Climate change mitigation framework

Last updated

There are various theoretical frameworks to mitigate climate change. Frameworks are significant in that they provide a lens through which an argument can be addressed, and can be used to understand the possible angles from which to approach solving climate change. Frameworks in political science are used to think about a topic from various angles in order to understand different perspectives of the topic; common ones in international political science include rationalist, culturalist, marxist, and liberal institutionalist. [1] See international relations theory for more frameworks through which problems can be analyzed.

Contents

History of approach to solving climate change

Historically climate change has been approached at a multinational level where a consensus decision is reached at the United Nations (UN), under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). [2] This represents the dominant approach historically of engaging as many international governments as possible in taking action in on a worldwide public issue. While there is a precedent that this model can work, as seen in the Montreal Protocol, there has been a shift away from this after it failed in the Kyoto Protocol and more recently is in jeopardy[ citation needed ] for the Paris Agreement.

Free rider problem

Unanimous[ citation needed ] consensus decision making has presented problems where any small number of countries can block passage of a resolution on what all countries will do to address the issue. Because of this small number of countries that do not want a resolution to the problem, all other countries are faced with the choice to attempt to combat the collective problem unilaterally, or also defect and economically benefit from not allocating the necessary resources to change. This is essentially the free rider problem present in the tragedy of the commons, where the world's climate is a public, non-rival, non-excludeable good. The free rider problem can be summarized as the issue of a party receiving benefits of a public good without contributing to the cost. [3] This often results in the good being overused or damaged by parties who are unable to be excluded from the using the good, resulting in a suboptimal good for everyone.

Montreal Protocol

Despite the issue of the free rider problem, there has been a precedent which suggests that action on climate change can be accomplished on the world scale, as this was seen with previous agreements such as the Montreal Protocol. This agreement effectively phased out various substances that were causing the depletion of the ozone layer (ODS), and addressed an international issue through a treaty with a multilateral fund, subsidization for technology transfer, and professional involvement of the scientific community. [4]

Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol was another international agreement that aimed to reduce emissions and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, focusing on what industrialized nations could do to limit this. Nations in the agreement were assigned maximum amounts of emissions, and if these were not met then there was a penalty of a lower limit. [5] It was not successful in its initial goal of decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, evidenced by the facts in the further rounds of countries pledging commitments, there were many significant defections, including Canada and the US, and countries not following through on pledges. This created a precedent where countries determined their own contributions and were able to withdraw from the agreement at any time, reintroducing the free-rider problem. The Doha Round extended the Kyoto Protocol to 2020 by reintroducing emissions targets, [5] but was effectively replaced by the following Paris Agreement.

Paris Agreement

More recently, the 2016 Paris Agreement has come out with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which are determined by countries and must be ambitious and progressive with every 5 years. [6] Since the NDCs are determined by each individual country, there is a potential problem of countries not being stringent enough with themselves, misreporting, or simply not setting goals [7] that will meet the under 2°C increase in temperature requirement set out by the 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report that is deemed necessary to meet in order to mitigate detrimental effects on hundreds of millions of lives. [8]

History of climate change frameworks

As a result of the historical precedent that international consensus and decision making can be accomplished under the threat of a global environmental issue, with the depletion of the ozone layer, there has been a tendency towards a top-down, consensus-based approach to addressing climate change through the UNFCCC. This approach is the dominant one where all world governments are engaged, which makes sense as the entire population of the world is affected by this issue. The top-down approach is that of strong central oversight by a majority of world governments in determining how various approaches to climate change mitigation should be implemented. [9] This approach has been the largest route to tackling the goal of solving climate change, however the world is not on track to reach the under 2°C warming in average temperature that would help hundreds of millions of people. [8]

Thus, the top-down framework of only utilizing the UNFCCC consensus approach has been proposed to be ineffective, with counter proposals of bottom up governance and decreasing the emphasis of the UNFCCC. [10] [11] [12] There is a lack of consensus leading to various frameworks being proposed with varying levels of involvement of the UNFCCC and other intergovernmental actors, with proposed local-level approaches, emphasis on innovation and competition, enforcement mechanisms, and minilateral forums.

