What If The Paris Agreement Never Happened?

The Actual History

The Paris Agreement stands as a pivotal milestone in international climate diplomacy. After the disappointment of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference, which failed to produce a binding agreement despite high expectations, the international community sought a new approach to tackling climate change. This effort culminated at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) held in Paris from November 30 to December 12, 2015.

Unlike previous attempts, the Paris Agreement adopted a "bottom-up" structure where countries voluntarily submitted their own climate pledges, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). This approach helped overcome the long-standing divide between developed and developing nations that had hampered previous climate negotiations. Under the leadership of French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who served as the president of COP21, and with significant diplomatic efforts from the United States and China, the agreement was adopted by consensus of all 196 attending parties.

The Paris Agreement established the goal of limiting global warming to "well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels" while pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. Other key elements included a mechanism for countries to progressively strengthen their climate commitments every five years, a framework for financial assistance to nations in need, and a system for regular reporting and assessment of emissions.

On April 22, 2016, the agreement was opened for signature at a ceremony in New York, where 175 countries signed it on the first day alone. The agreement entered into force on November 4, 2016, after at least 55 countries representing at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions had ratified it.

The agreement experienced a significant challenge in June 2017 when U.S. President Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the accord. This withdrawal became official on November 4, 2020. However, President Joe Biden signed an executive order to rejoin the agreement on his first day in office in January 2021, and the U.S. officially reentered the agreement in February 2021.

Since its adoption, the Paris Agreement has become the cornerstone of global climate action. The 2018 COP24 in Katowice, Poland, produced a rulebook for implementing the agreement, and the 2021 COP26 in Glasgow saw countries strengthen their commitments following the agreement's first global stocktake. By 2025, the Paris Agreement remains the primary international framework for addressing climate change, though it continues to face criticism for insufficient ambition and implementation challenges as global temperatures have already increased by approximately 1.2°C above pre-industrial levels.

The Point of Divergence

What if the Paris Agreement never happened? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the diplomatic breakthrough achieved at COP21 in December 2015 failed to materialize, leaving the world without its cornerstone climate accord.

Several plausible developments could have prevented the Paris Agreement from coming to fruition:

First, the delicate diplomatic balance could have collapsed in the final days of negotiations. The agreement nearly faltered over disagreements about differentiation of responsibilities between developed and developing nations. In our timeline, a last-minute intervention by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his Chinese counterpart helped bridge this divide. In this alternate scenario, perhaps these negotiations broke down irreparably when the U.S. and China failed to find common ground on emissions reductions commitments and climate finance.

Alternatively, the careful consensus-building by COP21 President Laurent Fabius might have been undermined by a procedural misstep. Fabius was widely praised for his methodical, transparent approach that built trust among delegations. A scenario where a significant procedural error or perceived favoritism toward certain nations' positions could have eroded this trust, leading to formal objections that prevented adoption.

A third possibility involves domestic politics in key nations. If major players like the U.S., China, or India had faced sudden domestic political crises in late 2015 that shifted their priorities away from climate diplomacy, their representatives might have been unable to make the necessary concessions to reach agreement.

Finally, the terrorist attacks that struck Paris just weeks before COP21 could have been more severe or followed by additional attacks, potentially forcing the cancellation or significant scaling back of the conference itself.

In this alternate timeline, we assume a combination of these factors led to COP21 concluding without an agreement, with exhausted negotiators only able to produce a brief communiqué acknowledging their failure and pledging to continue discussions at future meetings. This diplomatic breakdown would effectively end the momentum that had been building since the 2014 U.S.-China climate statement and return international climate politics to the fragmented, ineffective state that followed the 2009 Copenhagen Conference.

Immediate Aftermath

Diplomatic Fallout

The collapse of negotiations at COP21 would have triggered immediate diplomatic recriminations. In the days following the failed conference, nations would likely engage in public finger-pointing, with developing countries accusing wealthy nations of refusing to accept their historical responsibility, while developed countries would blame major emerging economies like China and India for not committing to meaningful emissions reductions.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who had invested significant personal capital in achieving a climate agreement, would likely convene emergency meetings to salvage some form of climate cooperation. However, without the unifying framework that the Paris Agreement provided, these efforts would produce only vague statements of intent rather than concrete commitments.

The European Union, which had positioned itself as a climate leader, would face a crisis of purpose in its environmental diplomacy. Internal divisions would emerge between member states willing to pursue ambitious climate policies regardless of international agreements and those preferring to avoid economic disadvantages in the absence of a global accord.

Market Reactions

Financial markets would respond quickly to the diplomatic failure. Renewable energy stocks would likely experience significant declines as investors adjusted their expectations about future climate policies. Conversely, fossil fuel companies would see their valuations rise, reflecting the market's assessment that carbon restrictions would be delayed or weakened.

