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

2015 ◽  
Vol 01 (03) ◽  
pp. 423-446
Author(s):  
Hongyuan Yu

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.

2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (05) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Author(s):  
Pam Boschee

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.


Author(s):  
Tobias Nielsen ◽  
Nicolai Baumert ◽  
Astrid Kander ◽  
Magnus Jiborn ◽  
Viktoras Kulionis

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.


European View ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-162
Author(s):  
Romain Chuffart ◽  
Andreas Raspotnik

Dealing with climate change and developing the Arctic sustainably are often seen as both binary and contradictory sets of challenges. The EU is in a unique position in Arctic affairs: unlike non-Arctic states, it is part of and linked to the region. However, the EU is at risk of missing the opportunity to be a leader in setting standards for a coherent and sustainable approach for the region. The Arctic is often used as a symbol for global climate change and, conversely, climate change is also used as a reason for more Arctic engagement. Yet, the roots of global heating—greenhouse gas emissions—mostly originate from outside the region. This article asks whether the path towards more EU–Arctic involvement should start closer to home.


Significance The United States has already committed, in an unprecedented deal with China in November 2014, to reducing its emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025 (an improvement on its previous 17% goal). China in return pledged that its emissions would peak around 2030. This agreement is a game-changer for combating global climate change, since the two countries are the world's largest sources of carbon emissions, together accounting for 40% of the total, and were not covered under the now-expired Kyoto Protocol. Impacts Washington is poised to reclaim its place, lost after Kyoto, as a leader in global efforts against climate change. US-China climate cooperation initiatives could serve as templates for other developing countries. There are new opportunities for trilateral cooperation involving the EU. Fears that the bilateral agreement makes the UNFCCC obsolete are unwarranted, but it could preclude more ambitious efforts.


2016 ◽  
Vol 02 (02) ◽  
pp. 185-200
Author(s):  
Hongyuan Yu

Since the first global summit on climate change was held in 1992, the international community has managed to adopt a series of agreements and action plans to coordinate efforts of all countries to tackle the existing and potential challenges caused by climate change. Yet due to a lack of legally binding mechanisms and the huge discrepancy between developed and developing countries in their respective responsibilities, little progress has been made in international climate negotiation over the past decade. With the joint endeavor of major greenhouse gas emitters, especially emerging economies like China, the first-ever universal, legally binding global climate deal, the Paris Climate Agreement, was adopted in December 2015, setting up the legal framework of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and relevant international institutions to combat climate change on a reinterpreted principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR).” Conducive as it is to the institutions and working model of global climate governance, the agreement will attach more responsibilities to developing countries including China. Having developed a strong resolution and given many open international commitments to assume more responsibilities in combating climate change, China should develop a green-growth approach while providing more public goods for the international community, so as to make its best contributions to future global climate governance.


2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 11-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele M. Betsill

Over the past decade the governance of global climate change has evolved into a complex, multi-level process involving actors and initiatives at multiple levels of social organization from the global to the local in both the public and private spheres. This article analyzes the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) as one component of this multilevel governance system. Specifically, it evaluates the CEC as a site of regional climate governance based on three potential advantages of governance through regional organizations: a small number of actors, opportunities for issue linkage, and linkage between national and global governance systems. On each count I find that the benefits of a CEC-based climate governance system are limited and argue for greater consideration of how such a system would interact with other forms of climate governance in North America.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 77-102
Author(s):  
Agyemang Sampene ◽  
Cai Li ◽  
Fredrick Agyeman ◽  
Robert Brenya

Global climate change has emerged as humanity’s greatest challenge, affecting both the natural security of the earth and the long-term growth of human society. Protecting the environment and fostering long-term growth while reducing carbon emissions has become a global concern. The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are participating in the fight against climate change through the promotion of low-carbon environment (LCE). In this study, we use content analysis to discuss some of the policies, plans, and programs outlined by the various governments in the BRICS that can help them implement an LCE. The study indicates that currently Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa are rated as “insufficient,” “critically insufficient,” “compatible,” “incompatible,” and “highly insufficient” respectively in their commitment to nationally determined contributions (NDC) to the Paris Agreement. The paper recommends that the BRICS countries achieve an LCE through expanding low-carbon investments and financing, focusing on taxation that goes beyond energy, investing in low-carbon cities, adapting to a circular economy and low-carbon technologies, expanding electricity markets, and promoting climate-friendly international trade among the BRICS countries.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Silander

There is a growing bulk of studies on global climate changes and conflicts. It has been argued that climate change may be a triggering factor to conflicts and wars, especially in societies with poor governance. This study explores the climate-security nexus in Africa. It is argued that the global climate change provides profound state and human security challenges to African governments and people. Scarcity of vital resources in food, water, sanitation and health has challenged political and economic structures, infrastructure and integration. This has also been due to poorly governed states with authoritarianism, corruption, ethnic divisions and fragile, dysfunctional institutions. The war in Darfur is a tragic, but illustrative example of the climate change-security nexus of our time.


Author(s):  
Nathalie Seddon ◽  
Elizabeth Daniels ◽  
Rowan Davis ◽  
Rian Harris ◽  
Xiaoting Hou-Jones ◽  
...  

Ecosystems are not merely vulnerable to climate change but, if sustainably restored and protected, are a major source of human resilience. Not only is the evidence-base for the importance of these “Nature-based Solutions” (NbS) growing rapidly, but NbS are featuring with increasing prominence in global climate change policy. Here we report on the prominence of NbS in the 141 adaptation components of the 167 Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) that were submitted to UNFCCC by all signatories of the Paris Agreement. In total, 103 nations include NbS in the adaptation component of their NDC, 76 nations include them in both their adaptation and mitigation component, and an additional 27 include them as part of their mitigation plans only. In other words, 130 nations—or 66% of all signatories to the Paris Agreement—have articulated intentions of working with ecosystems, in one form or another, to address the causes and consequences of climate change. However, commitments rarely translate into robust science-based targets. As climate pledges are revised in 2020, we urge the ecosystem science community to work closely with policymakers to identify meaningful adaptation targets that benefit both people and the ecosystems on which they depend.


2020 ◽  
pp. 93-104
Author(s):  
Sergey Roginko ◽  

The article analyzes trends in the global climate agenda and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on it. Analysis of the events series associated with the pandemic and its impact on the economies of leading countries and on the prospects for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is carried out. Article also focuses on the climate-related social movements, including Fridays for Future initiative and Flightshaming flashmobs. Analysis of the origin of these movements is carried out, with a special reference to the real goals and beneficiaries of this type of activity on the global level. A connection is traced between the origination of the said movements and actual state of the global scientific discourse on the climate change issues, including the anthropogenic warming hypothesis. Special attention is paid to the reaction of the world and European elites to the situation with coronavirus, including the new approaches, comparing the effects of global warming with those of coronavirus pandemic. Attempts to counter the shift of the global agenda from the climate change issues to the real action against global coronavirus pandemic, carried out both at the EU level and at the global level are discussed. New EU goals in the area of GHG emission reduction, set forth in the EU State of the Union address of September 16, 2020, are analyzed, in parallel with the assessment of the economic situation in the EU countries after the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic and the EU activities during this period.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document