Assignment Questions - Environmental, Business and Economic
Boludo
QUESTION9.pdf
Learning objectives
Why does this matter?
If we consider climate change as one of several
‘planetary boundaries’ we are at risk of over stepping,
we need to consider how the complexity and scale of the
issue impacts the kinds of solutions that can be applied,
in order to implement effective policies.
By the end of the session, you should be able to
▪ Discuss how is climate change mitigation a geographical issue.
▪ Explain how this shapes approaches to addressing climate change (e.g. CBDR).
▪ Discuss the effectiveness of national and international climate policy and the factors that influence its effectiveness now and in the future.
1. Climate change mitigation: Geographical perspectives
Transboundary environmental problems
We have a transboundary environmental problem whenever the environment in one country is directly affected by actions taken in one or more other countries.
Hoel, M., 2002. 32 Transboundary environmental problems. Handbook of environmental and resource economics, p.472.
“
Historical vs Current Emissions
http://www.carbonmap.org/#
Centre for Global Development https://www.cgdev.org/page/mapping-impacts-climate-change?utm_= Wheeler, D., 2011. Quantifying vulnerability to climate change: implications for adaptation assistance.
Physical impacts are largely focused in the Global South
Centre for Global Development https://www.cgdev.org/page/mapping-impacts-climate-change?utm_= Wheeler, D., 2011. Quantifying vulnerability to climate change: implications for adaptation assistance.
Impacts plus coping ability equals geographic inequities
IPCC (2001)
Hayward, T., 2012. Climate change and ethics. Nature Climate Change, 2(12), p.843.
Tools of international regimes
Framework convention
▪ Set of principles, norms, goals and mechanisms for cooperation, but no major obligations.
▪ E.g. Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer
Conference of the parties
▪ The governing body of an international convention.
▪ Advances implementation of convention through decisions at meetings.
Protocols
▪ Separate, more detailed legal instruments that can be attached to a framework convention to address specific aspects of an issue and specify obligations.
▪ E.g. Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
11
UNFCCC
▪ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international environmental treaty.
▪ Framework Convention was drafted and signed in 1992.
▪ Treaty itself set no binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries and contains no enforcement mechanisms.
▪ Treaty provides a framework for negotiating specific international treaties (protocols) that may set binding limits on greenhouse gases.
12
Common but differentiated responsibilities
13
…the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and their social and economic conditions…
“
UNFCCC (1992)
14
Annex I
Annex I & II
Non-Annex I
Annex I 43 Parties Industrialized countries & "economies in transition" (EITs).
Annex II 24 Parties OECD Members (Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development). Most Annex I are therefore also in Annex II. Must provide support to EITs & developing countries.
Non-Annex I 153 Parties Low-income developing countries. May volunteer to become Annex I countries when sufficiently developed.
The Kyoto Protocal
International treaty, which extends the 1992 UNFCCC, committing parties to emissions reductions.
Adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005.
37 industrialised countries pledged to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions from 1990 levels by an average of 4.2% over 2008- 2012.
‘Grandfathering’ emissions: does it entrench existing inequalities?
15
Global responses to kyoto
16
USA – signed but never ratified ▪ US signed the Protocol in 1998 during the Clinton
presidency.
▪ However, the Senate had already passed the 1997 non- binding Byrd-Hagel Resolution, expressing disapproval of any international agreement that did not require developing countries to make emission reductions.
▪ So, Kyoto was never submitted to the Senate for ratification.
Canada, Japan, Russia ▪ In 2011, these countries stated that they would not take
on further Kyoto targets.
Criticisms of CBDR
17
The current framework of the Kyoto Protocol is neither fair nor effective, as the total CO2 emissions from the Parties under the obligation of the Kyoto Protocol account for only 27%... Japan cannot make a short term "deal", while not addressing seriously the problem of the next decade.
“
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (2010)
Criticisms of CBDR
18
The viewpoint of developing states seems to satisfy the need for equity, but is not very pragmatic as climate change can only be solved through a concerted global effort. It is actually the developing states that are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The approach taken by the USA does not do justice to the fact that they are the largest polluters, but it does reflect some pragmatic thinking…
Scholtz, W., 2009. Equity as the basis for a future international climate change agreement: between pragmatic panacea and idealistic impediment. The optimisation of the CBDR principle via realism. The Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa, pp.166-182.
