, told Anadolu Agency.
"The conditions of climate justice need to be determined more clearly. Solutions to the injustice that underdeveloped, developing and island countries face should have been included in the deal, but it is not too late," he said.
Bozoglu, who also heads the Ankara-based Climate Change Policy and Research Association, underscored that these countries would suffer the most if commitments to the unbinding provisions are not met.
"The U.S., like other countries, should have done the necessary work within the Paris Agreement. Besides, U.S. development policies are one of the biggest causes of problems related to climate change that people face," he said, as they facilitate increasing carbon emissions in developing countries.
Citing the "key goals" of the deal, Bozoglu added that mobilizing $100 billion annually to the Green Climate Fund by 2020 would also be key not only in fighting climate change, but also in clean, sustainable development.
Worst case scenario
Referring to possible worst case scenarios, Bozoglu said that is progress was not made against climate change, people risk facing social and economic catastrophe.
"We do not have much time left. Failure to implement the Paris Agreement will undoubtedly lead to the destruction of island countries and start a major migration wave to developed countries," he said.
He added that extreme events such as hurricanes and droughts would increase in frequency.
"Biodiversity may fall and agricultural production may decline. Marine ecosystems may also suffer a decrease in marine organisms due to acidification. Therefore, both economies, cultures and all living spaces will be hit," he asserted.
It is not that humanity is at risk of experiencing climate change, it is already in the midst of it, Bozoglu said.
