China’s role and contribution in the global governance of climate change: institutional adjustments for carbon tax introduction, collection and management in China

Legitimacy is central for the capacity of global governance institutions to address problems such as climate change, trade protectionism, and human rights abuses. However, despite legitimacy’s importance for global governance, its workings remain poorly understood. That is the core concern of this volume, which engages with the overarching question: whether, why, how, and with what consequences global governance institutions gain, sustain, and lose legitimacy. This introductory chapter explains the rationale of the book, introduces its conceptual framework, reviews existing literature, and presents the key themes of the volume. It emphasizes in particular the volume’s sociological approach to legitimacy in global governance, its comparative scope, and its comprehensive treatment of the topic. Moreover, a specific effort is made to explain how each chapter moves beyond existing research in exploring the book’s three themes: (1) sources of legitimacy, (2) processes of legitimation and delegitimation, and (3) consequences of legitimacy.

Download Full-text

The Paris Agreement—China’s Kind of (International) Order?

10.1093/oso/9780198828945.003.0014 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Daniel Krahl

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

Developing Countries ◽

Global Governance ◽

World Order ◽

Paris Agreement ◽

Great Power ◽

Old Order ◽

Traditional Approaches ◽

Emerging Powers ◽

International Status

The Paris Agreement has turned traditional approaches to global governance upside down, using a bottom-up approach that made it possible for emerging powers like China to agree to binding emissions targets to contain climate change. It thus marks a further step away from the old order centered on Western power, and at the same time it fits well into Chinese attempts to create a post-American order that rests on great power diplomacy within a multilateral framework of cooperation that privileges developing countries. The Paris Agreement allows China to leverage the internal fight against pollution and the restructuring and upgrading of its economy for international status. That the agreement has so far survived President Trump’s announcement of America’s departure suggests that it could yet serve as a blueprint for other, future arrangements for world order that would be able to integrate a risen China.

Download Full-text

Grassroots and Global Governance: Can Global–Local Linkages Foster Food System Resilience for Small Northern Canadian Communities?

Sustainability ◽

10.3390/su13042415 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 (4) ◽

pp. 2415

Author(s):

Carla Johnston ◽

Andrew Spring

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

Global Governance ◽

Land Tenure ◽

Food Systems ◽

Food System ◽

Global Climate ◽

Local Level ◽

Indigenous Communities ◽

Global Network ◽

Global Networks

Communities in Canada’s Northwest Territories (NWT) are at the forefront of the global climate emergency. Yet, they are not passive victims; local-level programs are being implemented across the region to maintain livelihoods and promote adaptation. At the same time, there is a recent call within global governance literature to pay attention to how global policy is implemented and affecting people on the ground. Thinking about these two processes, we ask the question: (how) can global governance assist northern Indigenous communities in Canada in reaching their goals of adapting their food systems to climate change? To answer this question, we argue for a “community needs” approach when engaging in global governance literature and practice, which puts community priorities and decision-making first. As part of a collaborative research partnership, we highlight the experiences of Ka’a’gee Tu First Nation, located in Kakisa, NWT, Canada. We include their successes of engaging in global network building and the systemic roadblock of lack of formal land tenure. Moreover, we analyze potential opportunities for this community to engage with global governance instruments and continue connecting to global networks that further their goals related to climate change adaptation and food sovereignty.

Download Full-text

COVID-19 and future pandemics: a global systems approach and relevance to SDGs

Globalization and Health ◽

10.1186/s12992-021-00711-6 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 17 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Tharanga Thoradeniya ◽

Saroj Jayasinghe

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

Global Governance ◽

Systems Approach ◽

Rna Virus ◽

Modern Human ◽

Systems Science ◽

World Population ◽

Ecological Processes ◽

Physical Environments ◽

Corporate Interests

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic is adversely impacting modern human civilization. A global view using a systems science approach is necessary to recognize the close interactions between health of animals, humans and the environment. Discussion A model is developed initially by describing five sequential or parallel steps on how a RNA virus emerged from animals and became a pandemic: 1. Origins in the animal kingdom; 2. Transmission to domesticated animals; 3. Inter-species transmission to humans; 4. Local epidemics; 5. Global spread towards a pandemic. The next stage identifies global level determinants from the physical environments, the biosphere and social environment that influence these steps to derive a generic conceptual model. It identifies that future pandemics are likely to emerge from ecological processes (climate change, loss of biodiversity), anthropogenic social processes (i.e. corporate interests, culture and globalization) and world population growth. Intervention would therefore require modifications or dampening these generators and prevent future periodic pandemics that would reverse human development. Addressing issues such as poorly planned urbanization, climate change and deforestation coincide with SDGs such as sustainable cities and communities (Goal 11), climate action (Goal 13) and preserving forests and other ecosystems (Goal 15). This will be an added justification to address them as global priorities. Some determinants in the model are poorly addressed by SDGs such as the case of population pressures, cultural factors, corporate interests and globalization. The overarching process of globalization will require modifications to the structures, processes and mechanisms of global governance. The defects in global governance are arguably due to historical reasons and the neo-liberal capitalist order. This became evident especially in the aftermath of the COVID-19 when the vaccination roll-out led to violations of universal values of equity and right to life by some of the powerful and affluent nations. Summary A systems approach leads us to a model that shows the need to tackle several factors, some of which are not adequately addressed by SDGs and require restructuring of global governance and political economy.