“
Positions of emerging political groups Blaxekjær, L.Ø. and Nielsen, T.D., 2015. Mapping the narrative positions of new political groups under the UNFCCC. Climate Policy, 15(6), pp.751-766.
Shared responsibility
Differentiated responsibility
N o
n -A
n n
ex I co
u n
trie sA
n n
ex I
co
u n
tr ie
s
Cartagena Dialogue (CD)
Durban Alliance (DA)
Association of
Independent Latin American and Caribbean
Countries (AILAC)
Climate Vulnerable Forum
(CVF) Maldives + 19 others
Brazil, South Africa, India and
China (BASIC)
Like-Minded Developing
Countries (LMDC)
‘shared responsibility across the North–South divide’ versus ‘differentiated responsibility upholding the North–South divide’
The Adaptation Fund Launched in 2007, although it was established in 2001 at COP7 in Marrakech.
Aim is to finance climate adaptation projects and programmes in developing countries that are parties to the Kyoto Protocol.
Financed in part by some of the proceeds from CDM project activities, and also donations from Annex I countries.
Direct access mechanism: Accredited national implementing entities (NIEs) and regional implementing agencies (RIEs) in developing countries can directly access climate adaptation financing.
Technology mechanism (2010) Technology Executive
Committee provides policy recommendations that support country
efforts to enhance climate technology development and transfer.
Climate Technology Centre and Network facilitates transfer of technologies by:
• Providing technical assistance to developing countries
• Creating access to information on climate technologies
• Fostering collaboration among climate technology stakeholders.
The Paris Agreement: Key differences
Drafted in Paris, 2015.
Directs all parties to prepare and maintain nationally-determined climate targets.
No single plan of action: Countries have flexibility to work out their approach, but there is to be no backing down once they’re committed
Requires all countries to report on national inventories of emissions and on mitigation progress.
22
23
Summary
Historical emissions and current/future vulnerabilities are not distributed homogenously –
where does responsibility for climate change fall?
Political, economic, informational, cultural, and social linkages lead
to international interdependence. Important
source of influence in international relations.
UNFCCC: international environmental treaty, near
universal membership. Conference of the Parties meets
every year.
Kyoto Protocol committed parties to emissions reductions on a basis
of common but differentiated responsibilities, adopted in 1997.
Merit of CMDR has been called into question – .differentiation vs shared responsibility -> equity vs
pragmatism.
The Paris Agreement directs all parties to prepare and maintain nationally-determined climate targets -> shared responsibility.
Break 15 mins
2. The effectiveness of climate change policy
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Annex I % change in non-land use CO2 emissions relative to 1990
Kyoto: Success or failure?
27
Collapse of USSR
Global financial
crisis
Did CBDR work as expected?
28
But the reductions made under the treaty were dwarfed by the rise in emissions not covered by the accord, especially in Asia. Since 2000, CO2 emissions in China have nearly tripled to almost 10 billion tonnes, and those in India have doubled to around 2 billion tonnes.
Schiermeier, Q., 2012. The Kyoto protocol: hot air. Nature News, 491(7426), p.656.
“
Is IET working as expected?
Recall that International Emissions Trading (IET) - allows Annex I countries to "trade" their emissions
The auctioning of allowances in EU is governed by the EU ETS Auctioning Regulation.
European Energy Exchange AG, Germany's energy exchange, is the leading energy exchange in Central Europe.
Range of pitfalls both conceptual (e.g. ethics of pricing) and practical (e.g. potential for inflated baselines, fraudulent trading).
Is the CDM working as expected?
31
… a diplomatic cable published last month by the WikiLeaks website reveals that most of the CDM projects in India should not have been certified because they did not reduce emissions beyond those that would have been achieved without foreign investment … "What has leaked just confirms our view that in its present form the CDM is basically a farce," says Eva Filzmoser, programme director of CDM Watch, a Brussels-based watchdog organization. The revelations imply that millions of tonnes of claimed reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions are mere phantoms, she says, and potentially cast doubt over the principle of carbon trading.
Schiermeier, Q., 2011. Clean-energy credits tarnished. Nature, 477(7366), pp.517- 518.
“
Is the CDM working as expected?
