Inequity in International Climate Change Negotiations

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.

Creating space for reflection and dialogue: Examples of new modes of communication for empowering climate action

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.” This quote by Albert Einstein highlights our need for new formats of communication to address the knowledge-action gap regarding climate change and other sustainability challenges. This includes reflection, and communication spaces, as well as methods and approaches that can catalyze the emergence of transformative change and action. In this article we present and reflect on experiments we carried out at international climate negotiations and conferences.

The Making of China’s Climate Diplomacy: Analysis from the Perspective of Two-Level Games

This study illustrates the interaction of international and domestic factors that influenced China’s stance in the climate negotiations from 1992 to 2015. After providing a historical overview of China’s climate diplomacy, it elaborates on the external and internal factors that have shaped China’s climate diplomacy. At the international level, it examines the pressures that China has faced from both developed and developing countries at the United Nations climate change conferences. At the domestic level, it analyses three factors—China’s political system, its energy scenario and its environmental non-governmental organisations—that pushed China to soften its traditional positions. It ends with an elaboration of the interface of the international and domestic factors that have driven China’s shift away from blunt rejection of mitigation responsibility.

Simulating International Climate Negotiations in Classrooms

A simulation of the international climate negotiations was designed for more than 50 students of political science and other study programs dealing with sustainability. A key advantage of such simulations is that they are highly adaptable to groups of different sizes, academic backgrounds, or learning levels and can be used to teach a number of major concepts within the same framework.. the primary objective of such simulations is that students grasp the difficulties to achieve collective action

Building climate diplomacy back better: imagining the UNFCCC meetings of tomorrow

Could the future of our planet be decided on Zoom? The feasibility of “online climate negotiations” was the issue the OnCliNe project initially set out to assess. However, experiences over the last 18 months illustrated that many of the diverse activities organised under the umbrella of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) could be held online, albeit with challenges. The real question was whether they could be held in ways that increase the effectiveness, inclusiveness and transparency of the UNFCCC process. This report reflects the sentiment of many stakeholders that there is an opportunity to harness the interruption and introspection that the pandemic imposed into a “positive disruption” of the process. If actions taken now can transcend the tendency to return to “business as usual” as soon as circumstances allow, and instead work towards a meaningful transformation of the climate talks, the UNFCCC process can be made more fit for purpose for tackling one of humanity’s greatest challenges. This will require creativity, courage, and active and decisive leadership.

Report to boost climate action calls globally

Significance Drawing on more than 14,000 peer-reviewed studies, the report summarises contemporary science on climate change and finds that it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, oceans and land. The report will underpin climate negotiations and policymaking, and place increased pressure on governments and businesses to act. Impacts Governments will face pressure to make climate targets more ambitious ahead of COP26. Increasing numbers of climate litigation cases from environmental campaigners will be filed against governments and businesses. Carbon removal technology threatens to give excuses to those reluctant to act on reducing emissions.

The intractability of loss and damage issues in climate negotiations

The impacts of human-induced climate change are manifested through losses and damages incurred due to the increasing frequency and intensity of climatic disasters all over the world. Low-income countries who have contributed the least in causing climate change, and have low financial capability, are the worst victims of this. However, since the inception of the international climate regime under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), loss and damage has been a politically charged issue. It took about two decades of pushing by the vulnerable developing countries for the agenda to formally anchor in the climate negotiations text. This was further solidified through establishment of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) and inclusion of stand-alone Article 8 on loss and damage in the Paris Agreement. Its institutionalisation has only done the groundwork of addressing loss and damage however - the key issue of finance for loss and damage and other matters has remained largely unresolved to date – particularly since Article 8 does not have any provision for finance. This has been due to the climate change-causing wealthy developed nations' utter disregard for their formal obligations in the climate regime as well as their moral obligation. In this article, we tease out the central controversies that underpin the intractability of this agenda at the negotiations of the UNFCCC. We begin by giving a walk-through of the concept and history of loss and damage in the climate regime. Then we present a brief account of losses and damages occurring in the face of rising temperature, and highlight the key issues of contention, focusing on the more recent developments. Finally, we conclude by suggesting some way forward for the twenty-sixth session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP26) taking place in Glasgow, UK in November 2021.

Collective Risk and Distributional Equity in Climate Change Bargaining

International climate negotiations occur against the backdrop of increasing collective risk: the likelihood of catastrophic economic loss due to climate change will continue to increase unless and until global mitigation efforts are sufficient to prevent it. We introduce a novel alternating-offers bargaining model that incorporates this characteristic feature of climate change. We test the model using an incentivized experiment. We manipulate two important distributional equity principles: capacity to pay for mitigation of climate change and vulnerability to its potentially catastrophic effects. Our results show that less vulnerable parties do not exploit the greater vulnerability of their bargaining partners. They are, rather, more generous. Conversely, parties with greater capacity are less generous in their offers. Both collective risk itself and its importance in light of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report make it all the more urgent to better understand this crucial strategic feature of climate change bargaining.