scholarly journals The risk of carbon leakage in global climate agreements

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Nielsen ◽  
Nicolai Baumert ◽  
Astrid Kander ◽  
Magnus Jiborn ◽  
Viktoras Kulionis
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Kyoto Protocol ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Carbon Leakage ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Climate Agreements ◽  
Climate Action ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Nationally Determined Contributions

Abstract Although climate change and international trade are interdependent, policy-makers often address the two topics separately. This may inhibit progress at the intersection of climate change and trade and could present a serious constraint for global climate action. One key risk is carbon leakage through emission outsourcing, i.e. reductions in emissions in countries with rigorous climate policies being offset by increased emissions in countries with less stringent policies. We first analyze the Paris Agreement’s nationally determined contributions (NDC) and investigate how carbon leakage is addressed. We find that the risk of carbon leakage is insufficiently accounted for in these documents. Then, we apply a novel quantitative approach (Jiborn et al., 2018; Baumert et al., 2019) to analyze trends in carbon outsourcing related to a previous international climate regime—the Kyoto Protocol—in order to assess whether reported emission reductions were offset by carbon outsourcing in the past. Our results for 2000–2014 show a more nuanced picture of carbon leakage during the Kyoto Protocol than previous studies have reported. Carbon outsourcing from developed to developing countries was dominated by the USA outsourcing to China, while the evidence for other developed countries was mixed. Against conventional wisdom, we find that, in general, countries that stayed committed to their Kyoto Protocol emission targets were either only minor carbon outsourcers or actually even insourcers—although the trend was slightly negative—indicating that binding emissions targets do not necessarily lead to carbon outsourcing. We argue that multiple carbon monitoring approaches are needed to reduce the risk of carbon leakage.

scholarly journals The Evolution of the UNFCCC

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 343-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Kuyper ◽  
Heike Schroeder ◽  
Björn-Ola Linnér
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Kyoto Protocol ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Industrial Country ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Voluntary Contributions ◽  
Top Down ◽  
United Nations Framework Convention ◽  
Climate Action

This article takes stock of the evolution of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) through the prism of three recent shifts: the move away from targeting industrial country emissions in a legally binding manner under the Kyoto Protocol to mandating voluntary contributions from all countries under the Paris Agreement; the shift from the top-down Kyoto architecture to the hybrid Paris outcome; and the broadening out from a mitigation focus under Kyoto to a triple goal comprising mitigation, adaptation, and finance under Paris. This review discusses the implications of these processes for the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of the UNFCCC's institutional and operational settings for meeting the convention's objectives. It ends by sketching three potential scenarios facing the UNFCCC as it seeks to coordinate the Paris Agreement and its relationship to the wider landscape of global climate action.

scholarly journals Inequity in International Climate Change Negotiations

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-177
Author(s):  
Serge Silatsa Nanda ◽  
Omar Samba ◽  
Ahmad Sahide
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Kyoto Protocol ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Climate Change Negotiations ◽  
Climate Agreements ◽  
Climate Negotiations ◽  
International Climate Agreements ◽  
International Climate

The adoption of international climate agreements requires thorough negotiation between parties. This study aims to analyse the inequities between developed and developing countries in climate negotiations. This was done through a scrutiny of the main stages of these negotiations from the Rio Conference to the advent of the Paris Agreement. Our analysis has shown pervasive inequities along the climate negotiations over time. The UNFCCC made a qualitative separation between developed and developing countries in the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. Furthermore, the Kyoto Protocol emphasized this with the commitment of developed countries to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 5%. The Kyoto Protocol by introducing flexibility mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) contributed to increase inequalities. The Paris Agreement has increased inequity by requesting each country to submit nationally determined contributions (NDCs) even though the global emission of developing countries remains very low. The negotiation style of developing countries is mostly limited to compromise and accommodation to the desires of the powerful states, as is the case in most international cooperation. The reality of the climate change negotiations mirrors the inequalities between developed and developing nations.

