The Paris Agreement on climate change takes effect next month, and environmentalists hope this treaty will be the one that sticks. Countries responsible for 55 percent of carbon emissions worldwide have signed on to the agreement, and its significance, as a Dec. 14 Guardian article put it, is that “leaders from around the world have agreed that we must do everything we can to slow global warming as much as we can.” 

The Paris Agreement is a comprehensive emissions-reduction plan designed with the goal of ensuring that the global average temperature does not rise more than two degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels, according to the European Commission’s website on climate action. Yet, even as the agreement promises to make real inroads, politicians are hesitant to get behind the sort of paradigm shift that embodies the spirit of the agreement. The long-term success or failure of the agreement will depend on how quickly and efficiently the signatories can embrace renewable energy. 

The world is at a climate change crossroads, as evidenced by two contrary dialogues at last month’s G20 summit in Hangzhou, China. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping formally ratified the Paris Agreement, according to a Sept. 3 Guardian article. However, the leaders at G20 did not set a timetable for eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, “a practice estimated to funnel between $160bn and $5.3tn into the fossil fuel industry,” according to a May 9 Climate Change News report. The disconnect here is clear: Governments are pledging to greatly reduce carbon emissions yet are continuing to subsidize nonrenewable, carbon dioxide-generating energy sources. We know there is a problem, and we say we want to fix it, yet we are failing to take the necessary steps.

So far, decreases in energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the United States have stemmed from switching between nonrenewable resources rather than large-scale adoptions of renewable energy. According to May 2016 data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2015 energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the United States showed a 12 percent decrease compared to 2005. 

The briefing does not reference an increase in renewable energy production, but it does say that “many of the changes in energy-related CO2 emissions in recent history have occurred in the electric power sector because of the decreased use of coal and the increased use of natural gas for electricity generation.” While replacing the dirtiest fossil fuels with cleaner ones can help countries meet decarbonization goals in the short term, it is just a quick and easy solution and not the paradigm shift that we need to create a sustainable future.

In many cases, politicians are wary of cutting fossil fuels out of the equation completely because of the economic role of traditional energy production. Forcing a change to renewable energy or holding plants to more stringent emissions standards can cause job loss in rural areas. An April 8, 2015 Clean Technica article explains that renewable energy jobs do not exactly replace coal jobs, as “there is very little geographic overlap.” 

Consequently, efforts to alleviate climate change can also anger local governments. For example, President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which “requires states to adopt plans to cut emissions from power-generating plants,” is being disputed by 27 states as well as some organizations, according to an Oct. 6 Los Angeles Times editorial. Coal giant Murray Energy is among the special-interest groups fighting the bill, according to an April 12 Climate Central article. It is not easy for politicians to tell constituents that jobs will be lost in the short term. 

In addition, ever-shifting political tides mean that legislation passed by one leader can be ignored or destroyed by the next. For example, in 2002, President George W. Bush withdrew U.S. support for the Kyoto Protocol, a climate change deal that President Bill Clinton had endorsed. Similarly, the Paris agreement is nonbinding, and a leader could have a change of heart. The most obvious threat to American participation in the Paris Agreement would be a Trump presidency, but according to the same Oct. 6 Los Angeles Times article, the speedy and widespread adoption “makes it much more difficult for [Trump] to carry out his pledge to re-negotiate a deal that was, in fact, reached by nearly 200 countries.”

The time to act is now. Last week, the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere failed to drop below 400 parts per million for the first time on record. During autumn, concentrations of carbon dioxide usually drop below 400 PPM as temperatures decline.  According to a Sept. 27 Climate Central article, late September traditionally brings the lowest carbon dioxide readings of the year, so according to trends, it is unlikely that we will ever see levels below 400 PPM again in our lifetimes. According to NASA data, the average concentration of carbon dioxide in 1950 was roughly 320 PPM. Despite recent emissions reductions in developed countries, our problem is not going away.

It is encouraging that the Paris Agreement has been accepted so widely and quickly. The world’s leaders have sent a message that climate change is here and is to be taken seriously, but the Paris Agreement still has many obstacles to overcome if it is to endure. For it to succeed in the long term, governments across the world will have to make a paradigm shift to renewable energy. Only once we fully commit to a permanent solution instead of aiming for yearly targets will we see the “turning point for our planet” that President Obama promises.