32
Local vs. global Local vs. national/regional
Community vs. business
Within the community
Biomas - based renewable energy CDM projects, Gorakhpur, India
Local benefits from the projects were not clearly identifiable, in contrast to global mitigation outcomes. Local community participation was hindered due to literacy, language and technological barriers.
Local communities’ development priorities were not taken into account by the Designated National Authorities (DNA). Local communities did not have opportunity for direct engagement with the DNA.
The focus on carbon emissions has not provided opportunities to communities for engaging with the industrial units on other pollution impacts that matter to them.
Only those villages and individuals already sharing a close relationship with the industrial units were consulted and benefited.
Mathur, V.N., Afionis, S., Paavola, J., Dougill, A.J. and Stringer, L.C., 2014. Experiences of host communities with carbon market projects: Towards multi-level climate justice. Climate Policy, 14(1), pp.42-62.
Is the CDM working as expected?
33
Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol states that one of the purposes of CDM is to assist non-Annex I parties achieve sustainable development. However, the economic driver of CDM is not technology transfer but the generation of CERs to assist Annex I parties to close the gaps in Kyoto commitments and in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. A persistent criticism of CDM is that it encourages Annex I parties to claim the ‘low-hanging fruit’ in developing countries … without contributing to a longterm strategy of transforming these countries into low carbon economies …
Cox, G., 2010. The Clean Development Mechanism as a Vehicle for Technology Transfer and Sustainable Development-Myth of Reality. Law Env't & Dev. J., 6, p.179.
“
The Paris Agreement: Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)
Refers to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that a national government (developed & developing) intends to make under the Paris Agreement
While INDCs are not legally binding, they will potentially become part of a legally binding agreement.
The INDC will become the first Nationally Determined Contribution when a country ratifies the Paris Agreement, unless they decide to submit a new NDC at the same time.
Comparison of global emission levels in 2025 and 2030 resulting from the
implementation of the INDCs and under other scenarios
The ‘ratchet mechanism’
“ 2°C is an objective. If we have an ongoing process you can not say it is a failure if the mitigation commitments do not reach 2°C.
Miguel Arias Canete, EU lead on climate policy 2 February 2015
The Climate Change Act (2008, UK)
38
Reduce emissions by at least 80% on 1990 levels.
Legally-binding 5-year ‘carbon budgets’, set 12 years before they take effect, to allow government, businesses and industry time to plan (shrinking over time).
Independent advisory body – Committee on Climate Change.
5 year cycles of adaptation programmes and risk assessments informed by the CCC.
The Climate Change Act (2008, UK) Challenges will come as budgets shrink (particularly if economy grows).
40
Political sustainability of the Climate Change Act?
In early 2011, the Business Secretary Vince Cable intervened, arguing that the proposals for the fourth budget would impose too many costs on the economy ... After heavy lobbying by environmentalists, the Prime Minister did eventually step in to insist that the Climate Change Committee's proposal be accepted, and the fourth budget was finally agreed in May … In October 2011, the Chancellor told the Conservative Party Conference that “a decade of environmental laws and regulations are piling costs on the energy bills of households and companies” and pledged to prevent the UK from cutting emissions more quickly than other European countries... Open conflict in government was alarming investors (Godsen, 2012). Seven global electricity technology firms wrote to the Energy Secretary in September 2012 expressing concerns that the UK was in danger of undermining its reputation as a country with low political risk for energy investments.
Lockwood, M., 2013. The political sustainability of climate policy: The case of the UK Climate Change Act. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), pp.1339-1348.
“
Risks to delivery of policies to meet the UK’s fourth and fifth carbon budgets Yellow indicates policies which are in place but which the CCC assesses
at medium risk of not being delivered. Red indicates where the government has announced an ambition but has no policy in place to meet it. Dashed red wedge shows a “policy gap” to the cost-effective path, which outperforms carbon budgets. Source: CCC 2018
https://www.carbonbrief.org/worrying-trend-uk-emission-cuts-beyond-pow er-waste-says-ccc
Plan B Earth and Others v. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy
In December 2017, Plan B Earth alleged that Government violated the Climate Change Act 2008 in failing to revise its 2050 carbon emissions reduction target after Paris and in light of current science.
In July 2018, Mr Justice Supperstone refused permission for a full hearing, and said Plan B Earth’s arguments were based on an “incorrect interpretation” of the Paris Agreement: “In my view the secretary of state was plainly entitled ... to refuse to change the 2050 target at the present time.”
