 |
| Carbon emissions from various global regions during the period 1800–2000 AD (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
The Paris Agreement and the New Logic of International Climate Politics (28 page pdf, Robert Falkner, International Affairs, Aug.31, 2016)
Today we review an analysis of the international negotiations from the top-down 1996 Kyoto Accord that today applies only to 15% of global carbon emissions, to the 2009 Copenhagen Accord that failed to reach consensus on a global emission reduction goal but managed to provide an umbrella for all participating countries for future negotiations. To the bottom-up Paris Agreement in 2015, signed by 195 nations, combines domestic politics with international commitments through a “naming and shaming” approach, voluntary national commitments, rachet-up reviews every five years and, perhaps most importantly, definition of a long term goal to reach “net-zero” emissions or “emission neutrality” between 2050 and 2100. As these voluntary commitments would result in a global warming of 2.7 C above pre-industrial levels, further reductions beyond the pledges are needed. The author cautions that “the Paris Agreement cannot be expected to ‘fix’ the climate problem; it can only provide a supportive framework within which states and other actors can achieve the required emissions cuts.”
Key Quotes:
“that global GHG emission levels, which were at 52.7 gigatonnes (GT) of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2014, should be brought down to 48 GT by 2025, and 42 GT in 2030. Carbon dioxide emissions alone will need to be reduced to net zero — by 2060–2075 (from 35.5 GT in 2014)”
“Low-lying island states face an existential threat from rising sea levels while others, especially countries near the Arctic Circle, may experience greater agricultural output and easier access to natural resources as a result of the thawing of permafrost.”
“the number of climate change laws and policies worldwide doubled every five years since 1997, with 426 climate change laws and policies in place by the time of the 2009 Copenhagen conference, rising to 804 by the end of 2014.Interestingly, this applies not just to Annex I countries, which have traditionally led the way in climate legislation, but also to non-Annex I countries”
“the careful wording of key provisions ensures that only some create legal obligations (‘shall’) while others merely express recommendations (‘should’) or create expressions of intent or opinion (‘will’, ‘recognize’).Thus, once the agreement has entered into force, parties will be legally obliged to submit NDCs and report on them every five years, but failure to comply with their own national climate plans will not constitute a breach of international law”
“Naming and shaming mechanisms operate within diverse global governance contexts, from the International Labour Organization to human rights bodies and corporate social responsibility institutions.They are usually seen as a fallback mechanism where formal compliance and enforcement mechanisms are unavailable or fail to work. “
“it is clear that the within the new logic of nationally determined climate action, the Paris Agreement cannot be expected to ‘fix’ the climate problem; it can only provide a supportive framework within which states and other actors can achieve the required emissions cuts. “
No comments:
Post a Comment