International Governance on Carbon Tariff and Its Vacuum in International Regime

2013 ◽  
Vol 01 (01) ◽  
pp. 1350008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mou WANG
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
International Governance ◽  
International Consensus ◽  
Climate Governance ◽  
Emission Quota ◽  
Carbon Tariff

Drawing on the idea that countries are eligible to implement differentiated emission reduction policies based on their respective capabilities, some parties of UNFCCC attempt to weaken the principle of “Common but differentiated responsibilities(CBDR)” and impose carbon tariff on international trade. This initiative is in fact another camouflage to burden developing countries with emission cut obligation, which has no doubt undermined the development rights of developing countries. This paper defines Carbon Tariff as border measures that target import goods with embodied carbon emission. It can be import tariffs or other domestic tax measures that adjust border tax, which includes plain import tariffs and export rebates, border tax adjustment, emission quota and permit etc. For some developed countries, carbon tariffs mean to sever trade protectionism and to build trade barriers. Its theoretical arguments like “loss of comparative advantage”, “carbon leakage decreases environmental effectiveness” and “theoretical model bases” are pseudo-propositions without international consensus. Carbon tariff has become an intensively debated issue due to its duality of climate change and trade, but neither UNFCCC nor WTO has clarified this issue or has indicated a clear statement in this regard. As a result, it allows some parties to take advantage of this loophole and escape its international climate change obligation. Carbon tariff is an issue arising from global climate governance. To promote the cooperation of global climate governance and safeguard the social and economic development of developing countries, a fair and justified climate change regime and international trade institution should be established, and the settlement of the carbon tariff issue should be addressed within these frameworks. This paper argues that the international governance of carbon tariff should in cooperation with other international agreements; however, principles and guidelines regarding this issue should be developed under the UNFCCC. Based on these principles and guidelines, WTO can develop related technical operation provisions.

scholarly journals Evolution of the Global Climate Governance System and Its Implications

2015 ◽  
Vol 01 (03) ◽  
pp. 423-446
Author(s):  
Hongyuan Yu
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Developmental Trend ◽  
Governance System ◽  
Early 21St Century ◽  
Security Challenges ◽  
New Energy ◽  
Nationally Determined Contributions ◽  
Two Sides ◽  
The Eu

Climate change has emerged as one of the top security challenges in the early 21st century. It is now widely acknowledged that international cooperation and collective action will be the key to addressing challenges caused by climate change. This article will give an explanation on the evolution of the global climate change governance system by linking history, governance, and diplomacy. The challenge of climate change involves not only international competition for new energy but also related adjustments in the global governance pattern. Specifically, the carbon emission reduction to be discussed at the 2015 UN Paris Climate Conference will still be problematic, and negotiations with regard to financing mechanisms between developed and developing countries will remain in doubt. Furthermore, the attitudes of the two sides toward common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) and the intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) are disparate. In addition, negotiations among China, the UN, the U.S., and the EU are decisive in tackling this tricky matter. Finally, this article outlines some potential diplomatic options for China's future developmental trend.

Comments: Carbon Tariffs - Fair Incentives for Change?

2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (05) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Author(s):  
Pam Boschee
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Climate Policy ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Carbon Price ◽  
Carbon Leakage ◽  
Carbon Taxes ◽  
Trading Systems ◽  
Climate Policies ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Carbon Tariff

Carbon credits, carbon taxes, and emissions trading systems are familiar terms in discussions about limiting global warming, the Paris Agreement, and net-zero emissions goals. A more recent addition to the glossary of climate policy is “carbon tariff.” While the concept is not new, it recently surfaced in nascent policymaking in the EU. In 2019, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed a “carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM)” as part of a proposed green deal. In March, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on a World Trade Organization (WTO)-compatible CBAM. A carbon tariff, or the EU’s CBAM, is a tax applied to carbon-intensive imports. Countries that have pledged to be more ambitious in reducing emissions—and in some cases have implemented binding targets—may impose carbon costs on their own businesses. Being eyed now are cross-border or overseas businesses that make products in countries in which no costs are imposed for emissions, resulting in cheaper carbon-intensive goods. Those products are exported to the countries aiming for reduced emissions. The concern lies in the risk of locally made goods becoming unfairly disadvantaged against competitors that are not taking similar steps to deal with climate change. A carbon tariff is being considered to level the playing field: local businesses in countries applying a tariff can better compete as climate policies evolve and are adopted around the world. Complying with WTO rules to ensure fair treatment, the CBAM will be imposed only on high-emitting industries that compete directly with local industries paying a carbon price. In the short term, these are likely to be steel, chemicals, fertilizers, and cement. The Parliament’s statement introduced another term to the glossary of climate policy: carbon leakage. “To raise global climate ambition and prevent ‘carbon leakage,’ the EU must place a carbon price on imports from less climate-ambitious countries.” It refers to the situation that may occur if businesses were to transfer production to other countries with laxer emission constraints to avoid costs related to climate policies. This could lead to an increase in total emissions in the higher-emitting countries. “The resolution underlines that the EU’s increased ambition on climate change must not lead to carbon leakage as global climate efforts will not benefit if EU production is just moved to non-EU countries that have less ambitious emissions rules,” the Parliament said. It also emphasized the tariff “must not be misused to further protectionism.” A member of the environment committee, Yannick Jadot, said, “It is a major political and democratic test for the EU, which must stop being naïve and impose the same carbon price on products, whether they are produced in or outside the EU, to ensure the most polluting sectors also take part in fighting climate change and innovate towards zero carbon. This will give us the best chance of remaining below the 1.5°C warming limit, whilst also pushing our trading partners to be equally ambitious in order to enter the EU market.” The Commission is expected to present a legislative proposal on a CBAM in the second quarter of 2021 as part of the European Green Deal.

