113 / 145
GLOBAL CLIMATE AND ENERGY GOVERNANCE: THE PARIS CLIMATE SUMMIT
113
agreement struck in Paris marked emerging
economies’ assumption of co-responsibility for
the problem. This change of events facilitated a
“down-top” process by which individual states,
whether large or small, established their own
targets and time lines within the context of a
global agreement. The relative success of the
Paris talks would not have been possible with-
out the leadership of the planet’s two greatest
emitters –the United States (responsible for ap-
proximately 15 % of world emissions) and
China (responsible for 25 %). It should be noted
that US per capita emissions stand at 16.4
tonnes– double the figure for China and more
than double the figure for the EU. The world
was fortunate in this case: without a coopera-
tive attitude on the part of China, no agreement
would have been reached. The seeds of the un-
derstanding that China must step up and act
were sown in Copenhagen. A mere six months
later, during his state visit to the United States in
September 2015, Chinese President Xi Jinping
announced that China would provide US$ 3.1
billion in climate financing for developing coun-
tries, far more than its projected contribution to
the South-South Climate Cooperation Fund.
Going forward, China could well reposition it-
self in this sphere of governance and finance
low-carbon projects through the G-20 or new
international financial institutions such as the
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) –
launched with a subscribed capital of US$ 50
billion– or the New Development Bank estab-
lished by BRICS states and use its financial mus-
cle to promote various objectives articulated in
the Paris agreement such as the emission of
green bonds.
Against this impressive backdrop one might
be tempted to conclude that Obama’s gestures
in regard to climate change and clean energy
fall short of the mark. Nevertheless, it should be
recognised that in spite of expectations to the
contrary, he managed to push through the most
ambitious standards ever established in these
areas in the United States –an achievement that
will have international as well as domestic re-
percussions. One may feel grateful that apart
from a few Senate briefings during which a
number of Republicans expressed their total op-
position, the US Congress did not play a formal
role in the drafting of the Paris agreement.
Given that the emissions reduction objectives
are politically rather than legally binding, the
agreement should not meet with serious inter-
ference as long as the White House continues to
back progress in this direction. The green agen-
da has been a big issue in 2016 Democratic pri-
mary campaigns and, more importantly, in the
minds of the majority of US voters. Republicans,
on the other hand, as in the two other most
recent presidential campaigns, have maintained
low profiles regarding this topic. In any case, the
momentum would indicate that no major rever-
sal is on the horizon. On the one hand, back-
tracking on this issue would have a negative
impact on the US economy. On the other, the
clean energies agenda and the fight against cli-
mate change offer the US opportunities to dem-
onstrate leadership in other related areas. These
include, as we have seen, industrial environ-
mental standards and financing for green tech-
nologies in developing countries whether in
concert with China or the European Union or
through the World Bank (WB), the European
Investment Bank (EIB), the Inter-American
Development Bank (IDB) or the AIIB in Asia. The
ball is now in the court of the next president
and the 115th United States Congress.