Polycentric approach

The polycentric approach is a proposition to look at the relationships between cities, smaller and larger governments, and private actors when unconstrained by a mandated[ citation needed ] plan from the top (UNFCCC). [10] The shared interests of furthering action on climate change leads to a form of competition between various actors, but also forces them to look to each other to find out what practices are most effective. [10] This can be seen at city-wide levels on taxation, where one city starts a tax on an unsustainable good and others can observe the effects of the tax, and adopt the policy if it's found to be effective. This experimentation also results in trust building, as various private and governmental actors increasingly communicate with each other and rely on each other's successes. [10] This approach favors individual, low-level actors working with each other to achieve a common goal, with some integration into higher levels of governance for support, but whose integration is unnecessary and perhaps unhelpful. [10] The polycentric approach allows a significant space for nongovernmental organizations and nonprofits to participate in furthering the cause, which is different from the top-down approach of the UNFCCC.

Bottom-up approach

The bottom-up approach also emphasizes smaller entities cooperating, but with integrated support from top-level governance like the UNFCCC. These levels of support can vary depending on the approach, but all tend to include at least some level of interaction with higher levels of governance, while emphasizing lower level actors taking more action. [11]

This approach accounts for climate clubs, which encourage global powers to take action on climate change, or pay a price for their inaction. [11] This can include penalties such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, exclusion from various markets by world powers, and sanctions against the country that are economically detrimental enough that they are forced to take action on climate change. This tackles the free-rider problem which is present when working with any group with a public good. [11] The lack of international cooperation is solved through forcing other government's hands while stressing a decentralized decision making process to increase cooperation. The approach of using climate clubs with penalty defaults and integrating actors below the UNFCCC, like the OECD and the G20, to accomplish this end is somewhat experimental governance, as it borders on infringing on sovereignty[ page needed ] of other countries by strong-arming them,{{ and has not been tried before. [11]

Minilateralism

Minilateralism (groupings with select state membership) does falls only loosely into the category of the bottom-up framework as it is against integrating nongovernmental actors and governmental actors in approaching the problem.[ citation needed ] Aside from this main difference, minilateralism encourages the smallest possible break from the current top-down UNFCCC-led approach where the UNFCCC is still employed but other intergovernmental bodies are also incorporated. [13] Possible intergovernmental bodies to be utilized include the OECD, the G20, or other international leading bodies that could address the issue further. This encourages the UNFCCC to not completely stop working on addressing the issue from a top-down approach, but in the interim these other bodies are important in furthering the cause.[ citation needed ] Multilateralism opens up the opportunity for international cooperation initiatives, where the UNFCCC could be supplemented by other multinational organizations that work towards climate change. [13] This does not account for the free rider problem that the bottom-up approach with sanctions approach accounts for, and instead encourages those who are willing to make change do as much as possible. [13] This then puts the burden on those who are willing to make change, and can create an example of what should be done, but offers no penalties for those who do not follow suit.[ citation needed ]

Failure of governance

Another approach suggests that government should be entirely forsaken because of the free-rider problem and shortcomings with consensus, and instead innovation, entrepreneurship, and investment in sustainable technology should be focused on. [12] This is largely proposed because of the free rider problem of countries defecting from international agreements for their own economic gain in the short run. This is compounded by the non-excludable harms and benefits of mitigating climate change, where penalties harsh enough to sufficiently incentivize countries into taking action may not be practical, and countries will not act unless sufficiently incentivized. [12] Under the failure of governance argument, the problems facing governance are massive and it would be less costly to invest in innovation and technology rather than governance.[ citation needed ]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kyoto Protocol</span> 1997 international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

The Kyoto Protocol (Japanese: 京都議定書, Hepburn: Kyōto Giteisho) was an international treaty which extended the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits state parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and that human-made CO2 emissions are driving it. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. There were 192 parties (Canada withdrew from the protocol, effective December 2012) to the Protocol in 2020.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) established an international environmental treaty to combat "dangerous human interference with the climate system", in part by stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. It was signed by 154 states at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), informally known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992. Its original secretariat was in Geneva but relocated to Bonn in 1996. It entered into force on 21 March 1994.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Climate change mitigation</span> Actions to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions to limit climate change

Climate change mitigation is action to limit climate change by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases or removing those gases from the atmosphere. The recent rise in global average temperature is mostly due to emissions from burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Mitigation can reduce emissions by transitioning to sustainable energy sources, conserving energy, and increasing efficiency. It is possible to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by enlarging forests, restoring wetlands and using other natural and technical processes. Experts call these processes carbon sequestration. Governments and companies have pledged to reduce emissions to prevent dangerous climate change in line with international negotiations to limit warming by reducing emissions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International environmental agreement</span> Treaties and protocols protecting the environment

An international environmental agreement or sometimes environmental protocol, is a type of treaty binding in international law, allowing them to reach an environmental goal. In other words, it is "an intergovernmental document intended as legally binding with a primary stated purpose of preventing or managing human impacts on natural resources."

