“THE test of a first-rate intelligence”, F. Scott Fitzgerald, a sometime Parisian, once wrote, “is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time.” By this standard, the 195 countries that gathered outside Paris in the two weeks running up to December 12th to negotiate a new agreement on climate change have to be counted very bright indeed. It is vital, they declared, that the world’s temperature does not climb much more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels; and yet they simultaneously celebrated a new climate agreement that got nowhere close to preventing such a rise.

The individual pledges that nations made going into the Paris talks—which they will now be expected, though not compelled, to honour—are estimated to put the world on course for something like 3°C of warming. In the non-linear universe of climate change, 3°C represents a lot more than twice as much risk and harm as 1.5°C; it could well, for instance, be the difference between the Greenland ice cap staying put and the sea-level rising, over centuries, by six metres.

For someone to propose means that fall so far short of their purported ends might seem like cynicism or stupidity. Sure enough, some of the keenest devotees to action on climate change have accused the Paris negotiators of both. In fact, the deal really did demonstrate collective intelligence.

The nations of the world know that they cannot suddenly force each other to stop emitting greenhouse gases, because fossil fuels are fundamental to the way that economies work. But many countries also want to reduce the risks posed by climate change and know that they need to find ways to work together. The Paris agreement offers a range of mechanisms to make this happen (see article).

Countries now have a framework to ensure that each is doing what it said it would; they have pledged more money to help the poorest and most vulnerable countries adapt to the effects of climate change; they have a task force for looking at the issues raised by those who cannot adapt and need to find new places to live; and they have the basis for new carbon-pricing deals. They have also agreed that big developing countries, which were largely spared by earlier deals, should consider making a greater contribution.

INTERACTIVE: From CO2 to GHG, which countries have the highest emissions? The Paris agreement provides a timetable for increasing the ambition of countries’ emissions pledges as technology improves and experience accumulates. And, outside the main negotiations, Paris saw a commitment from rich countries and individuals to undertake a lot more research into new sources of clean energy. All this has signalled to investors that both developed and developing countries intend to act. This will not in itself bring about the end of the era of fossil fuels; it is, though, a step in that direction.

This side of paradise

But there are a daunting number of further steps. Some relate to administrative capacity. In many poor countries the ability to assess action on climate change and promulgate effective adaptation is inadequate; it must be nurtured.

Others relate to the use of private capital. If investors are discouraged from bankrolling fossil fuels, they are under no obligation to redirect their money to clean energy: they may prefer not to invest in energy at all. Governments will need to structure their power markets, and plan for their growth, in ways that make sense to long-term backers. Without the lure of profits in low-carbon energy, climate action could result in hundreds of millions of people who now lack modern energy services being left in the darkness for longer.

By the same token, increased R&D on its own is a necessary condition for progress, but not a sufficient one. Backers need to ensure that it leads to innovative solutions which can be installed on a commercial scale, rather than becoming a self-perpetuating academic exercise (as with international efforts on nuclear fusion).

The worst risk is that a justified sense of accomplishment will engender a debilitating complacency. The Paris agreement drew on impressive reserves of diplomatic savoir faire and international solidarity. But if it is to live up to its promise, countries will have to make full use of the mechanisms for ratcheting up emissions cuts and accelerating adaptation for decades to come. Fitzgerald’s example of opposing ideas was the ability “to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise”. Sustained determination could be the difference between an agreement that deals with climate change and one that turns out to be another wasted opportunity.