Despite the diplomatic success of 195 Member States (SS) which have agreed on a follow-up text and a legally binding text, the effectiveness of the Palestinian Authority continues to be thoroughly examined. Given the initial commitments, which were sorely lacking in ambition (United Nations Environment Programme 2019) – and the reduction of global emissions (Friedlingstein et al. 2019) – Many are skeptical about the feasibility of a pledge and review mechanism to ensure the emissions reductions needed to keep global temperatures well below the 2oC threshold (and the much more ambitious threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius) (Cramton et al 2017). Similar efficacy issues arise for other mechanisms detailed in the AP (Spash 2016, Pauw et al 2018, Schoenefeld et al 2018, Oh 2019). Therefore, the ongoing negotiations on the Paris rules and the subsequent operationalization of the many mechanisms that the Palestinian Authority intends to implement will be of the utmost importance in deciding whether the objectives of the Palestinian Authority can be achieved or not (Bodansky 2016). Indeed, research shows that the cost of climate activity far outweighs the cost of reducing carbon pollution. A recent study suggests that if the United States does not meet its climate targets in Paris, it could cost the economy up to $6 trillion in the coming decades. A lack of compliance with the NPNs currently foreseen in the agreement could reduce global GDP by more than 25% by the end of the century. Meanwhile, another study estimates that achieving – or even exceeding – the Paris targets by investing in infrastructure in clean energy and energy efficiency could have great benefits globally – about $19 trillion.
But it soon became clear that things would not go as planned. When countries reviewed the draft agreement, ministers began to raise their concerns. On Wednesday afternoon, the main delegations moved successively to Fabius` personal office: Edna Molewa of South Africa, Xie Zhenhua of China, John Kerry of the United States, Julie Bishop of Australia. The authors of the agreement have set a withdrawal period that President Trump must follow – which prevents him from irreparably harming our climate. InDCs become CNDs – nationally determined contributions – as soon as a country formally adheres to the agreement. There are no specific requirements as to how or how many countries should reduce emissions, but there were political expectations about the nature and rigour of the targets set by different countries. As a result, the scale and ambition of national plans vary widely, largely reflecting each country`s capacity, level of development and contribution to emissions over time.