A decade has passed since the countries of the world signed the Paris Agreement. Political scientist Fariborz Zelli sums up the surprises - both positive and negative - in climate policy over the past ten years and also looks ahead.
What has been the biggest success of the Paris Agreement so far?
I would say the biggest success is that the UN has succeeded in keeping its central role in global climate governance. In addition, over 140 countries have already translated the Paris Agreement's goals into national strategies in order to become climate-neutral around 2050. It's also important that a new fund - the Loss and Damage Fund - has been set up to support the most vulnerable countries. The struggle to establish this financing mechanism took many years.
Ten years later, what is regarded as the biggest setback for the Paris Agreement?
It's a major setback, of course, that global warming continues to increase and that financing, especially via national contributions to the Green Climate Fund (GFC), is far below what was promised. There is also a risk of such a setback for the Loss and Damage Fund.
Global climate status - is there something in today's situation that would have surprised you if you had known about it in 2015?
There are several things. The fact that in 2024 we had already exceeded, at least temporarily, 1.5 degrees of global warming increase would probably have negatively surprised many people ten years ago. However, the long-term forecast for 2100 has improved somewhat - the projected global warming will be around one degree lower than we feared in 2015.
I would have also been surprised about how fast things are happening now. Nature is sending clear signals: parts of the Amazonas have stopped acting as carbon sinks, the oceans absorb less carbon dioxide than projected, and extreme weather events have become increasingly common.
Another aspect that would definitely have surprised me then is how the ideal of a "green" economy has at times turned into new forms of exploitations. This goes, for example, for so-called green extractivism in which minerals such as lithium and copper are mined in socially unfair and ecologically unsustainable ways.
Also, a lot of people in 2015 would have been surprised about the fact that, ten years later, we are still heavily subsidising fossil fuel around the world and are in various countries again planning to increase nuclear power in the energy mix. I regard it a major shortcoming that we have not managed to better explain the downsides and risks of such energy forms and that we have not been able to expand renewable energies even faster. Above all, I wish that the energy debate had not become so strongly ideologised.
Have there been any unexpected countries taking a lead?
It has been clear for some years that China would be the driving force in the transition to renewable energy.
Still, what surprises me are the scope and speed of China's transition, as well as the strong role that the country's energy policy has come to play in its foreign trade policy. It has been quite symbolic for this development that, two months ago, Xi Jinping personally announced new national goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (a 7-10 per cent reduction by 2035).
Which countries have been best at living up to the Paris Agreement?
Among the front-runners are often smaller countries, such as Costa Rica, which received the UN's "Champions of the Earth" award for its climate policy and plan to be climate neutral by 2050. Moreover, Japan and parts of the EU have had relatively ambitious plans.
As I mentioned earlier, China has arguably turned into the most crucial actor: the country is the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter but is also world-leading in investing in renewable energy. China's domestic emissions have started to level and may peak in good time before 2030.
The EU has launched its Fit for 55 package and is working on new goals for 2035, but the Union's climate efforts are also marked by internal tensions and considerable differences between member countries.
Sweden, long regarded as a role model, is now being criticised for its overall insufficient climate policy. The Swedish Climate Policy Council has cautioned that the country is off track for achieving its goals for 2030 or 2045, and that there is a risk that emissions will further rise in the short term.
And which countries have stood out for their poor response?
At the other end of the spectrum are Russia and Saudi Arabia, which on repeated occasions have blocked important decisions in UN climate negotiations.
The USA under different governments has fluctuated considerably - from Biden's major climate package to new cutbacks and increased oil investments under Trump. However, as already under the first Trump administration, the unfortunate trend at the federal level is somewhat balanced out at the state level, since several crucial US states continue to implement their own ambitious climate and energy policies.
Australia and Brazil have also been criticised for their weak commitment and higher emissions, including from deforestation.
What technical advances have there been since 2015? Has development been faster or slower than you imagined?
The potential of renewable energies has developed faster than anyone anticipated. A completely fossil-free electricity provision is now both technically and economically viable before 2050. However the pace of technical development has been slower for expanding storage, including battery technology, and expanding the power grid, and for transitions in heavy industry altogether. Moreover, we are investing far too little in using energy more efficiently. In addition, the increase in global subsidies for fossil fuels has been considerably slowing down any phase-out attempts.
Nuclear power has had an upswing, but it's expensive, slow and creates new dependencies - for some countries even dependency on Russian actors and deliveries. However, the debate on large-scale climate manipulation - so-called geoengineering - has simmered down a bit. More and more country governments now acknowledge that this would be a very dangerous way to go.
If we look ahead, what do you think the situation will be ten years from now?
Looking ten years into the future, it's difficult to be optimistic. The climate continues to change, and there is a big risk that around 2030 we will permanently exceed the Paris Agreement's goal of keeping global warming under 1.5 degrees.
Politically, the world is more polarised, and once again issues concerning security, defence and trade are getting greater attention than climate issues. However, there is a noticeable and growing commitment among cities, companies and citizens who want to contribute to change.
Since the Paris Agreement and introduction of the Global Sustainable Development Goals, it has become increasingly fashionable in international environment politics to agree on ambitious joint goals, while not presenting a clear common plan for how these shall be achieved.
Global environmental politics should, however, not just be matter of shiny new goals but about getting things done, based on a deeper sense of responsibility - towards each other, future generations and nature.
