Background of the Conference of the Parties (COP)
The Conference of the Parties (COP) is the decision-making body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a global treaty created on May 9, 1992 (effective since March 21, 1994), during the Clinton Administration. First signed in June 1992 at the United Nations Convention on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, now referred to as the Earth Summit, the UNFCCC is a manifestation of the UN’s environmental consciousness; it is a non-binding set of guidelines and agreements by which UN parties attempt to curb climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Since the Earth Summit, the COP has held annual meetings around the world to discuss implementation and adaptation of UNFCCC measures. While the research, ideas, commitments, and implementation are continual, there are several distinct agreements and protocols that have generally defined the past 25 years of the COP.
The 1992 Earth Summit saw 154 nations sign onto the UNFCCC, committing to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference with Earth’s climate system.” A prevalent paradigm established in Rio was the idea that developed parties should spearhead efforts for GHG reductions, given
- their ability to shoulder the larger economic burdens potentially brought on by such efforts, and
- their historically high GHG emission levels, which effectively lay on them the most blame for current warming.
This idea is encapsulated in the phrase “common but differentiated responsibilities,” which continues to dominate both planning and implementation measures within the COP.
Before the 1997 COP in Kyoto, Japan, the UNFCCC’s goal was to hold emissions to the levels of 1990 by the year 2000. By Kyoto, the parties had determined that this goal was not adequate. (This motif of decided inadequacy of ambition has recurred since the early 1990s and is being confronted even today.) Hence, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, and it differs from the original UNFCCC in two significant ways. First, the Protocol itself is officially based on scientific consensus that global warming is occurring, and that humans are most likely causing it. Second, the Protocol is binding by international law once signed and ratified by a party.
Kyoto was designed to have two commitment periods for parties: one from 2008-2012, the other from 2013-2020. (Parties have the option to opt out of commitment.) In 2012, the Doha Amendment established the second commitment period, giving 37 countries (including all EU member states) binding emissions targets. 122 parties have accepted the Doha Amendment, meaning that it lacks the 144 votes needed to take effect. The original Kyoto Protocol has 192 parties today, with two notable absences: Canada, which withdrew from the Protocol in 2012, and the US, which never ratified.
Kyoto was the long-reigning guideline for the gargantuan global effort to slow climate change. In 2011, the COP vowed to create a new protocol that would modernize ambitions and confront lackluster progress in emissions reductions under Kyoto. Not until 2015 was a new framework actually adopted. This was the Paris Agreement. Its chief aim is to limit the rise in global average temperature to less than 2° Celsius, with a goal of limiting it to 1.5° Celsius if possible. The other noteworthy facet of the Paris Agreement is the idea of “intended nationally determined contributions,” the provision that allows nations to put forth their most ambitious, achievable goals, taking into consideration their economic and cultural limitations and capabilities.
In 2016, President Elect Donald Trump vowed to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement, and on June 1, 2017, he officially announced the US’s intent to withdraw. This, in fact, can’t become a reality until 2020; under the Paris Agreement, any party that enters the agreement must remain in it for three years, and when it decides to leave the agreement, it must remain for one more year. Still, the US’s announcement backing out of Paris sparked tense dialogue and uncertainty around the world, most notably in the EU, which denounced the action.
At the end of 2018, the Paris Agreement is on the launch pad, facing the final countdown. The COP will once again have to confront the turmoil caused by the US’s withdrawal, as well as the stagnation in emissions reductions. Coming out of Paris, GHG-heavy industries were reeling; stock was down, and the talk of the town was the “greening” of infrastructure. Going into Katowice, however, the conversation is more complex. In Katowice, the COP must more deeply explore the existing tensions between the long-lingering prevalence of GHG-emitting infrastructure and the now dire necessity for reduction in emissions.