DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

2017-2022
POLITICAL SCIENCE

PROJECT TOPIC: PARIS AGREEMENT

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
Dr. MONIKA SRIVASTAVA PRAKHAR CHANDRA

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR Roll No. 170101097

SEMESTER- III

Page | 1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMET

I have taken efforts in this project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind

support and help of many individuals. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.

I am highly indebted to Dr. Monika Srivastava for her guidance and constant supervision as

well as for providing necessary information regarding the project and for her support in

completing the project.

I would like to thank the all library media specialists for their participation who supported my

work in this way and helped me get results of better quality. I am also grateful to the

members of my class for their patience and support in overcoming numerous obstacles I have

been facing through my research.

My thanks and appreciations go to my friends in developing the project and people who have

willingly helped me out with their abilities.

Page | 2
 CONTENTS

1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................3

2. Why Pexit (Paris exit), not Clexit (Climate exit)?..................................................5

3.1. Is UNFCCC eco-friendly?.................................................................5

3.1.1. Failed to delivered.............................................................................6

3.1.2. Geo-colonialism.................................................................................6

3.1.3. Global Capitalist World versus Green World....................................7

3. Why Paris Summit Different?......................................................................................8

4.1.1. Is it Pressure from the coal lobby and advisors?...............................9

4.1.2. Is Regulation of Paris agreement too harsh for America?...............10

4.1.3. Is India the reason of exit?...............................................................10

4. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................12

Page | 3
1. Introduction

“We shall need a sustainably new way of thinking if humanity is to survive” all-time genius
Albert Einstein said these lines in 1954. He was known to the casualness of human and
irresponsible countries. He gave warning as early as possible relating to the environment but
like his theories, it took people 20 years to understand his words on the environment.
According to humans, there are three basic essential element for living i.e. food, cloth, and
house. Nevertheless, these are according to their need and greed but even more important
than these are life. If there is no life, then there is no need of food, cloth, and house.
Moreover, life needs the environment and that where my issue evolves. The environment
needs us and they need our help as a rescue team to save them. Not that human have not
made any effort, they have made effort. However, this is a world of 198 countries with some
advanced and some primitive and they have their own need and demand. With so many
countries with their demands, it is difficult to build consensus and that is where always this
issue has struck. From first world climate conference in 1979 in Geneva to Paris summit in
2015, there was always some fruitful promises to pluck but all these agreement lacks
consensuses and implementation. Sometimes on taking responsibility, partiality, north and
south world conflicts, internal reason, provocation, in name of development and inter-state
conflicts, these agreements never reached their target. UNFCCC was the first major attempt
to bring the world together against climate change. Then, series of UNFCCC agreement and
protocol were held for the same objective and is continuing until today. The most recent one
was Paris summit or COP 21. Almost all countries made consensus on the certain agreement
and promised for its implementation on specified time.” The parties proposed a balanced
outcome to limit global warming below 2°C.” “After the conditions for ratification by at least
55 countries accounting for at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions were met, all EU
Countries ratified it and next summit was scheduled in Bonn.” All seems settled, planned and
perfect. More and more countries were ratifying including both developed and developing
countries. But the shock to the summit came in June 2017 when second largest emitter of
greenhouse gases ,like carbon dioxide, US under the trump’s presidency called off from the
summit. The capitalist country like the US was vital for the success of the summit because
US emission of carbon dioxide is two to three times greater than most developing countries
of the south world. US acceptance to the plan of Paris summit under the Obama presidency
was a motivating factor for other countries and also the hope for not only to the nations of
south and north world but most important to the climate. The saddest factor relating to the US

Page | 4
exit from Paris summit was trump’s agenda of “America first” which has led the “climate
last”. This is because, after the US exit, there was only condolence everywhere from
Germany to Canada and Canada to Japan, but no country promises for stiff action or urgent
meeting or revamping of Paris summit to increase the burden that has been left unresolved by
the US. All leaders were doing what they do at their local politics; the only difference was
this was the global stage. However, most of the scholars argue that the US cannot exit from
summit for 3 years according to an agreement and create the positive surrounding against the
issue and seems like all things are sorted. Although it is fine, it cannot exit, but what about its
obligations towards the summit, its promises to the climate and its funding to control his
emission; it has neglected to do any of these. This is not an as sorted issue as it is been argued
by various scholars. It needs attention as it also has a demotivating factor to rest of the
countries especially third world countries that are doing their best for the climate. This paper
tries to discuss the reason behind trump’s decision, impact on India, its history and deeply
examine the issue.

