What the Paris Climate Deal Means for Australia and New Zealand

The climate negotiations in Paris have wrapped up and many have described the resulting agreement as "historic". While this might be true, the final wording of the 31-paged document means the effects it will have of any particular nation, including Australia and New Zealand, are far from clear.

Before the talks began each country was asked to submit an "intended nationally determined contribution" (INDC). Essentially it's a pledge outlining each country's individual proposal to slow down climate change.

Australia's pledge set an emissions reduction target of 26-28 percent (from 2005 levels) by 2030. It hopes to achieve that with the Emissions Reduction Fund (formerly the Direct Action Plan). The fund offers economic incentives for proactive polluting companies who want to reduce their pollution. It has been labelled problematic by numerous critics. Australia's other proposals include a commitment to energy productivity, a plan to investigate "opportunities to improve the efficiency of light and heavy vehicles", and an increase in the amount of electricity it generates with renewable sources.

Mission Innovation brings together Govts & investors to take clean energy projects from R&D to commercial outcomes pic.twitter.com/RrHS2i0Rr8
— Malcolm Turnbull (@TurnbullMalcolm) November 30, 2015

In its INDC New Zealand pledged a 30 percent reduction and proposed increasing the amount of electricity it generates from renewable sources to 90 percent (which is around 10-15 percent higher than current levels). It highlighted its Emissions Trading Scheme that locally has been criticised as complex, non-transparent, and somewhat toothless. New Zealand is strange for a rich country, in that almost half of its emissions come from agriculture. It "anticipates accelerated emission reductions post 2030 once agricultural mitigation technology becomes more widely applied".

Independent studies found that if each nation successfully implemented their INDC (already a daunting ask) the world would still be on track for a global temperature increase of 2.7 to 3.7 degrees. The aspirational target of the agreement is 1.5 degrees—to get an idea of the practical difference between those temperatures take a look at these pictures.

The convention in Paris needed a bigger commitment and it got it, with a substantial caveat.

WATCH: Climate Emergency (Dispatch 6)

As the catastrophe of the 2009 climate change conference in Copenhagen proved, getting the whole world to concur is a precarious proposition. Not unlike people most nations want to do the right thing while maintaining the lifestyle to which they're accustomed, and even then only if everybody else is going to do the right thing too.

Indeed the lessons learned from Copenhagen have made this new deal more vague and aspirational than it is concrete and binding. Metaphorically speaking, if you think of each nation as a carbon emissions addict then they've all agreed to set up a support group rather than force one another into rehab.

The key elements of the deal include: an ambition to keep the global temperature below 2 degrees, a promise to hit peak emissions "as soon as possible", the establishment of yet to be determined transparency measures, and a review and escalation of pledges every five years. That's a lot of deliberate ambiguity, which is why even optimistic commentators are framing the agreement as an encouraging first step rather than a game changer.

Pleased to be invited to chair part of the leaders' meeting at #COP21 today. pic.twitter.com/o3ca30kFa0
— John Key (@johnkeypm) November 30, 2015

For the moment neither Australia nor New Zealand will be changing their policies as outlined by their INDCs. The New Zealand treasury has advised that this deal will require NZ households to pay an extra $1350 over 15 years ($90 a year) in increased costs (petrol, etc) but that really is just an estimate – the policies that will make that a reality aren't yet in place. The New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, has said mining in his country will remain untouched.

He explained, "New Zealand could, of course, just stop producing oil and gas and coal but realistically if we did that I don't believe it would stop it being consumed. I think the rest of the world would just fill the very small gap we would leave."

Mining is a much larger part of Australia's economy. Several groups and the opposition Labor party have already made it clear that to get close to making a difference the nation will need to set ever stronger and more ambitious 2030 emission reduction pledges every five years. That being said both the government and the opposition nebulously reconfirmed their commitment to coal.

There was no talk from either party regarding the Carmichael project in central Queensland. The Adani mine, which a study by the Australia Institute claims will generate more annual CO2 emissions than Paris and Rio De Janeiro combined, remains at the centre of a legal dispute.

How the Paris deal will affect Australia and New Zealand's international commitments is also unclear.

WATCH: The Hunt for Fossil Fuel on Anticosti Island

Thanks primarily to negotiators from the United States our low-lying island neighbours, those that could drown in rising sea levels, will not receive compensation for said drowning. Climate mitigation and adaptation financing for poorer countries is still alive but the push by developing nations for loss and damage assistance—i.e. money for the destruction baked into even the most optimistic outcomes of the deal—has fallen short.

In terms of that climate mitigation and adaptation funding, the deal requires developed countries to provide aid but doesn't say how much. The non-binding (that term again) goal they've come up with is $100 billion per year. And, since transparency measures are yet to be outlined, there are fears that this aid could be subjected to questionable accounting practises. For instance, some nations could simply relabel existing aid as climate related.

In the foreign aid arena Australia might have made it politically easier to look proactive. Two years ago it cut its aid budget, which included contributions to global environment plans, by roughly half a billion. Restoring some or all of that will play like a commitment to this new climate deal.

The Paris agreement is not the answer to global warming; it's entirely voluntary and its targets non-binding. At best the deal is another weapon to be wielded in international diplomacy—to shame other nations. Domestically it will matter most come election time. Those who want change will try to use the prospect of failing to meet non-binding Paris targets as a political cudgel—Australia's Environment Minister Greg Hunt described it as "enormous moral weight".

But in 2020, when under this deal the international community is legally required to come together again and provide more ambitious pledges, if enough nations are nowhere near to meeting their targets there will be plenty of political cover. The cudgel will be painless; the moral weight a whole lot lighter.

So yeah, baby steps.

Follow Girard on Twitter