Greenhouse gas inventories are emission inventories of greenhouse gas emissions that are developed for a variety of reasons. Scientists use inventories of natural and anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions as tools when developing atmospheric models. Policy makers use inventories to develop strategies and policies for emissions reductions and to track the progress of those policies.

After the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference held on the island of Bali in Indonesia in December 2007, the participating nations adopted the Bali Road Map as a two-year process working towards finalizing a binding agreement at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. The conference encompassed meetings of several bodies, including the 13th session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the third session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.

Environmental governance (EG) consist of a system of laws, norms, rules, policies and practices that dictate how the board members of an environment related regulatory body should manage and oversee the affairs of any environment related regulatory body which is responsible for ensuring sustainability (sustainable development) and manage all human activities—political, social and economic. Environmental governance includes government, business and civil society, and emphasizes whole system management. To capture this diverse range of elements, environmental governance often employs alternative systems of governance, for example watershed-based management.

In political ecology and environmental policy, climate governance is the diplomacy, mechanisms and response measures "aimed at steering social systems towards preventing, mitigating or adapting to the risks posed by climate change". A definitive interpretation is complicated by the wide range of political and social science traditions that are engaged in conceiving and analysing climate governance at different levels and across different arenas. In academia, climate governance has become the concern of geographers, anthropologists, economists and business studies scholars.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economics of climate change mitigation</span> Part of the economics of climate change related to climate change mitigation

The economics of climate change mitigation is part of the economics of climate change related to climate change mitigation, that is actions that are designed to limit the amount of long-term climate change.

The Kyoto Protocol was an international treaty which extended the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paris Agreement</span> 2015 international treaty on climate change

The Paris Agreement, often referred to as the Paris Accords or the Paris Climate Accords, is an international treaty on climate change. Adopted in 2015, the agreement covers climate change mitigation, adaptation, and finance. The Paris Agreement was negotiated by 196 parties at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference near Paris, France. As of February 2023, 195 members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are parties to the agreement. Of the three UNFCCC member states which have not ratified the agreement, the only major emitter is Iran. The United States withdrew from the agreement in 2020, but rejoined in 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Day of Forests</span> International day established by the United Nations

The International Day of Forests was established on the 21st day of March, by resolution of the United Nations General Assembly on November 28, 2013. Each year, various events celebrate and raise awareness of the importance of all types of forests, and trees outside forests, for the benefit of current and future generations. Countries are encouraged to undertake efforts to organize local, national, and international activities involving forests and trees, such as tree planting campaigns, on International Day of Forests. The Secretariat of the United Nations Forum on Forests, in collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organization, facilitates the implementation of such events in collaboration with governments, the Collaborative Partnership on Forests, and international, regional and subregional organizations. International Day of Forests was observed for the first time on March 21, 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Political economy of climate change</span>

Political economy of climate change is an approach that applies the political economy thinking concerning social and political processes to study the critical issues surrounding decision-making on climate change.

Territorialisation of Carbon Governance (ToCG) is a concept used in political geography or environmental policy which is considered to be a new logic of environmental governance. This method creates carbon-relevant citizens who become enrolled in the process of governing the climate. The territorialisation of carbon governance transforms climate change from a global to local issue. It embodies political practices that serve to connect the causes and consequences of global climate change to local communities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference</span>

The 2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference was the 18th yearly session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 8th session of the Meeting of the Parties (CMP) to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The conference took place from Monday 26 November to Saturday 8 December 2012, at the Qatar National Convention Centre in Doha.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Climate Change conference</span> Yearly conference held for climate change treaty negotiations

The United Nations Climate Change Conferences are yearly conferences held in the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). They serve as the formal meeting of the UNFCCC parties to assess progress in dealing with climate change, and beginning in the mid-1990s, to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol to establish legally binding obligations for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Starting in 2005 the conferences have also served as the "Conference of the Parties Serving as the Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol" (CMP); also parties to the convention that are not parties to the protocol can participate in protocol-related meetings as observers. From 2011 to 2015 the meetings were used to negotiate the Paris Agreement as part of the Durban platform, which created a general path towards climate action. Any final text of a COP must be agreed by consensus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nationally determined contribution</span> Non-binding national plans highlighting climate actions

