Everyone who was at the final plenary session of the climate conference will be able to say, when asked by their grandchildren what they did to try to avert global warming, that they were in Paris when a historic deal was made, pointing the world in a new direction.
The atmosphere was electric and euphoric. Not since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 – nearly 20 years ago – had a UN climate summit ended on such a high note, with prolonged applause, cheering, standing ovations, hugs and even tears.
But this was a much greater cause for celebration than the Kyoto accord, which applied to just 38 countries. As French president François Hollande said, it is “a universal agreement, a binding agreement” that applies to all 195 of the world’s nations.
In the future, he told delegates, “when we are asked what was the meaning of our lives, what did we achieve, one thing that will come up time and again is that we will be able to say that we were in Paris on the December 12th 2015 for the climate agreement”.
It nearly didn't happen. Just as the aptly named Comité de Paris was convening for its final meeting, with the inestimable French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, in the chair, the US delegation noticed the word "shall", rather than "should", in the final draft.
Even as the document was being printed in all six official languages of the UN – Arabic, Chinese, French, English and Russian – the US insisted that the use of “shall” turned the agreement into a formal treaty, which would require ratification by the US senate.
Although France had tabled the draft on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, a huddle of ministers representing the different blocs ironed out this last-minute glitch and the session then started. The US got what it wanted: “shall” became “should”.
Clarion call
Nonetheless, the Paris agreement could still be hailed by UN climate chief Christiana Figueres as an “unequivocal clarion call to the world” to make the transition from high dependence on fossil fuels towards a clean-energy economy.
Figueres, who has been credited with “keeping the faith” following the collapse of the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, reminded Fabius that he needed to bang his leaf-shaped plastic gavel in order for the agreement to be adopted.
Looking slightly embarrassed about his faux pas, the suave French Socialist said: “It’s a small gavel, but I think it will do a great job.” He was then showered with compliments by every delegate for the exemplary role he had played in steering the negotiations.
But there were dissenters, such as Nicaragua, which objected to Fabius gavelling the agreement through without taking on board their reservations, mainly relating to the lack of specific emissions targets for developed countries.
Many of the delegations acknowledged that the deal was not perfect, although they also believed that it provided a solid foundation on which to build climate action in the years ahead. Everyone, without exception, hailed the outcome as historic.
Positive signal
US secretary of state John Kerry said it would “help us to transition to a clean energy economy”, while China’s Xie Zhenhua called it a “strong and positive signal that the world is going to achieve low-carbon development”.
The latter, who had earlier hugged US politician Al Gore, pledged that China “will undertake its responsibilities, to reach a peak [in emissions] as soon as possible”, and Kerry talked about all the clean energy business that would be “unleashed” by the deal.
India’s environment minister, Prakash Javadekar, felt the deal would boost solar energy in particular and quoted Mahatma Gandhi’s famous line: “The earth, the air, the land and the water are not an inheritance from our forefathers but on loan from our children.”
Marshall Islands president Christopher Loeak ceded speaking time to an 18-year-old, Selina Leem, who said that when she learned about climate change, she feared her little island would vanish. “This agreement should be a turning point for all of us,” she said.