Major investment banks would revise their climate risk assessments and long-term energy forecasts. Without the policy certainty that the Paris Agreement provided in our timeline, capital would flow more cautiously toward low-carbon technologies and infrastructure, slowing the already insufficient pace of energy transition.

Civil Society Response

The failure of COP21 would galvanize environmental activists and organizations. The months following the conference would see massive protest movements emerge in major cities worldwide, with particular focus on fossil fuel infrastructure projects. Groups like 350.org, Fridays for Future, and Extinction Rebellion would likely form earlier and adopt more confrontational tactics, arguing that conventional diplomacy had failed to address the climate crisis.

In response to governmental failure, non-state climate initiatives would proliferate. Coalitions of cities, regions, businesses, and institutional investors would establish their own climate commitments and frameworks for cooperation. The "We Are Still In" movement that formed in our timeline after Trump's Paris withdrawal announcement might emerge in a different form, as a response to the broader failure of international climate diplomacy.

Policy Fragmentation

Without the unifying framework of the Paris Agreement, climate policy would become increasingly fragmented. Some jurisdictions would forge ahead with ambitious policies, while others would scale back their climate ambitions:

California and New York would likely strengthen their state-level climate policies, with California Governor Jerry Brown positioning his state as a quasi-diplomatic climate leader.
The European Union would struggle to maintain consensus on climate targets but would eventually adopt a less ambitious version of its clean energy package.
China would continue implementing domestic air pollution controls that indirectly reduce carbon emissions, but would defer more ambitious climate-specific policies.
India would focus primarily on energy access rather than emissions reductions, accelerating coal power deployment in the absence of promised international climate finance.
Small island states and vulnerable nations would become increasingly desperate in their diplomatic appeals, as the international mechanisms to address their concerns would remain underdeveloped.

Scientific and Public Discourse

The scientific community would respond to the diplomatic failure with increasingly urgent warnings. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) might accelerate plans for its 1.5°C special report, hoping to create pressure for renewed negotiations.

Public discourse around climate change would become even more polarized than in our timeline. Climate denial and delay narratives would gain renewed strength in the absence of an international consensus, while climate anxiety would increase among younger generations. The concept of "climate justice" would gain prominence earlier, as vulnerable communities recognized that conventional diplomatic channels had failed to protect their interests.

Long-term Impact

Climate Policy Architecture Through the 2020s

Without the Paris Agreement, the international climate policy architecture would evolve along a fundamentally different path throughout the late 2010s and 2020s:

Fragmentation of Efforts: Rather than a unified global framework, climate action would develop as a patchwork of regional agreements, bilateral deals, and sectoral approaches. The UNFCCC process would continue but would focus on technical issues rather than comprehensive agreements.
Rise of Climate Clubs: By 2020, we would likely see the formation of "climate clubs" – exclusive groups of like-minded countries implementing coordinated climate policies and potentially imposing carbon border adjustments on non-members. The EU would likely spearhead such an approach, possibly partnering with Canada and select other nations.
Private Sector Leadership: In the absence of clear policy signals, corporate climate initiatives would gain prominence. By 2025, most major multinationals would have established science-based emissions targets, driven by investor pressure, reputational concerns, and the operational risks of climate change.
Litigation as Policy Driver: Climate litigation would become a more central force in shaping policy. Without the Paris Agreement as a reference point for "adequate" action, courts would establish their own standards based on scientific evidence and human rights considerations. By 2025, landmark cases would have established legal precedents requiring governments to implement more aggressive climate policies.

Energy System Transformation

The energy transition would proceed more unevenly and more slowly than in our timeline:

Delayed Peak in Coal Consumption: Global coal consumption, which peaked around 2013 in our timeline, would continue growing until approximately 2023 in this alternate timeline. China's coal use would plateau later, while India and Southeast Asian nations would build significantly more coal-fired power capacity.
Slower Renewable Growth: While economic factors would still drive growth in wind and solar power, the pace would be slower without the policy certainty provided by the Paris Agreement. Global renewable capacity in 2025 would be approximately 20-30% lower than in our timeline.
Reduced Climate Finance: Climate finance flows to developing countries would be substantially lower without the Paris Agreement's provisions. This would particularly affect adaptation projects in vulnerable nations and renewable energy deployment in emerging economies.
Continued Fossil Fuel Infrastructure Lock-in: Without clear global signals about future carbon constraints, investment in long-lived fossil fuel infrastructure would continue at higher rates. By 2025, the world would have significantly more new natural gas pipelines, LNG terminals, and oil production capacity than in our timeline.

