Lukas Bergkamp, a Dutch lawyer, has written an article at the Energy Post in which he argues that "climate activists" may use the courts to force (European?) governments to enforce co2 emissions reductions they wouldn't otherwise apply.
Let me quote from his article:
" Paris Agreement’s implicit reliance on political activism and the related non-hierarchical governance by the courts – a direct result of efforts to ensure the participation of the United States and other major-emitting Parties – reflects the steep price the international community has had to pay to claim victory at COP-21. At its most fundamental level, this constitutes a threat to constitutional government, the separation of powers, and representative democracy. It may well result in an unconstitutional usurpation of power by activist groups and unelected and unaccountable judges, and, thus, will undermine legislative power and the role of positive law in deciding legal disputes."
Angela Merkel, on the right leads the European Suicide Party,
on the left is her domesticated Greek populist, Tsipras.
The legal argument may apply to Europeans, which lately seem engaged in suiciding their societies in a rather lemming like process (such as by allowing millions of unscreened Muslims to settle inside European borders).
But Europe seems to be a special case (at least one would hope so). In other nations we are likely to see the Paris agreement fail to pass (the probability of USA senate approval is nil). Or their constitution doesn’t allow a judicial take over of the people’s sovereign power.
The COP21 process was quite amateurish and the conclusion was erroneous. Humanity has multiple or infinite pathways to solve a looming climate change problem, but the COP21 “solution” simply doesn’t pass the smell test. Other solutions, such as geoengineering, increasing resilency, researching and deploying nuclear power, may yield much better results.
Whether global warming is a problem or not is really irrelevant to humanity's need for new sources of energy. We are running out of oil, and something else will have to plug that gap.
Thus if this goes to trial you will find me there as amicus curiae arguing that the cop21 “solution” is unsound. And this will set up courts judging science, engineering, economics, and social science. I’m going to have fun.