A/HRC/31/52 such measures become less effective as temperatures rise. An increase of even 2°C would have drastic consequences for the full enjoyment of human rights. 73. States agreed in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that their goal is to achieve “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. In the Paris Agreement, States went further, stating in article 2 (1) that they aim to hold the increase in temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C, “recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change”. This target is consistent with the obligations of States, acting together in accordance with the duty of international cooperation, to protect human rights from the dangerous effects of climate change. 74. Through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement, States have created a legal and institutional framework to try to reach this goal. As noted above, human rights norms contemplate that States have some discretion to decide how best to balance their obligation to protect against environmental harm with their pursuit of other legitimate interests, but they should exercise that discretion reasonably in the light of all relevant factors, including those identified above. 75. Applying those factors to the international climate regime indicates that States have struck a reasonable balance in many respects. They have conducted an international decision-making process based on detailed, publicly disseminated scientific assessments. The agreement that emerged from this process in 2015 takes into account international standards, including human rights standards, and is non-retrogressive. It also appears to be non-discriminatory, and it includes some provisions designed to address the concerns of the most vulnerable countries and communities. 76. In some critical respects, however, the Paris Agreement falls short. The Agreement addresses mitigation principally through requiring each party to prepare its own nationally determined contribution. The problem is not that the Agreement allows each State to decide for itself what contribution it commits to make; the problem is that the proposed contributions do not go far enough. Commendably, almost every State in the world has presented an intended nationally determined contribution, but even if fully implemented, they will not put the world on a path that avoids disastrous consequences for human rights. UNEP has determined that full implementation of the intended contributions would lead to emission levels in 2030 that will likely cause a global average temperature increase of well over 2°C, and quite possibly over 3°C.39 Therefore, even if they meet their current commitments, States will not satisfy their human rights obligations. 77. From a human rights perspective, then, it is necessary not only to implement the current intended contributions, but also to strengthen those contributions to meet the target set out in article 2 of the Paris Agreement. States are aware of the gap between their current commitments and their collective goal, and they agreed in Paris to review the adequacy of their commitments through stocktaking exercises every five years, beginning in 2018. However, it is already clear that States must begin to move beyond their current commitments even before the first stocktaking, in order to close the gap between what is promised and what is necessary. 78. This challenge should not be underestimated. Keeping the increase in global temperature to well below 2°C requires States to move rapidly and steadily towards a world economy that no longer obtains energy from fossil fuels. Still, some countries are showing 39 18 UNEP, The Emissions Gap Report (2015), p. XVIII. Available from: http://uneplive.unep.org/media/docs/theme/13/EGR_2015_301115_lores.pdf.