One of the biggest events of the past year in energy and environmental policy was the Paris climate talks. More countries than ever have pledged significant carbon cuts. Yet in many people’s views, those pledges fall far short of what a lot of scientists say is necessary.  United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon sat down with Kimberley Strassel, a member of The Wall Street Journal editorial board, to discuss the future of climate diplomacy. Edited excerpts of their discussion follow.  MS. STRASSEL: The U.N. was not actually there doing the negotiations in Paris, but you got called in at the last minute to make a few countries fall in line.  MR. BAN: I am very grateful to President Obama and President Xi Jinping for their leadership and strong commitment. Basically, it was the U.S. and China who really helped [make] this Paris agreement possible. These are the two largest emitters of the world: China and U.S. They agreed that there should be an agreement, and we worked and reached out to many countries. [It] was very positive.  MS. STRASSEL: Some would say there is no enforcement mechanism to make any of this happen. What do you say to critics who say this is more of a feel-good agreement than a consequential way of reducing carbon?  MR. BAN: This is an international agreement; thus, it’s obligatory. It’s not that all the clauses, all the articles, are obligatory. But core elements are. For example, the national targets, Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, are not binding. But every five years, this will be monitored and reviewed, and in 2018, the parties will gather to review what happened from 2015 until 2018. From then on, every five years there will be monitoring and reporting. This is mandatory. And there is much, much more possibility that member states will have an opportunity to verify which country has done how much. This is an obligatory clause.  MS. STRASSEL: But for China, maybe it was a little bit easier to agree to its targets; its economy has slowed, its demand for energy has slowed. But in five years, let’s say that has changed and the amount of carbon emissions have gone up and they’re not hitting the targets. What does the U.N. do about it?  MR. BAN: Every member of the Paris Agreement will have an interest to abide by their agreement. These are very strict peer reviews. Every year there’s a UNFCCC meeting [U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change] to review all this. But every five years, there would be four-month review-and-reporting sessions, and therefore, for their own national economy and the world economy, every country has an interest to keep their promise.  MS. STRASSEL: So a shaming mechanism?  MR. BAN: Yes. We are not going to shame, but everybody knows which country is doing what and how much they are doing. Everybody has an interest to fully comply.  MS. STRASSEL: The U.N. has its Green Climate Fund, with a goal of I think $100 billion by 2020. But the India environment minister said that if you want developing countries to get on board, industrialized countries owed trillions. Do you think industrialized countries are willing to do that? And how important is that piece to making this happen?  MR. BAN: The initial promise by the OECD countries and big developed countries was to provide $100 billion by 2020. Unfortunately, the firm commitment has not been made. It has been pushed back until 2020. When it comes to 2020, there will have to be a firm commitment, as well as a road map, framework, how $100 billion per year will have to be provided to developing countries. After that, there should be more than $100 billion.  MS. STRASSEL: The U.S. has a plan to reduce emissions by 28%. It went to delegation after delegation and said, “Look at our commitments, look at the president’s climate plan.” But the plan is now mired in the Supreme Court. How much does it concern you that one of the leading things that got this done is now uncertain?  MR. BAN: As the largest economy in the world, I believe that this climate change issue should not be a subject of a political debate.  MS. STRASSEL: But it is.  MR. BAN: Unfortunately. I’m concerned. But I do appreciate President Obama’s strong commitment. He knew that, with all this opposition of the Republican Party’s stance, he may not be able to have all this legally—through a legal process. But he also has executive power. He will do whatever he can under his executive power.  MS. STRASSEL: Do things fall apart internationally if this continues to be stalled?  MR. BAN: It has given a certain negative wave to the international community. But I believe President Obama’s assurances that he will do whatever he can do under his presidential executive power.  MS. STRASSEL: President Obama said climate change was a bigger threat than terrorism. Do you agree?  MR. BAN: Longer term, it is a much, much more serious issue. Of course, terrorism, extremism must be defeated. But look at the consequences. Terrorism terrifies the people of the world, but climate change does not respect any borders. It affects a whole humanity, it affects our planet Earth.
The U.N. secretary-general discusses why he thinks countries will honor their commitments, and the political difficulties President Obama faces.