195 Nations Unite in Historical Global Agreement on Climate Change.

COP21 climate change summit reaches deal in Paris

A deal to attempt to limit the rise in global temperatures to less than 2C has been agreed at the climate change summit in Paris after two weeks of intense negotiations.

The pact is the first to commit all countries to cut carbon emissions.

The agreement is partly legally binding and partly voluntary.

Earlier, key blocs, including the G77 group of developing countries, and nations such as China and India said they supported the proposals.

President of the UN climate conference of parties (COP) and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said: "I now invite the COP to adopt the decision entitled Paris Agreement outlined in the document.

"Looking out to the room I see that the reaction is positive, I see no objections. The Paris agreement is adopted."

COP21: In summary

As he struck the gavel to signal the adoption of the deal, delegates rose to their feet cheering and applauding.

US President Barack Obama has hailed the agreement as an "ambitious" and "historic", but also warned against complacency.

"Together, we've shown what's possible when the world stands as one," he said.

And although admitting that the deal was not "perfect", he said it was "the best chance to save the one planet we have".

Nearly 200 countries took part in the negotiations to strike the first climate deal to commit all countries to cut emissions, which would come into being in 2020.

The chairman of the group representing some of the world's poorest countries called the deal historic, adding: "We are living in unprecedented times, which call for unprecedented measures.

"It is the best outcome we could have hoped for, not just for the Least Developed Countries, but for all citizens of the world."

Key points

The measures in the agreement included:

• To peak greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and achieve a balance between sources and sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century

• To keep global temperature increase "well below" 2C (3.6F) and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C

• To review progress every five years

• $100 billion a year in climate finance for developing countries by 2020, with a commitment to further finance in the future.

Analysis: The BBC's Matt McGrath in Paris

The speeches and the cliches at the adoption of the Paris Agreement flowed like good champagne - success after all has many fathers! The main emotion is relief. The influence of the COP president, Laurent Fabius, cannot be overstated. His long diplomatic career gave him a credibility seldom matched in this arena. He used his power well.

The deal that has been agreed, under Mr Fabius, is without parallel in terms of climate change or of the environment. It sets out a clear long term temperature limit for the planet and a clear way of getting there. There is money for poor countries to adapt, there is a strong review mechanism to increase ambition over time. This is key if the deal is to achieve the aim of keeping warming well below 2C.

More than anything though the deal signifies a new way for the world to achieve progress - without it costing the Earth. A long term perspective on the way we do sustainability is at the heart of this deal. If it delivers that, it truly will be world changing.

Read more from Matt McGrath

Ahead of the deal being struck, delegates were in a buoyant mood as they gathered in the hall waiting for the plenary session to resume.

Mr Fabius was applauded as he entered the hall ahead of the announcement.

Earlier, French President Francois Hollande called the proposals unprecedented, while UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on negotiators to "finish the job".

However, the celebratory mood has not been shared among all observers.

'Almost nothing binding'

Nick Dearden, director of campaign group Global Justice Now, said: "It's outrageous that the deal that's on the table is being spun as a success when it undermines the rights of the world's most vulnerable communities and has almost nothing binding to ensure a safe and liveable climate for future generations."

Some aspects of the agreement will be legally binding, such as submitting an emissions reduction target and the regular review of that goal.

However, the targets set by nations will not be binding under the deal struck in Paris.

Observers say the attempt to impose emissions targets on countries was one of the main reasons why the Copenhagen talks in 2009 failed.

At the time, nations including China, India and South Africa were unwilling to sign up to a condition that they felt could hamper economic growth and development.

The latest negotiations managed to avoid such an impasse by developing a system of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).

In these, which form the basis of the Paris agreement goal of keeping global temperature rise "well below" 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels, nations outline their plans on cutting their post-2020 emissions.

An assessment published during the two-week talks suggested that the emission reductions currently outlined in the INDCs submitted by countries would only limit global temperature rise by 2.7C.

Nick Mabey, chief executive of climate diplomacy organisation E3G, said the agreement was an ambitious one that would require serious political commitment to deliver.

"Paris means governments will go further and faster to tackle climate change than ever before," he said.

"The transition to a low carbon economy is now unstoppable, ensuring the end of the fossil fuel age."

Other links:

• Has history been made at COP21?
• Nations Unite in Global Agreement on Climate Change
• Paris climate deal: nearly 200 nations sign in end of fossil fuel era
• Grand promises of Paris climate deal undermined by squalid retrenchments

Your thoughts?

I think this is the key right here:

Some aspects of the agreement will be legally binding, such as submitting an emissions reduction target and the regular review of that goal.

However, the targets set by nations will not be binding under the deal struck in Paris.

Observers say the attempt to impose emissions targets on countries was one of the main reasons why the Copenhagen talks in 2009 failed.

The overall agreement is legally binding, but some elements – including the pledges to curb emissions by individual countries and the climate finance elements – are not.

Binding: setting targets.