2. Why Pexit (Paris exit), not Clexit (Climate exit)?

Paris summit was the continuation of UNFCCC. UNFCCC was the first major summit, which
raises the question of climate change and urges for support from various nations for the same.
It was adopted on 9 May 1992 and came into force on 21 March 1994, after ratification by
the sufficient number of nations. The UNFCCC objective is to "stabilize greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system". And after this various COP summit and protocol was
signed and organized keeping in view the objective of UNFCCC is fulfilled or modified if
necessary or meeting the changing circumstances. So, one of these summits was Paris
summit, organized as UNFCCC as its child brain. The US exited this summit to fulfil the
promise made by Donald Trump during his election campaign and exemplify his slogan of
“America First”. “Abandoning the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) would allow the US to back out of the international climate effort within
a year, far sooner than the four-year period that would be required to ditch the Paris accord.”
This is a setback to all those activist and leaders who have worked their most life in
preserving the environment. Most scholars believe if Mr. Trump has decided to go alone and
has restricted himself with America, first then it should have exited from whole climate
convention i.e. United Framework Convention for Climate Change rather than exiting Paris

Page | 5
summit. As this would be both less time consuming and clear the stand of US regarding the
soft issue like climate change.

2.1. Is UNFCCC eco-friendly?

UNFCCC is considered the first step by world leaders to identify climate change as a global
issue and provided the target sought to be achieved. Although UNFCCC held in 1992,
provided a platform for deliberation and consensus from developed to developing nations to
express their grievances and problem it faces to meet the target proposed in agreement.
However, it is not as organized and impartial that it seems. Various activists regarding the
summit identify various flaws. The summit lacks strictness and seriousness because of which
most of the countries have taken the summit in casualness and as a joke. Some countries have
taken a summit as a mean for geo-political influence. The question about its authenticity and
it been really eco-friendly has been raised because of the following reasons –

2.1.1. Failed to delivered

“The major flaw of the summit is that it has failed to deliver any eternal or everlasting
agreement. It has also lacked long-sighted effort and target. This is based on the scientific
view that a global cut of up to 60 per cent on a 1990 baseline is required to prevent major
climatic change by 2050 and if room is to be left for development, it would mean that the
developed world would have to cut emissions by at least 80 per cent.” “For example, from
1999 to 2006 the evolution of greenhouse gas emissions within the EU-28 remained
relatively unchanged, although it started falling at a modest pace through to 2008 and that
was also not of any effort of government but was a consequence of the global financial and
economic crisis and the resulting reduced industrial activity.” “This shows the lack of
seriousness by countries. Another is Kyoto protocol; it was a beautifully written, watertight,
fully legally binding international treaty, a sub-treaty of the similarly binding UNFCCC.”
“But it never met its objectives, because it wasn’t ratified by the US and not by Russia until it
was too late and none of the countries that failed to meet their commitments under Kyoto
have been sanctioned.”

Page | 6
 2.1.2. Geo-colonialism

Geopolitics of the 21st Century is another reason for unsuccessful of various protocols and
summits of UNFCCC. Increasing competition for resources (land, food, and fuel) and race
over the available carbon space are some reason for geopolitics. The idea of a joint
management of global commons has been replaced by a more realistic view of national self-
interest. Socializing great powers into international regimes is challenging. The ‘ossification’
of climate negotiations represents part of a larger disagreement on how to shape key
understandings of a new international order. The nation-state continues to matter. All nations
matter, but great powers may matter a bit more. The attempts at ‘universality’ built into the
structure of the [UNFCCC] negotiation from the start were always unrealistic and
undoubtedly contributed to the much-remarked confusedness and inefficiency of the
negotiation process itself. The world still is characterized by a North-South, East-West divide
because of the globalized world, characterized by an increase of powers and variety of
influences, which has drifted the countries attention to trade and commerce. Most countries
especially developed countries blame the high cost of action, but there are higher costs of
inaction, which developed nations should realize. Developed countries (incl. the U.S.) cannot
solve the problem of climate change (even if they reduce emissions to zero); we need
consensus and parity of nations for transferring the same climate that we borrowed from our
ancestors to our future generation. The barriers separating interests of the North and the
South is becoming increasingly more porous. Non-state actors have gained influence. They
also have become among the largest polluters. Their mobility and international trade have
added concerns about competitiveness and economic displacement. Regime level
negotiations bound should go hand in hand with a broader policy dialog among the old and
new powers. Considering the global nature of the problem, climate change demands a global
solution. The expectation and role of the UNFCCC may have to be reconsidered.