Download Full-text

Integrated assessment of global water scarcity over the 21st century under multiple climate change mitigation policies

Hydrology and Earth System Sciences ◽

10.5194/hess-18-2859-2014 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 18 (8) ◽

pp. 2859-2883 ◽

Cited By ~ 61

Author(s):

M. I. Hejazi ◽

J. Edmonds ◽

L. Clarke ◽

P. Kyle ◽

E. Davies ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

21St Century ◽

Water Availability ◽

Water Scarcity ◽

Carbon Tax ◽

Assessment Model ◽

Baseline Scenario ◽

Water Demands ◽

Global Water ◽

Mitigation Policies

Abstract. Water scarcity conditions over the 21st century both globally and regionally are assessed in the context of climate change and climate mitigation policies, by estimating both water availability and water demand within the Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM), a leading community-integrated assessment model of energy, agriculture, climate, and water. To quantify changes in future water availability, a new gridded water-balance global hydrologic model – namely, the Global Water Availability Model (GWAM) – is developed and evaluated. Global water demands for six major demand sectors (irrigation, livestock, domestic, electricity generation, primary energy production, and manufacturing) are modeled in GCAM at the regional scale (14 geopolitical regions, 151 sub-regions) and then spatially downscaled to 0.5° × 0.5° resolution to match the scale of GWAM. Using a baseline scenario (i.e., no climate change mitigation policy) with radiative forcing reaching 8.8 W m−2 (equivalent to the SRES A1Fi emission scenario) and three climate policy scenarios with increasing mitigation stringency of 7.7, 5.5, and 4.2 W m−2 (equivalent to the SRES A2, B2, and B1 emission scenarios, respectively), we investigate the effects of emission mitigation policies on water scarcity. Two carbon tax regimes (a universal carbon tax (UCT) which includes land use change emissions, and a fossil fuel and industrial emissions carbon tax (FFICT) which excludes land use change emissions) are analyzed. The baseline scenario results in more than half of the world population living under extreme water scarcity by the end of the 21st century. Additionally, in years 2050 and 2095, 36% (28%) and 44% (39%) of the global population, respectively, is projected to live in grid cells (in basins) that will experience greater water demands than the amount of available water in a year (i.e., the water scarcity index (WSI) > 1.0). When comparing the climate policy scenarios to the baseline scenario while maintaining the same baseline socioeconomic assumptions, water scarcity declines under a UCT mitigation policy but increases with a FFICT mitigation scenario by the year 2095, particularly with more stringent climate mitigation targets. Under the FFICT scenario, water scarcity is projected to increase, driven by higher water demands for bio-energy crops.

Download Full-text

Climate Change and Carbon Tax Expectations

SSRN Electronic Journal ◽

10.2139/ssrn.1564032 ◽

2010 ◽

Author(s):

Michael Hoel

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

Carbon Tax

Download Full-text

Normative arguments for non-state actor participation in international policymaking processes: Functionalism, neocorporatism or democratic pluralism?

European Journal of International Relations ◽

10.1177/1354066115608926 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 22 (4) ◽

pp. 920-943 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Naghmeh Nasiritousi ◽

Mattias Hjerpe ◽

Karin Bäckstrand

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

United Nations ◽

Global Governance ◽

Single Case ◽

Democratic Legitimacy ◽

State Actor ◽

Recent Trends ◽

State Actors ◽

Procedural Values

The participation of non-state actors in multilateral institutions is often portrayed as one way of decreasing the perceived legitimacy deficit in global governance. The literature on non-state actors has identified several ways in which these actors can enhance the legitimacy of intergovernmental organisations and global governance arrangements. Three partially competing normative arguments, or rationales, for the inclusion of non-state actors in international policymaking — functionalism, neocorporatism and democratic pluralism — have been identified. Whereas functionalism highlights the contribution of non-state actors to output legitimacy in terms of expertise, neocorporatism emphasises the inclusion of affected interests, and democratic pluralism claims that non-state actors increase input legitimacy through procedural values. These three normative arguments thus offer different understandings of the motives for the inclusion and representation of non-state actors in international negotiations and diplomacy. Through a single case study of United Nations climate diplomacy, we analyse the extent to which the three rationales for non-state actor inclusion are found in views held by state and non-state actors participating in the annual United Nations climate change conferences. Our results show that different actor groups place varying degrees of emphasis on the different rationales for non-state actor inclusion, even though the neocorporatist rationale remains most favoured overall. We discuss the implications of our findings for the democratic legitimacy of increasing participation of non-state actors in intergovernmental affairs and recent trends in the participation of non-state actors in the international climate change policymaking process.

Download Full-text