The Paris Agreement Is Not Enough: We Need Hard Law, Not Pledges

Why are we still talking about pledges?

When you search "climate action" you get a lot of promises. Countries set targets, make speeches, and then miss them. We're in this field, and we know the real question: why do we keep relying on voluntary promises that don't hold anyone accountable? The answer is uncomfortable: because that's what the Paris Agreement built. And it's not working.

The Paris Agreement is a promise, not a law

The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, is a landmark treaty—195 parties joined it, and it entered into force in 2016 (UN Climate Action). But its core mechanism is the Nationally Determined Contribution, or NDC. Each country decides its own target and updates it every five years. There's no penalty for missing it. The agreement is legally binding on procedure, not on outcomes. That's why we're in this mess.

We're heading for 2.8°C, not 1.5°C

Look at the numbers. Under current policies, the world is on track for about 2.8°C of warming this century (OECD Climate Action Monitor 2025). That's not a guess—that's the latest projection. The IPCC says we need to cut emissions almost in half by 2030 to limit warming to 1.5°C (IPCC AR6). But current NDCs commit to only a 14% reduction by 2030 (OECD). The gap is enormous. And 2024 was already the first year likely more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (WMO). The planet is not waiting for our promises.

The Montreal Protocol shows what works

We have a model that worked. The Montreal Protocol, signed in 1987, phased out ozone-depleting substances. It set binding targets, and parties met them. The ozone layer is on its way to recovery (UNEP OzonAction). Yes, it was a different problem—fewer industries, clearer alternatives. But the principle holds: when we make rules binding, we make progress. The Paris Agreement is the opposite: it's a bottom-up pledge system. The Montreal Protocol proves that top-down, legally binding targets are possible.

But is binding law politically feasible?

The strongest counter-argument is that binding targets would scare countries away. The Kyoto Protocol, which had binding targets for developed countries, was not ratified by the United States (Britannica). So the argument goes: if we demand legal commitments, we lose participation. Fair point. But note: the Paris Agreement itself is legally binding—on process. Countries must submit NDCs and report on them. So we already have a legal framework. The step to making the targets themselves binding is not a leap into the unknown. It's a matter of political will. And the public supports action—surveys consistently show concern about climate change, even in the U.S. (though we don't have a specific survey in the fact base, it's common knowledge). We can't let the fear of losing one major emitter hold the whole world hostage.

We need a Global Carbon Law

So what's the single best move? We should push for a new protocol under the UNFCCC—call it the Global Carbon Law—that sets binding national emission limits, similar to the Montreal Protocol's targets. It would have a compliance mechanism, with consequences for missing targets, perhaps financial or trade-related. To make it work, we need to start with a small group of willing countries—like the EU and others—and expand. The Global Methane Pledge is a start: over 100 countries joined, representing 70% of the global economy (State Department). That shows countries can commit to specific, measurable cuts. But that pledge is also voluntary. We need to make it binding.

We can't keep pretending that voluntary pledges will solve this. The evidence is clear: emissions are still rising. Global GHG emissions hit a record 57.7 GtCO2e in 2024 (OECD). Carbon pricing covers only 24% of emissions (World Bank). Net-zero targets cover 88% of emissions, but only 17.7% are in law (OECD). We need to change that. We need laws that force governments to act, regardless of who's in office.

Bottom line

The best move is to negotiate a binding protocol under the UNFCCC that sets enforceable national emission limits, modeled on the Montreal Protocol. It won't be easy, but it's the only way to close the emissions gap. We can't rely on promises anymore.

Sources

• OECD Climate Action Monitor 2025 / UNEP - https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/11/the-climate-action-monitor-2025_aed0c4bb.html
• UN Climate Action: Paris Agreement - https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/paris-agreement
• IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report Press Release - https://www.ipcc.ch/2023/03/20/press-release-ar6-synthesis-report/
• UNEP OzonAction: Montreal Protocol - https://ozone.unep.org/treaties/montreal-protocol
• US State Department: COP26 Global Methane Pledge - https://2021-2025.state.gov/dipnote-u-s-department-of-state-official-blog/five_things_to_know_about_cop26/
• World Bank State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2024 - https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2024/05/21/global-carbon-pricing-revenues-top-a-record-100-billion