BRICS Countries in International Climate Policy

The article presents an analysis of the BRICS countries climate policies at the global and national levels. The authors consider the positions of these states within the framework of both international climate conferences (Conference of the Parties) held under the auspices of the UN since 1992, and the summits of BRICS member states in the years 2011-2020. The paper covers strategies and results of national climate policies implemented in these countries. Using structural, comparative, and content analysis methods, the authors emphasize that BRICS countries play a key role in stabilizing the climate of our planet today. It is impossible to achieve the main aim of the Paris Agreement without a comprehensive transformation of environmental practices in these societies. BRICS adheres to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in its position towards international climate policy; the BRICS countries stand for sustainable economic growth through the introduction of new environmental technologies, and against restrictive measures that impede their economic development. At the same time, the Russian economys dependence on the extraction and export of fuel resources complicates environmental transformation. Russia is dominated by a negative narrative of climate change, where the urgent ecological modernization of the economy is seen as a threat to key sectors (oil and gas) of the economy. The implementation of international agreements to reduce the carbon intensity of the Russian economy, the creation of conditions for the transition to climate-neutral technologies, would contribute not only to the fight against global climate change, but would become a powerful incentive for the modernization of the economy, accelerating innovation and increasing its competitiveness.

Dynamic climate clubs: On the effectiveness of incentives in global climate agreements

A proposal to combat free riding in international climate agreements is the establishment of a climate club—a coalition of countries in a structure to encourage high levels of participation. Empirical models of climate clubs in the early stages relied on the analysis of single-period coalition formation. The earlier results suggested that there were limits to the potential strength of clubs and that it would be difficult to have deep abatement strategies in the club framework. The current study extends the single-period approach to many periods and develops an approach analyzing “supportable policies” to analyze multiperiod clubs. The major element of the present study is the interaction between club effectiveness and rapid technological change. Neither alone will produce incentive-compatible policies that can attain the ambitious objectives of international climate policy. The trade sanctions without rapid technological decarbonization will be too costly to produce deep abatement; similarly, rapid technological decarbonization by itself will not induce deep abatement because of country free riding. However, the two together can achieve international climate objectives.

Glimmers of hope: a global Green New Deal is feasible

In light of limited international climate policy efforts, many are pessimistic about effective climate change mitigation. However, there is still a chance for a global Green New Deal which would reduce both socio-economic inequalities and greenhouse gas emissions. Unfolding feedbacks between technological, behavioral, and political changes provide an opportunity for transforming our societies. Yet, a Green New Deal in line with the green growth paradigm seems politically more feasible than a radical approach that rests upon a de-growth paradigm.

Exploring Narratives on Negative Emissions Technologies in the Post-Paris Era

The 2015 Paris Agreement specified that the goal of international climate policy is to strengthen the global response to climate change by restricting the average global warming this century to “well below” 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. In this context, “Negative Emissions Technologies” (NETs)—technologies that remove additional greenhouse gases (GHGs) from the atmosphere—are receiving greater political attention. They are introduced as a backstop method for achieving temperature targets. A focal point in the discussions on NETs are the emission and mitigation pathways assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Drawing on perspectives from Science & Technology Studies (STS) and discourse analysis, the paper explores the emergence of narratives about NETs and reconstructs how the treatment of NETs within IPCC assessments became politicized terrain of configuration for essentially conflicting interests concerning long-term developments in the post-Paris regime. NETs are—critics claim—not the silver bullet solution to finally fix the climate, they are a Trojan horse; serving to delay decarbonization efforts by offering apparent climate solutions that allow GHGs emissions to continue and foster misplaced hope in future GHG removal technologies. In order to explore the emerging controversies, we conduct a literature review to identify NETs narratives in the scientific literature. Based on this, we reevaluate expert interviews to reconstruct narratives emerging from German environmental non-governmental organizations (eNGOs). We find a spectrum of narratives on NETs in the literature review and the eNGO interviews. The most prominent stories within this spectrum frame NETs either as a moral hazard or as a matter of necessity to achieve temperature targets.

How Fairness Principles in the Climate Debate Relate to Theories of Distributive Justice

A central question in international climate policy making is how to distribute the burdens of keeping global average temperature increase to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. In particular, there are four distributional issues: how to allocate the total amount of greenhouse gases that can still be emitted, who should bear the costs of mitigation, who should bear the costs of adaptation to unavoidable climate change, and who should bear the costs of residual climate damage. Regarding these distributional issues the academic literature offers a plethora of fairness principles, such as ‘polluter pays’, ‘beneficiary pays’, ‘equal per capita rights’, ‘grandfathering’, ‘ability to pay’, ‘historical responsibility’ and ‘cost effectiveness’. Remarkably, there is a theoretical gap between these principles and the central theories of distributive justice in moral and political philosophy. As a consequence, it is unclear how these principles are related, whether they can be combined or are mutually exclusive, and what the fundamental underlying values are. This paper aims to elucidate that debate. Understanding the different underlying values may facilitate bridge-building and movement in negotiation positions.