Back in December 2015, two exhausting weeks of deliberations came to a close, and one of the most important and most ambitious global climate meetings ever assembled was signed off by the Paris Agreement.

The 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) was deemed the most influential since they began having the annual event in 1992, as 185 countries had submitted measures to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The goal was ambitious; 195 delegates from all over the world would design and implement a binding, universal agreement that would limit greenhouse gas emissions to levels that would prevent global temperatures from increasing more than 2°C above the temperature benchmark set before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Until today, 197 countries have joined the Paris Agreement.

In November 2021, the COP26 will be held in London, and tensions are running high, as the agreement includes commitments from all countries to strengthen their commitments over time, while establishing a framework for the transparent monitoring and reporting of countries’ climate goals. Through a durable framework guiding the global effort for decades to come, the aim is to raise countries’ climate ambition over time. To promote this, the agreement establishes two review processes, each on a five-year cycle. 197 countries, and 197 leaders will have to account for their actions or lack thereof as we reach the finish-line of the first review cycle.

Ambition is not enough

Although many climate analysts say the pact has helped make progress toward the goal of preventing average global temperatures from increasing by 2°C (or the later determined 1.5°C) above pre industrial levels, there is extensive evidence that many countries aren’t living up to their ongoing promises, and since falling short comes with few concrete penalties, climate action is left up to the good measures of global leaders (as witnessed with Donald Trump leaving the agreement).

 In February 2021 the UN Climate Change published a synthesis of climate action ambition as contained in countries’ new or updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), indicating that nations must redouble their climate efforts if they intend to reach the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global temperature rise by 2C—ideally 1.5C—by the end of the century.  

The report includes new or updated NDCs by 75 Parties, which account for approximately 30 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. 

While most of these countries increased their levels of ambition to reduce emissions, changes in total emissions would be small, less than -1%, in 2030 compared to 2010. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), by contrast, has indicated that emission reduction ranges to meet the 1.5°C temperature goal should be around -45% in 2030 compared to 2010, a drastic difference.

"We are encouraged by the recent political shift in momentum towards stronger climate action throughout the world, with many countries, including some major emitters, setting net-zero emissions goals by mid-century and global corporations committing to stronger climate action,” said Patricia Espinosa, Executive Secretary of UN Climate Change. 

"But this report shows that current levels of climate ambition are not on track to meet our Paris Agreement goals.”

But even if more countries and consequently their leaders make more substantiated NDCs, the performance level is the one that actually counts. As politics change, and leaders come and go, with the case of former US President, Donald Trump as an important example, actions speak much louder than words, especially when it comes to climate action. 

Since reaching the goals would require weaning off fossil fuels for energy and transportation, halting the loss of forests, overhauling food production, and finding ways to suck greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere, processes that take years, and even centuries, actions must happen now.

A distributed era

In the race to reach net-zero or neutrality, countries around the world are taking various measures to try and curb their emissions. According to EY, In 2020, the US installed 19GW of solar, a 43% annual increase, as well as energizing a record-setting 2.2GW of energy storage systems. The UK Government approved development of the largest battery-storage project, and pledged £92m in funding for innovative green technologies. Egypt has announced it intends to increase the supply of energy generated from renewable sources to 42% by 2035, with solar PV providing approximately 25%, onshore wind 14% and hydro power 2%. Hungary continues to grow as a market for solar PV, having met its targeted 14% of generation via renewables in 2020. The latest state-run solar PV auction was significantly oversubscribed, resulting in the contracting of 390GWh per year of generation. Multiple technologies could generate sustainable results, but a new approach is needed on how to utilize them in the fastest, most affordable and scalable way, and reach the actual numbers these countries, and many others committed to.

The answer comes in the form of distributed energy resources (DER), the new emperor when it comes to harnessing renewable energy, especially in vast territories with dire needs, such as the sub-Saharan Africa region. The term refers to a variety of technologies that generate electricity at or near where it will be used, including solar panels, small wind turbines, natural-gas-fired fuel cells, and combined heat and power. DER may serve a single structure, such as a home or business, or be part of a microgrid (a smaller grid that is also tied into the larger electricity delivery system), such as a major industrial facility, or a large college campus.

When looking at the financial perspective, DER is the most affordable option, extremely less expensive than grid connections. As solar panel prices continue dropping, it becomes increasingly more affordable for governments, and end-users alike. When compared to the grid option, the costs become clearer. National grids operate by definition on a country scale and require huge investment and maintenance costs. According to Africon, 1km of transmission electricity line had a median cost of $27,632 while 1km of distribution electricity line had a median cost of $8,278. On the other hand off-grid solutions are divided into two categories: mini-grids and Solar Home Systems (SHS). Mini-grids are deployed at the village or facility scale, and require a significant investment but remain much cheaper than a connection to the existing national grid. SHS are deployed at the household scale and require very little investment, reaching a few hundred USD.

Scalability is another important factor, and DER’s extreme scalability lies in their affordability, and ease of installment and deployment. In contrast to grid connections that require planning ahead, and years of development per project, off-grid solutions can be deployed quickly, as installments are much easier, and only take a few minutes (SHS) to a few hours (mini grids).

Another important factor is the deployment location. National grids are the obvious solution when looking at developed countries, but when it comes to developing nations, it is not that simple. Across the world, 940 million people, 13 percent of the global population, are still living without electricity access, most of them in remote, rural areas where the national grid is simply non-existent.

5 years into the Paris Agreement, and pledges continue rising, yet actions remain stale. Distributed energy lies a clear, affordable, and scalable path towards achieving many declared goals, and it also leaves no more room for excuses. The time to act is now.

The writer is an entrepreneur  and investor, leading sustainability-driven companies in Africa and the Middle East