Can the Paris Agreement save us from a climate catastrophe?
Authors: None The Lancet Planetary Health
Journal: The Lancet Planetary Health (2018)

As a society, we are living through one of the most challenging periods of human civilisation. Climate change's impacts affect not only our health but also have a profound effect on the rate of social, economic, and technological transformation that is possible. Climate change represents the biggest threat to humankind. As well as immediate hazards, extreme weather events impact on mental health and often create conditions conducive to outbreaks of infectious diseases: heavy rains produce insect-breeding grounds and contaminate clean water sources; while drought can increase distribution of fungal spores. Women, especially expectant mothers, are highly vulnerable to water-borne diseases, extremes of temperature and other catastrophic events. Women and children are 14-times more likely than men to die during a disaster. If we consider that 68% of disasters are related to climate change, then this is an alarming disparity. In December, 2015, 195 countries and the European Union announced in Paris a global commitment to change. The central part of the Paris Agreement was that temperature rise would not exceed 2°C above preindustrial levels, and a secondary part set the target to 1·5°C. The Agreement is due to commence in 2020 and so far 195 parties remain committed to it. However, the signatories have not yet agreed how they intend to achieve these targets and a rise of 1°C has already occurred. How is the Paris Agreement helping to tackle climate change? Even though renewable energy technologies for energy production are approaching cost parity with fossil fuels and vehicles are becoming more efficient to reduce fuel consumption and limit air pollution, the world is off target. 2 years after the Agreement was signed, global emissions of carbon dioxide are rising again after several years of stability; in June, 2017, US President Donald Trump said he intends to withdraw from the climate accord and the USA will see its emission rates rise this year by 1·8% after 3 years of plateau. Other countries are also giving signs that they might not meet the targets. Reasons vary from country to country. In Brazil, for example, deforestation has boosted carbon dioxide emissions through reduced carbon capture. In Turkey and Indonesia, new coal-fired power plants are being built to meet the growing demand for electricity as a consequence of population growth. A huge gap remains between what countries have agreed in Paris and what they have managed to achieve so far. Economic and political concerns mean that countries are struggling to meet their nationally determined contributions. Germany, for example—one of the most active countries when it comes to renewable energy—intended to generate 80% of its energy from renewable sources by 2050 and to cut greenhouses gas emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. But concerns over job losses and changes within the coalition government mean that Germany is likely to miss its targets. With traditional global powers like the USA pulling out and Germany not reaching its targets, China and India—which together produce about 24% of the world's emissions—might provide some hope. Both have invested heavily in renewable energies markets (as well as traditional sources). If they manage to cut emissions, it could make up for the shortfall elsewhere. In this issue, Wenjia Cai and colleagues analyse China's nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement, and conclude that 18–62% of implementation costs at the national level would be offset by the health benefits in 2030. The overall health benefits in 2050 could increase to 3–9-times the implementation costs. Such a tangible cost-benefit outcome, especially in the important context of China, could encourage other countries to redouble their efforts to curb climate change. These health benefits should also encourage public health and medical professionals to speak up on the importance of climate change. If the world's emissions do not start declining decisively by 2020 it might be too late to stop the sea level rise, droughts, storms, and other catastrophic effects of climate change. Although current commitments of the Paris signatories fall short of the emissions cuts required to meet the aspirational 1·5°C target, the solution is not to give up but to reinvest. It is imperative that countries get focused on the targets of the Paris agreement put in practice the pledges agreed 2 years ago. We must look further upstream to enable planetary health-literate urban developmentThe gap between academic research and real-world practice in urban planning and development is a major barrier to planetary health.1 By exploring uncertainty and complexity further upstream, we might be able to narrow that gap, and make progress in tackling the urban health crisis. Full-Text PDF Open AccessThe Lancet Countdown on PM2·5 pollution-related health impacts of China's projected carbon dioxide mitigation in the electric power generation sector under the Paris Agreement: a modelling studyOur results suggest that cost–benefit analysis of climate policy that omits regional air pollution could greatly underestimate benefits. A compensation mechanism for inter-regional interests (including financial, technological, and knowledge support) should be established for regions that give up their human health benefits for the sake of the whole nation to realise the climate change targets. Full-Text PDF Open Access