“A new wave of strategic court cases linking climate and rights is emerging.”
Nachmany, M. and Setzer, J., 2018. Global trends in climate change legislation and litigation: 2018 snapshot.
Is the CCA enduring policy?
Institutional transformation
▪ Committee on Climate Change
▪ Department of Energy and Climate Change -> Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (2016)
Reconfiguration of group identities and affiliations
“Since the Act was passed, perceptions and identities have become more not less entrenched and the Tory right appears to have more power within the party.”
Lockwood, M., 2013. The political sustainability of climate policy: The case of the UK Climate Change Act. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), pp.1339- 1348.
Is the CCA enduring policy?
Investment effects
“… politically sustainable policy … brings about substantial investments based on the expectations that reform will be maintained …”
Lockwood, M., 2013. The political sustainability of climate policy: The case of the UK Climate Change Act. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), pp.1339- 1348.
“Under the banner of austerity, DECC and DEFRA suffered significant budget cuts, which also limited their capacity to develop policy.”
Gillard, R., Gouldson, A., Paavola, J. and Van Alstine, J., 2017. Can national policy blockages accelerate the development of polycentric governance? Evidence from climate change policy in the United Kingdom. Global Environmental Change, 45, pp.174-182.
“Arguably, the use of previous modelling (UKCIP09) was largely a cost-saving issue due to the substantially diminished budget for the 2017 CCRA in comparison to the 2012 CCRA.”
Howarth, C., Morse-Jones, S., Brooks, K. and Kythreotis, A.P., 2018. Co-producing UK climate change adaptation policy: An analysis of the 2012 and 2017 UK Climate Change Risk Assessments. Environmental Science & Policy, 89, pp.412-420.
Brexit and UK energy & climate policy
… the Norway or the Energy Community models would be the least disruptive, enabling continuity in energy market access, regulatory frameworks and investment; however, both would come at the cost of accepting the vast majority of legislation while relinquishing any say in its creation. The UK would thus have less, rather than more, sovereignty over energy policy.
The Switzerland, the Canada and the WTO models offer the possibility of greater sovereignty in a number of areas, such as buildings and infrastructure standards as well as state aid. None the less, each would entail higher risks, with greater uncertainty over market access, investment and electricity prices.
Froggatt, A., Raines, T. and Tomlinson, S., 2016. UK Unplugged? The Impacts of Brexit on Energy and Climate Policy. London: Chatham House. https://www. chathamhouse. org/sites/files/chathamhouse/publications/research/2016- 05- 26-uk-unplugged-brexitenergy- froggatt-raines-tomlinson. pdf.
“
Brexit and UK energy & climate policy
… the long-term viability of the Climate Change Act was being threatened even before the EU referendum, and that Brexit will do little to improve this situation.
Farstad, F., Carter, N. and Burns, C., 2018. What does Brexit Mean for the UK's Climate Change Act?. The Political Quarterly, 89(2), pp.291-297.
“
Summary
Kyoto Protocol accomplished reductions in Annex I emissions, but this was dwarfed by growth in emissions elsewhere. Furthermore, mechanisms contains various flaws, loopholes, misrecognition of local contexts, etc.
The Paris Agreement directs all parties to prepare and maintain nationally-determined climate targets -> from differentiated to shared responsibility. No single plan of action: Countries have flexibility to work out their approach.
Current INDCs won’t get us under 2°C, but climate negotiators see this as an ongoing process. UK is not changing 2050 target, despite the science, and this decision has held up in court.
Climate Change Act (2008): Sets legally-binding carbon budgets, but so far, these are met by ‘low-hanging fruit’. CCC has flagged issues where government has announced further ambitions but have no policies in place to meet them.
Many scholars have flagged the political instability of the Act, stemming from limited institutional transformation, limited reconfiguration of group identities, and limited investment effects, further complicated by Brexit.
Discussion questions
Discuss the effectiveness of the UK Climate Change Act in advancing climate action and whether reform of the Act is required to ensure that the UK meets its international climate obligations.
Effectiveness: Is the UK on track with mitigating and adapting to climate change? What is the CCC saying?
Need for reform: What factors did Lockwood (2013) refer to when discussing sustainability of the Act? 1. Institutional transformation 2. Reconfiguration of group identities and affiliations 3. Investment effects How is the Act doing across these? Any recent developments?
