1 Dutta

Arshiya Dutta
Ms. Russell
AP NSL The Paris Agreement: A Bad Deal for the Developing World
5/30/17

Introduction

In response to raising concerns regarding climate change across the globe, countries in

the United Nations have decided to adopt the Paris Agreement. This agreement calls for all

countries who sign it to work individually to limit the rise of the global temperature to “well

below 2 degrees Celsius” (“Paris Agreement”). The purpose of the Paris Agreement is to ensure

that all countries who sign it make general progress towards reducing emissions, as specific

carbon restrictions for each country are not outlined. However, this agreement is not legally

binding, and therefore there are no legal punitive measures for countries who do not make

progress in reducing their emissions. Instead of legal repercussions, countries of the U.N. will

use the “name and shame” technique, or social pressure, in order to coerce countries to make

climate change efforts (Martini). One major criticism of the agreement is that because it is not

legally binding, the agreement is toothless. However, this agreement must remain non-binding

because it creates unreasonable standards for many third-world countries whose economies are

dependent on industry and carbon emissions. The Paris Agreement cannot be legally binding

because it prohibits developing countries to grow like developed countries economically, and if it

was binding, it would be unsuccessful.

Ecology and Economy: Developed vs. Developing Countries

 2 Dutta

One reason why the Paris Agreement cannot be legally binding is because it holds

developing countries to unrealistic standards of carbon emission restriction that developed

countries did not have to abide to while they were developing.

Firstly, the Paris Agreement does not allow developing countries to experience the same

Industrial Revolutions that developed countries benefit from. The Industrial Revolution in the

west, which was from 1760-1840, marked the transition of production of goods from hand made

to factory made, and it resulted in new realm of technological and economic advancement. One

of the main pillars of the Industrial Revolution was the heavy usage of coal, as it was

inexpensive and very accessible. Coal was used abundantly to power factories, steam engines,

and even homes. European towns in the 1800’s “began to be lit by coal powered gas lamps, and

fifty-two towns had networks of these by 1823...wood became more expensive and less practical

than coal...canals, and after this railways, made it cheaper to move greater amounts of coal,

opening up wider markets” (Wilde). The heavy usage of coal allowed Americans and Europeans

to thrive technologically and economically, and they were praised for their success (Bullard).

However, what is less known is that the Industrial Revolution in the west caused the first

traces of global warming. As a result of the large amounts of coal being burned in factories,

smog accumulated in the atmosphere. In the winter of 1952, people in London burned an

excessive amount of coal for heat in their homes and over 4,000 people died from the smog

(Bullard). This event is scientifically considered a major catalyst of man-made climate change,

but it is downplayed as a necessary side effect of the Industrial Revolution (“The Great Smog of

1952”). To this day, the United States and UK are considered to be one of the most developed

nations in the world because of the advancements made during their Industrial Revolutions,

which involved heavy air pollution (Wilde). The hypocrisy of the current situation is clear; the
 3 Dutta

increase in carbon emissions was seen as inevitable in order for economic growth in the west, but

developing countries are now being prohibited to emit anywhere near that amount.

Restricting the carbon emissions of developing countries singlehandedly denies their

right to a fraction of the Industrial Revolution that developed countries experienced without any

climate change concerns. In order for third world countries to come close to the quality of life in

the United States, countries like China and India will “have to grow at about 4.5 percent each

year from 2012 to 2030...incomes and energy use in the poorest countries need to increase by

orders of magnitude” (Kenny). Developing countries should be free to use fossil fuels to reach

the quality of life of the developed world, and therefore the Paris Agreement cannot be legally

binding.

Not only can the Paris Agreement prohibit third world countries to grow like first world

countries, but it can actively damage the weak economies of developing countries. This is

because the economies of many developing countries, such as India and China are sustained by

small scale industry that depend on cheap fuel. The correlation between CO2 and economic

development is direct; according to a report done by the World Bank, “In East Asia and the

Pacific, people living in extreme poverty declined from 1.1 billion to 161 million between 1981

and 2011—an 85% decrease...the amount of carbon dioxide per capita rose from 2.1 tons per

capita to 5.9 tons per capita—a 185% increase”. In that same study, it was found that “In Sub-

Saharan Africa, the number of people living in poverty increased by 98% in this thirty-year span,

while carbon dioxide per capita decreased by 17%” (Davey). A cap on carbon for third world

countries is a direct threat to the people living in them.