Not binding: meeting those targets.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Does anyone really believes this will greatly alter how the US conducts its business? Do you think we will still be talking (is the public at large even talking about this now) about this agreement 2 weeks from now?

Just this week, the price of oil dropped 10%, do you know how the American public felt about that? Relieved. And happy that they can fill their gas tank at a lower price.

Unless there is a technological breakthrough or Al Gore becomes president of the United States I don't see this a game changer, this is more like an aspirational statement that nations have signed.

I bet Vegas already has odds on which country will break their "designated target" first.

Shouldn't there be a clause that states that nations that don't stick to the plan get nuked?

Otherwise this means very little.

From what I gathered, this almost didn't pass cause some countries, US included, Disliked the wording that when signed "All have to cut emissions to reach a certain goal", and only agreed when it was changed to " All should cut emissions to reach a certain goal."

Just so it wouldn't be legally binding.

With so many countries recognizing the need to work to mitigate the effects of climate change and signing on to actually try to do something about it I admit to being pretty damn excited. Of course I'm not ready to pop open the champaign, but this is something that I have been worried about since the third grade (weird that I remember when I first learned of it) so yeah this is a really good day for me.

I hate all these eco-facist/eco-communist/eco-islamists/eco-terrorist nations that want to stop me poo lootin' Anyone know which nations didn't sign so I can claim political asylum there? These nations are the nations of the future and unburdened by eco-nonsense they will rule the world!

Negotiators sealed the deal after changing provisions that would have triggered a requirement that the agreement be approved by the U.S. Congress, where there are many lawmakers skeptical about a climate accord. They won over developing nations at the last hour by exempting them from obligations to help pay the bill for confronting climate change.

The Obama administration deliberately pressured so the wording "wouldn't reach" the level of a treaty, which requires approval by the US Senate.

A future president could "un-sign" it. Could simply set the targets laughingly low so they are easily met. Could simply not met the targets (whoops. our bad, we'll try harder next time), or could simply not set the target; I mean, it is legally binding but who is going to do the "binding" part (I bet the US Senate will argue that this "binding" provision needs approval from them)?

Actually, they are counting on a mechanism, peer pressure...

Glad we are finally taking measures against pollution.

It remains to be seen if some countries will actually act on it. The conspiracy theorist in me think it's a way to act as if everything is going to fine, when it won't.

yawn

Waste of time and money

The only good thing to come out of these Paris talks is the establishment of the clean energy research fund, led by Bill Gates. All these "agreements" might sound good in theory, but the fact is that nothing is going to change until we come up with a clean energy source that can compete with fossil fuels in terms of price and reliability.

At the end of the day, nobody gives a sh** about destroying the planet. It all comes down to $$$. That's why this research fund is so important. As soon as we find a source of clean energy that's cheaper than coal, we'll be set. Until then, it's all talk.

@Master_Live: The use of peer pressure has a chance of working that is not immediately apparent. The interesting fact is that the views of GOP representatives no longer align with corporations and their long term goals because they have largely accepted the fact that doing nothing will cost them far more money.

In the short run we may see the GOP win a few political battles, but in the long run the people who give them the majority of their cash will be pressuring them to do something so that their businesses don't suffer. It may not be that we see the GOP suddenly switch to the idea that man made climate change is a true danger, but I could definitely see a shift towards a message, under pressure from big donors, that moving towards efficient technology is not only what being a conservative is all about, but will also keep more money in the pockets of their constituents. Frankly keeping more money is what the anti-tax ideology is ultimately all about.

It's a step, albiet a small one. It will become obvious in a decade or two that port cities around the world will be threatened directly by climate change and perhaps when business interested are truly in danger than countries will do something legally binding.

Until then, it will just be a vague promise, perhaps inching towards much less fossil fuel usage, but not enough.

Wow, no stupid social conservatives in this thread.

That's different.

Maybe this made them brain too hard, and they left.

I know my college has a PHD going for anyone who can create a resistant strain of ash tree that doesn't suffer from it's dieback disease that's killing like 40% (or was it more) of Britain's trees but I can agree that it's not use worrying about it, there doesn't seem like much we can do. I don't think it's pollution. I think the trees have just turned around and said "you know what, you an go **** yourselves!". That's my conclusion. Wasn't Inception about something like that?

Edit: sorry it was Interstellar, that other Nolan movie.

You keep mentioning the GOP. The public at large, theoretically, might want to do "something" about climate change, but when you get to specifics, when you actually put some pressure and they have to feel a little pain they (for the most part) recoil.

I'm not disputing that there are some businesses, etc. moving toward a more environmentally sustainable development outlook but it simply isn't moving nearly as fast enough to avert going over the 2.0 C target.

And sure, (good) business will always do what maximizes their profits in the short, medium and long term. Taking into account the effects climate change might have on their model is something any good business has done or has starting doing already. Those who don't won't survive anyway.

But on Monday markets will open, the evening news will review to John and Jane on one of their spot whether the price of crude oil went up or down. And the world will keep going 'round and 'round.

What if we all adapt to warmer temps like lizards? Only the strongest will survive.