2.1.3. Global Capitalist World versus Green World

The end of cold war made the hegemony of capitalist world under US clear. US was
motivated enough to spread its influence not politically but through globalizing. After the end
of USSR, US have spread capitalism popular in the world, almost all countries were made to
open their economy and establish capitalism. Capitalism includes industrial activity at its
core, which has led to the emission of greenhouse at unreasonable rate. Capitalism at such

Page | 7
rate has affected the climate severely. Recently, the exit of US from Paris summit is said to
be because of pressure from the coal lobby and industrialist. Now it is the most crucial stage
for humans as well as environment, humans now has to decide whether they have to choose
the short-span pleasure or want to live long span of pleasure by protecting environment and
choosing green world over capitalist world.

3. Why Paris Summit Different?

“The new approach in Paris summit has broadly expanded the scope of the climate
negotiations. The agreement in Paris is set to include more than 180 countries, and cover at
least 90% of global CO2 emissions.” “By comparison, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol covered less

than 15% of global emissions.” “Today, the global economy is recovering, climate scientists
have dismissed the last doubts about the causes of climate change, and the business
community has entered the fight on the side of the environment.” In 2009, green business
leaders could be counted on the fingers of one hand, which are on side of environment.
“Today, their ranks have grown into an army.” “In November, for example, Goldman
Sachs announced that it would invest $150 billion in green energy by 2025.” “The biggest
emitters have committed to cut the emission e.g. The EU will cut its emissions by 40%,
compared with 1990 levels, by 2030, the US will cut its emissions by 26% to 28%, compared
with 2005 levels, by 2025 and China will agree that its emissions will peak by 2030.”
“Nations responsible for more than 90% of global emissions have now come up with their
targets – known in the UN jargon as Indended Nationally Determined Contributions or
INDCs, these include all of the major developed and developing countries, though their
contributions vary: in the case of developed countries, actual cuts in emissions, but for
developing countries a range of targets including limits on emissions compared to “business
as usual”, and pledges to increase low-carbon energy or preserve forests.”

“Analysis of the INDCS, endorsed by the UN, has suggested that these pledges are enough to
hold the world to about 2.7C or 3C of warming, also to institute a system of review of the
emissions targets every five years and lastly, this approach is to make more effort to bring
down emissions outside the UN process, for instance by engaging “non-state actors” such as
cities, local governments and businesses to do more.”

3.1. . Trump Pulls Out:

Page | 8
Multiple reasons were provided by the trump administration during his speech to exit
from Paris summit. “The first relates to the US economy, which is evident in Trump’s
statement that “the agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries
gaining a financial advantage over the United States and it had disadvantaged the US to
the exclusive benefit of other countries leaving American businesses and taxpayers to
absorb the cost.” Trump believes that “the concept of global warming was created by
and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” Announcing
the decision to withdraw from the Agreement, Trump complained about the unequal
treatment meted out to the US in the pact. “He said: “China will be allowed to build
hundreds of additional coal plants. Therefore, we cannot build the plants, but they can,
according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by
2020. We’re supposed to get rid of ours.”

3.1.1. Is it Pressure from the coal lobby and advisors?

“Like Trump, many in the White House believe that the Paris Agreement is “a bad deal for
the US” and further that climate science itself is “a deliberate misinformation.” “They also
believe that the Paris deal is one-sided and that “the U.S. is shouldering the burden of billions
of dollars whereas countries like China, India, and Russia will contribute nothing.” “In April
2017, when he visited Harvey Mine in Pennsylvania, a part of Bailey Mine Complex, the US’
largest underground mine, Scott Pruitt talked about the “Back to Basics” agenda of the
Trump administration against Obama’s “Clean Power Plan.” “Rolling back of regulations on
carbon emissions from power plants, and amending the Office of Surface Mining’s Stream
Protection Rule, which protects waterways from coal mining waste, are some of the
environmentally destructive measures that the Trump Administration has taken in this regard
and by pulling out from the Paris Agreement, Trump aims to unravel Obama’s signature
multilateral policies.”

3.1.2. Is Regulation of Paris agreement too harsh for America?

“According to the Heritage Foundation, implementing the Paris agreement would result in
“increased U.S. electricity expenditures of 15-20 percent over the next decade, 400,000 fewer
American jobs, a total income loss of over $30,000 for an American family of four, and a loss
of over $2.5 trillion in U.S. gross domestic product.” At Paris, the Obama government had

Page | 9
not only promised a 28 percent cut in US greenhouse emissions by 2025 but also pledged
USD three billion to the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which aims to help developing countries
deal with global warming. “In his ‘America first' budget blueprint in March 2017, Trump
proposed a 20 percent cut in US funding to the UN climate body, the Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC).”