Geopolitical Dimensions

The failure of Paris would reshape climate geopolitics in profound ways:

U.S.-China Climate Relationship: Without the Paris process, the climate cooperation between the U.S. and China that emerged in 2014 would likely wither. Climate change would become another arena of geopolitical competition rather than collaboration, with both nations using climate-related tariffs and technology policies as tools of strategic competition.
European Climate Leadership Challenges: The EU would struggle to maintain its climate leadership position without a global framework. Internal divisions between climate-ambitious and climate-cautious member states would widen, potentially threatening the bloc's unity on other issues.
Security Implications: By the mid-2020s, climate change would be more explicitly recognized as a security threat by military establishments worldwide. With inadequate mitigation efforts and limited adaptation support for vulnerable regions, climate-related migration and resource conflicts would increase in frequency and severity.
Deglobalization of Climate Technology: Instead of the cooperative technology development envisioned in the Paris Agreement, climate technologies would become more entangled with national security concerns. By 2025, we would see more restrictions on clean energy technology transfers and increased competition for critical minerals needed for low-carbon technologies.

Environmental and Social Outcomes

The absence of the Paris Agreement would result in measurably worse environmental outcomes by 2025:

Emissions Trajectory: Global greenhouse gas emissions would be approximately 5-8% higher in 2025 than in our timeline, putting the world on a trajectory toward 3.5-4°C of warming by 2100 rather than the roughly 2.7°C pathway of current Paris commitments.
Adaptation Gap: Without the adaptation focus of the Paris Agreement, vulnerability to climate impacts would increase, particularly in developing nations. Adaptation finance would be approximately 70% lower than in our timeline, leaving communities more exposed to climate-related disasters.
Biodiversity Impacts: The integration of climate and biodiversity protection that began to emerge under the Paris framework would not materialize. Ecosystem-based approaches to climate mitigation and adaptation would receive less attention and funding.
Just Transition Challenges: Concepts like "just transition" for fossil fuel workers would receive less policy attention. Coal mining regions and oil-dependent communities would face more abrupt economic challenges as technological changes eventually force energy transitions without adequate planning.

Social Movements and Public Opinion

The failure of Paris would transform climate politics in civil society:

Radicalization of Climate Activism: Environmental movements would adopt more confrontational tactics earlier and more widely. By the early 2020s, civil disobedience focused on fossil fuel infrastructure would become commonplace in many countries.
Youth Engagement: The youth climate movement exemplified by Fridays for Future would likely emerge with even greater urgency and frustration, focusing more on system change rather than policy reform. School strikes would begin earlier and persist longer.
Climate Populism: By 2025, we might see the emergence of "climate populist" political movements challenging both traditional environmental groups and establishment political parties, demanding immediate, radical action regardless of economic costs.
Public Trust: Public trust in international institutions would decline further, with the UN system seen as ineffective on humanity's greatest challenges. This would feed broader trends of democratic backsliding and nationalist politics.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Michael Thompson, Professor of International Climate Policy at the London School of Economics, offers this perspective: "The Paris Agreement, for all its imperfections, created a common framework that aligned incentives across nations, businesses, and civil society. In its absence, we would have seen a world of climate policy 'tribes' – clusters of nations, regions, and sectors pursuing incompatible approaches at different speeds. While some jurisdictions would have maintained ambition, the overall effectiveness of global climate action would be severely diminished due to carbon leakage, reduced investment certainty, and the absence of a common accountability framework. By 2025, the consequences would be measurable not just in emissions data but in human lives impacted by accelerating climate disasters."

Dr. Leah Nguyen, Climate Economist at the Global Transitions Institute, provides a different analysis: "The collapse of the Paris negotiations might have created a useful crisis moment that accelerated more effective approaches to climate governance. The Paris Agreement's voluntary nature and lack of enforcement mechanisms were always limitations. In an alternate timeline without Paris, we likely would have seen more diverse policy experiments and potentially stronger regional agreements with actual enforcement provisions. The EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism would have arrived earlier and been more comprehensive. While global emissions would certainly be higher in the short term, by 2025 we might have witnessed the emergence of a more effective climate regime built from the ground up rather than the top down. Sometimes systems need to fail before they can be properly rebuilt."

Ambassador Carlos Figueroa, former climate negotiator and senior fellow at the International Diplomacy Center, concludes: "The greatest loss in a world without the Paris Agreement would not be the specific emissions targets, which were always insufficient, but the framework for progressively strengthening those targets and the sense of shared purpose. In the absence of Paris, climate diplomacy would have fractured along existing geopolitical fault lines. Developing nations would have legitimate grievances about the failure of wealthy countries to fulfill their promises, while major emitters would lack the peer pressure and transparency mechanisms that Paris established. By 2025, we would see not just higher emissions but a more fundamental breakdown of international cooperation – a world of climate nationalism rather than climate multilateralism. This would make addressing other global challenges, from pandemic response to trade governance, significantly more difficult."