This sheds light on the trade-off between sustainability and development in third world

countries, and how the situation is different from first world countries. Many countries like India
 4 Dutta

simply cannot afford to address climate change concerns while sustaining their people (Davey).

The only way for developing countries to dig themselves out of poverty is through carbon

emissions, energy usage, and industrial growth, therefore the Paris Agreement that mandates

carbon emission regression cannot be signed into law.

Effectiveness of the Agreement

The Paris Agreement should not be legally binding because it would not be effective even

if it was. One reason why the agreement would be unsuccessful is because studies have shown

that the costs of developing countries becoming climate-friendly will be much higher than

expected, and impossible to accommodate for. In the agreement, first world countries have

pledged $100 billion a year in order to help third world countries in their efforts to reduce their

carbon outtake. This amount is a hefty fee for even the richest countries in the world, as only 16

percent of that sum has been paid so far since 2009 (Yeung). However, according to a report by

the UN, “the cost for developing countries to adapt to climate change could go as high as $500

billion a year by 2050 – four to five times larger than previous estimates” (“UNEP Report”). If

the richest countries in the world are not even able to afford aiding poor countries, there is

simply no way for poor countries to bear the economic burden that the Paris Agreement places

on them.

Along with being unrealistically costly, the agreement doesn’t offer clear guidelines as to

how developing countries should reduce their emissions. Most developing countries are not even

conditioned to reporting their carbon emissions to the UN, let alone using the technology needed

to cut emissions. For the last 20 years, “only 40 or so developed countries have been required to

report their emissions to the United Nations on a regular basis, in a detailed manner”. This

becomes an issue when “roughly 150 nations which have little experience in carbon accounting
 5 Dutta

will be thrust abruptly into the confusing world of greenhouse gas accounting, many with little to

no technical expertise in this field” (Martini). The agreement offers blanket statements about

“making efforts to reducing carbon” without providing actual plausible methods for reduction.

Countries need to be addressed individually and accommodated for their specific needs and

development. The unrealistic, costly, and vague requirements of the Paris Agreement cannot be

legalized.

Conclusion

The Paris Agreement of 2015 is a non-legally binding agreement that mandates that all

countries make progress towards keeping the global temperature increase under 2 degrees

celsius. However, the agreement presents several problems, including unreasonable standards for

developing countries and unspecificity. The Paris Agreement cannot be legally binding because

it prohibits developing countries to grow like developed countries economically, and if it was

binding, it would be unsuccessful. Although the Paris Agreement has good intentions, it is a

blatant oversimplification of climate change and the economic states of developing countries.

Works Cited

Bullard, Gabe. "See What Climate Change Means for the World's Poor." National Geographic.

National Geographic Society, 25 May 2017. Web. 01 June 2017.

Davey, Tucker. "Developing Countries Can't Afford Climate Change." Future of Life Institute.

04 Aug. 2016. Web. 01 June 2017.

"The Great Smog of 1952." Met Office. Crown Inc., 17 Oct. 2016. Web. 01 June 2017.

Kenny, Charles. "Poor Countries Shouldn't Sacrifice Growth to Fight Climate Change."
 6 Dutta

Bloomberg L.P., 29 Aug. 2014. Web. 01 June 2017.

Martini, Catherine. "Transparency: The Backbone of the Paris Agreement." Yale Center for

Environmental Law & Policy. University of Yale, 29 May 2016. Web. 01 June 2017.

"Paris Agreement." United Nations. Department of Public Information, 15 Apr. 2016. Web. 01

June 2017.

"UNEP Report." UN.org. United Nations, 10 May 2016. Web. 01 June 2017.

Wilde, Robert. "Coal in the Industrial Revolution." ThoughtCo. N.p., 26 Mar. 2017. Web. 01

June 2017.

Yeung, Peter. "Paris Climate Agreement Has 'Failed' Poor Countries." The Independent.

Independent Digital News and Media, 15 May 2016. Web. 01 June 2017.