3.1.3. Is India the reason of exit?

If one could have seen or heard the 27 minutes trump’s speech announcing US exit from the
summit, one could clearly understand his targeted countries. These countries are none other
than India and china. However, India shares firm relationship with US politically,
economically, sociologically but not ecologically. The unsaid message was: India is the
largest polluter in the world, India is doing nothing under the obligations of Paris summit and
India is gaining extra monetary fund while doing least work. “The statement made by trump
fears India of its long ambition of renewable energy US exit threaten India’s this vision
because energy prices will matter for any long-term contracts. This exit threaten GAIL
contract to purchase 5.8 million metric tonnes per annum (MMTPA) of liquefied natural gas
(LNG) from two U.S. terminals.” “If US stand still remains firm on climate then India have
to deviate its “train of needs of LNG” from US to west Asia or Africa, which is much costlier
to contract. Equally, India signalled its continued ambitions on nuclear energy by sanctioning
ten indigenous reactors (a total of 7000 MW).” “If India’s high economic growth rates have
to be maintained within a shrinking carbon space, energy efficiency will matter in the
industrial, transport and buildings sectors.” “Currently, only large industrial units are covered
under countrywide energy efficiency schemes but micro, small and medium enterprises
(numbering over 3 million and located in 200 industrial clusters) have a non-trivial share of
industrial energy use (about 14%-15%).” “Growing transportation demand will mean an
expanding market for batteries for electric vehicles, fuel cells and third-generation bio-fuels.”
“The uncertainty in U.S. federal policies towards renewable energy has made India’s
renewable energy market relatively even more attractive, not just for its size (175 GW by
2022) but for the investment opportunity that credible, long-term policies offer.” “India saw
nearly $10 billion invested, both in 2015 and in 2016, in renewable energy projects with $1.9
billion of green bonds issued.” “India’s solar targets, alone, need $100 billion of debt. These
are huge investment opportunities for U.S.-based firms, as well as manufacturers.”

Page | 10
“The international solar alliance seeks to mobilize more than a trillion dollars by 2030 and
bring together well over 100 solar-rich countries to deliver solar energy to some of the
planet’s poorest.” “Rather than harp on President Trump's beliefs about Climate Change, we
should point out that the 'stock and not flow of Carbon-dioxide (CO2)' is the basic cause of
CC, to highlight ineqitability of what the US has done.”

“Reaffirming India's commitment to the environment and Climate Change is the right thing to
do and this has already been done at the highest political level.” “Leadership in the climate
context in the foreseeable future must be taken by those countries that have the highest level
of historical responsibilities like India should play its own lead role, say in solar and other
non-fossil energy generation and various adaptation actions, but without being stampeded
into a role mandating an equality between it and non-US developed countries just because of
the US withdrawal.” “The Indian ethos, vision and commitment in regards to Climate Change
have been clearly enunciated in its NDC and the Declaration and therefore it would be best to
stick to these and ignore post-Trump announcement pulls and pushes, whether international
or domestic.”

4. Conclusion

Now that US has made its stand clear regarding the Paris summit by putting its slogan of
America First over all issues, the need of hour demands the integrated efforts from rest of the
nation. The north world has to collaborate with the south world to build a consensus on some
points essential for protection of climate. The Paris summit that was earlier signed by all
nation needs to be revamp and urgent meeting or new Paris summit should be made as earlier
as possible before it is too late. The developed nation has to take charge of monitoring the
efficient working of summit. In addition, the nations as china, which topped the chart of
country emitting most carbon dioxide, needs to take extra burden for the same. The
environmentalist and recent events like high rate of melting of glacier or hole in South Pole
are enough warning of climate. The most renowned theoretical physicist with the brightest
scientific minds, Stephen Hawking Hawking set his mind to understanding the Universe.
After decades of investigating everything from black holes to the Big Bang, he recently
turned his attention to something more Earthly in nature: climate change. Last year, Hawking
warned -in order for humanity to save itself from the threats of climate change, we need to
colonize Mars within 100 years. After the shocking US exit from Paris, Hawking told BBC

Page | 11
News “Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a
temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid.”

“By denying the evidence for climate change, and pulling out of the Paris Climate
Agreement, Donald Trump will cause avoidable environmental damage to our beautiful
planet, endangering the natural world, for us and our children,” he said. Previously the world
leaders ignored the warning of Albert Einstein, which led to imbalanced environment
structure. Now, the hawking has warned to colonize the mars to extend human livings. The
world leaders need to realized the rising threat of climate change and find the

Page | 12