A nationally determined contribution (NDC) or intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) is a non-binding national plan highlighting climate change mitigation, including climate-related targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions. These plans also include policies and measures governments aim to implement in response to climate change and as a contribution to achieve the global targets set out in the Paris Agreement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental issues in Kuwait</span>

Located in the Middle East, Kuwait is a relatively small country that has been the center of many political and economic issues over the past few decades. Stemming from these tensions, Kuwait as well as other countries in the region, including Iran, Iraq, and Qatar face threats from environmental issues. A loss of agriculture due to climate change, pollution from the country's oil industry and Oil Fires of 1991 as well as damages to agriculture and biodiversity are just some of the common environmental issues. The Kuwaiti government has worked to mitigate and adapt to these issues through policy and the creation of agencies to research, educated and inform about environmental problems, their sources, and their effects.

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement on climate change enables Parties to cooperate in implementing their nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Among other things, this means that emission reductions can be transferred between countries and counted towards NDCs. Agreement on the provisions of Article 6 was reached after intensive negotiations lasting several years.

The history of climate change policy and politics refers to the continuing history of political actions, policies, trends, controversies and activist efforts as they pertain to the issue of global warming and other environmental anomalies. Dryzek, Norgaard, and Schlosberg suggest that critical reflection on the history of climate policy is necessary because it provides 'ways to think about one of the most difficult issues we human beings have brought upon ourselves in our short life on the planet'.

References

  1. ↑ "Theoretical Framework". USC Libraries. November 21, 2019. Retrieved November 22, 2019.
  2. ↑ "History of the Convention | UNFCCC". unfccc.int. Retrieved 2019-12-02.
  3. ↑ Nordhaus, William (2015-04-04). "Climate Clubs: Overcoming Free-riding in International Climate Policy" (PDF). American Economic Review. 105 (4): 1339–1370. doi:10.1257/aer.15000001. ISSN   0002-8282.
  4. ↑ "About Montreal Protocol | Ozonaction". www.unenvironment.org. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
  5. 1 2 "What is the Kyoto Protocol? | UNFCCC". unfccc.int. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
  6. ↑ "The Paris Agreement | UNFCCC". unfccc.int. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
  7. ↑ Robiou du Pont, Yann; Jeffery, M. Louise; Gütschow, Johannes; Rogelj, Joeri; Christoff, Peter; Meinshausen, Malte (2016-11-19). "Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals" (PDF). Nature Climate Change. 7 (1): 38–43. doi:10.1038/nclimate3186. ISSN   1758-6798.
  8. 1 2 "Summary for Policymakers — Global Warming of 1.5 °C" . Retrieved 2019-10-23.
  9. ↑ Sépibus, Joëlle de; Sterk, Wolfgang; Tuerk, Andreas (2013-06-01). "Top-down, bottom-up or in-between: how can a UNFCCC framework for market-based approaches ensure environmental integrity and market coherence?" (PDF). Greenhouse Gas Measurement and Management. 3 (1–02): 6–20. Bibcode:2013GGMM....3....6D. doi:10.1080/20430779.2013.798782. ISSN   2043-0779. S2CID   219598938.
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 Cole, Daniel H. (2015-01-28). "Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy". Nature Climate Change. 5 (2): 114–118. Bibcode:2015NatCC...5..114C. doi:10.1038/nclimate2490. ISSN   1758-6798.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 Sabel, Charles F.; Victor, David G. (2017-09-01). "Governing global problems under uncertainty: making bottom-up climate policy work". Climatic Change. 144 (1): 15–27. Bibcode:2017ClCh..144...15S. doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1507-y. ISSN   1573-1480. S2CID   153561849.
  12. 1 2 3 Zefferman, Matthew R. (2018-01-01). "Cultural multilevel selection suggests neither large or small cooperative agreements are likely to solve climate change without changing the game". Sustainability Science. 13 (1): 109–118. doi:10.1007/s11625-017-0488-3. ISSN   1862-4057. S2CID   158187220.
  13. 1 2 3 Hjerpe, Mattias; Nasiritousi, Naghmeh (2015-06-15). "Views on alternative forums for effectively tackling climate change". Nature Climate Change. 5 (9): 864–867. Bibcode:2015NatCC...5..864H. doi:10.1038/nclimate2684. ISSN   1758-6798.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.