One Atmosphere

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Singer
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Montreal Protocol ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Protective Shield ◽  
Third Assessment Report ◽  
The Developed Countries ◽  
Full Force

There can be no clearer illustration of the need for human beings to act globally than the issues raised by the impact of human activity on our atmosphere. That we all share the same planet came to our attention in a particularly pressing way in the 1970s when scientists discovered that the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) threatens the ozone layer shielding the surface of our planet from the full force of the sun's ultraviolet radiation. Damage to that protective shield would cause cancer rates to rise sharply and could have other effects, for example, on the growth of algae. The threat was especially acute to the world's southernmost cities, since a large hole in the ozone was found to be opening up each year over Antarctica, but in the long term, the entire ozone shield was imperiled. Once the science was accepted, concerted international action followed relatively rapidly with the signing of the Montreal Protocol in 1985. The developed countries phased out virtually all use of CFCs by 1999, and the developing countries, given a 10-year period of grace, are now moving toward the same goal. Getting rid of CFCs has turned out to be just the curtain raiser: the main event is climate change, or global warming. Without belittling the pioneering achievement of those who brought about the Montreal Protocol, the problem was not so difficult, for CFCs can be replaced in all their uses at relatively little cost, and the solution to the problem is simply to stop producing them. Climate change is a very different matter. The scientific evidence that human activities are changing the climate of our planet has been studied by a working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international scientific body intended to provide policy makers with an authoritative view of climate change and its causes. The group released its Third Assessment Report in 2001, building on earlier reports and incorporating new evidence accumulated over the previous five years. The report is the work of 122 lead authors and 515 contributing authors, and the research on which it was based was reviewed by 337 experts.

Filling in for Governments? The Role of the Private Actors in the International Climate Regime

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-28
Author(s):  
Charlotte Streck
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Paris Agreement ◽  
Climate Regime ◽  
Climate Action ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
State Actor ◽  
International Climate ◽  
Private Actors

The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change abandons the Kyoto Protocol’s paradigm of binding emissions targets and relies instead on countries’ voluntary contributions. However, the Paris Agreement encourages not only governments but also sub-national governments, corporations and civil society to contribute to reaching ambitious climate goals. In a transition from the regulated architecture of the Kyoto Protocol to the open system of the Paris Agreement, the Agreement seeks to integrate non-state actors into the treaty-based climate regime. In 2014 the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Peru and France created the Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Action (and launched the Global Climate Action portal). In December 2019, this portal recorded more than twenty thousand climate-commitments of private and public non-state entities, making the non-state venues of international climate meetings decisively more exciting than the formal negotiation space. This level engagement and governments’ response to it raises a flurry of questions in relation to the evolving nature of the climate regime and climate change governance, including the role of private actors as standard setters and the lack of accountability mechanisms for non-state actions. This paper takes these developments as occasion to discuss the changing role of private actors in the climate regime.

Promoting Green and Low-Carbon Development to Address Challenges of Climate Change

2017 ◽  
Vol 05 (02) ◽  
pp. 1750008
Author(s):  
Zhenhua XIE
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Low Carbon ◽  
Address Climate Change ◽  
Development Path ◽  
International Obligation ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Low Carbon Development ◽  
Major Progress

A general consensus has been developed to proactively address climate change and promote green and low-carbon development in the international community. China, as a responsible major developing country, takes green and low-carbon development not only as its due international obligation to tackle global climate change, but also a priority in the implementation of the “Five Key Concepts for Development” ( http://keywords.china.org.cn/2016-03/01/content_37907679.htm ) and the realization of the “Two Centenary Goals” ( http://www.china.org.cn/china/china_key_words/2014-11/18/content_34158771.htm ). In this paper, the author reviews the major progress in tackling climate change worldwide in recent years, explores the nature of climate change based on the experiences of developed countries and China’s choice of development path, and analyzes China’s achievements and future development potential in green and low-carbon development.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document