The climate change that we are worried about in the twenty first century is a result of unbridled carbon emissions in the industrially developed world in the past two hundred years. For instance, America has emitted 411 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide between 1850 and 2011, whereas India has emitted only 53 billion tonnes and the whole of African continent just 50 billion tonnes in the same period. Such inequities continue even though India is currently the fourth largest emitter in the world. This historical baggage is important in the context of climate change because now we know that there is only a finite amount of emissions the atmosphere can take to prevent disastrous impacts of climate change. So, it makes sense that developed countries — which have already emitted disproportionately — reduce their emissions drastically and let developing countries with miniscule emissions till now have a greater share of the carbon budget. In Paris, the rich West has succeeded in convincing countries like India to give up this claim of greater share of the remaining carbon budget. The Paris deal (a combination of the Decision Text and Paris Agreement) has effectively buried the concept of differentiated responsibility and has equated both the rich and the poor when it comes to reducing emissions. This is precisely the reason President Obama and the Western world is hailing the deal as an “epic turning point”. It is intriguing that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his reaction on Twitter, has termed the Paris Agreement “a victory for climate justice”, when in hard print the Paris Agreement is an epitome of climate injustice.

Having gotten rid of their past carbon sins, the industrially rich negotiating blocks also succeeded in getting everyone on board to make voluntary pledges — submitted by all countries in the form of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) — the only instrument to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. There are no legally binding emission reduction targets as was the case with Kyoto Protocol, but only voluntary goals that every country has set for itself. The hidden agenda seems to be to replace Kyoto Protocol and all future talk of legally-binding targets with INDCs. These voluntary actions will be subjected to some sort of a review and common set of rules for verification of claims and methodologies etc. The goal — keeping emissions to meet 2 degree warming target and preferably 1.5 degree — is very stiff (and analysts say, it is unachievable based on actions promised in INDCs) but the plan to reach that target has been kept open-ended and vague. There are no clear deadlines and quantification of action. The developed West can always propose ambitious INDCs given advancements in renewable technologies and access to funds, and then demand the rest of the world does the same. In addition, since INDCs are only voluntary actions — and not legal commitments — they can be overturned or changed due to national policies and politics.

On a positive note, the framework agreed in Paris sends out clear signal, for the first time, that the world collectively is willing to move towards low-carbon growth and is committed to fight climate change. This shift from fossil fuel-based economies to renewable-based ones may take decades but now it appears inevitable. For businesses in the renewable energy sector and for users dependent on fossil fuels, the signal from Paris is that they can prepare long-term investment plans without the fear of any u-turns. Many large clean energy alliances, institutional investors and banks have already announced plans to invest in renewable forms of energy. The Paris deal also paves way for new carbon markets. All this has enthused investors. How much of this investment and renewable technologies will flow to developing countries will once again depend on negotiations on additional finance and technology, which have made little progress.

Developing countries that are willing to take the low-carbon pathway for their economic growth have been promised finance through multilateral mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund. Despite pledges made in the past, very little money has flowed into such funds. Still the tall promise of $100 billion a year by 2020 has been made at Paris and hopefully the rich will loosen their purse strings this time around. The demand to keep critical green technologies free from intellectual property so that they spread faster has been sidetracked. Similarly, the issue of compensating countries for loss and damage caused due to adverse impacts of climate change is being addressed in a manner that does not make it a liability for carbon-emitting countries. The implementation of INDCs submitted by least developed countries is subject to availability of finance and requisite technologies as well as capacity building for low-carbon growth.

It is also being hoped that the Paris agreement, despite its shortcomings, will help civil society and people to hold governments accountable with the promised national actions acting as a tool. In the age of social media and public pressure, government actions on climate change will be constantly under scrutiny and it will keep the pressure on. It is not just governments that need to act. Ultimately any action to reduce carbon emissions is going to impact lifestyle and consumption patterns of people, particularly people with energy-intense living irrespective of where they are. While we must fight for our rightful share of carbon space in climate change negotiations, it would be unethical if we don’t take any action to remove the same inequities and change consumptive lifestyles at home. Hopefully Paris deal will spur more action than words on climate front, unlike previous such meetings.