Rate This Article

Average: 0/5

Climate Solutions: Chapter 14

Climate Solutions: Chapter 14

Published:
Updated: May 7, 2012, 11:50 am
Topics: Climate Change
This article has been reviewed by the following Topic Editor: Peter Saundry

What Makes a Good Climate Agreement?

We need an expanded approach to collaboratively accelerate the widespread adoption of clean-energy and climate-friendly technologies. —Heiligendamm G8 Summit Declaration, June 7, 2007 There is no current belief that humans can control such [climate] changes once they are forced. [5] —Ralph Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences, 2000

Integrating the elements discussed above into an actual international agreement, decision makers must consider environmental effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, feasibility, and equity. Essential elements of an agreement include targets (e.g., for emissions with a cap and trade system), agreements among economic sectors (e.g., manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, resource extraction, power generation), coordinated monitoring (e.g., transparency and reliability of data), technological cooperation, development actions, financial mechanisms, and capacity building. To date, these elements have been subject to the preferences of individual countries, another reason the Kyoto Protocol results have been so ragged. For example, the United States appeared to accept a domestic emission target but oppose an international target; China is a fan of technology transfer between nations but dislikes the idea of setting a cap; Japan is a proponent of technology research and favors adaptation measures; and so on. All countries seem to favor encouraging the development of adaptation measures. But these adaptation elements alone are not enough. Mitigation is essential on top of adaptation to climate change|adaptation]]. Aggressive international agreements for emissions reductions are indispensable in avoiding added atmospheric warming beyond the minimum of two degrees we appear to have locked in to date.

 Table 14.9 Elements for More Successful Climate Change Agreements
 A number of elements are commonly incorporated in existing—and proposals for new—international climate change agreements. These include the following.*
 Goals  Most agreements establish objectives that implementation is supposed to achieve. In the climate context, a variety of goals have been proposed, including those related to emissions reductions, stabilization of GHG concentrations, avoidance of “dangerous” interference with climate, technology transfer, and sustainable development. Goals can be set at varying degrees of specificity.
 Participation  All agreements are undertaken between specific groups of participants. Some have a global scope while others focus on a more limited set of parties (e.g., regional in nature or limited to arrangements between private-sector partners). Obligations can be uniform across participants or differentiated among them.
 Actions  All agreements call for some form of action. Actions vary widely and can include national caps or targets on emissions, standards for certain sectors of the economy, financial payments and transfers, technology development, specific programs for adaptation, and reporting and monitoring. The actions can be implicitly or explicitly designed to support sustainable development. The timing for actions varies considerably, from those taking effect immediately to those that may take effect only over the longer term; actions may be taken internally (within contracting parties) or with others (with nonparties as well as nonstate actors).
 Institutions and compliance provisions  Many agreements contain provisions for establishing and maintaining supporting institutions. These perform tasks as varied as serving as repositories for specific, agreement-related data; facilitating or adjudicating compliance; serving as clearinghouses for market transactions or information flows; and managing financial arrangements. In addition, most agreements have provisions in case of noncompliance. These include binding and nonbinding consequences and may be facilitative or more coercive in nature.
 Other elements  Many (although not all) agreements contain additional elements, including, for example, “principles” and other preambular language. These can serve to provide context and guidance for operational elements, although they may be points of contention during negotiations. In addition, many agreements contain provisions for evaluating progress—with timetables for reviewing the adequacy of efforts and evaluating whether they need to be augmented or modified.
 *While not an element of agreements, specific information as to the time for initiating actions and, often, a date by which actions are to be completed is often contained in agreements. In addition, many agreements contain provisions for evaluating progress—with a timetable for reviewing the adequacy of efforts and evaluating whether they need to be augmented or modified.
 Table Source: [10]

Online figure

Figure 14.3 European Union greenhouse gas emission trends and projections versus the United States and JapanThe 27 nations comprising the European Union have leveled their greenhouse gas emissions. Can they keep doing so? Europe as a whole has clearly succeeded where the United States has not, in leveling off overall greenhouse gas emissions. The 15 original members of the EU (the EU-15) have a Kyoto target of an 8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with base-year levels (mostly 1990) by 2008–2012. Compared with base-year levels, an overall reduction of 2.0% was achieved. EU-27 emissions saw a similar decrease compared with 2004 levels and in 2005 were 11% below the base-year levels. Note: NMS indicates new member states in the EU, largely eastern developing economies from the former Soviet bloc (such as the “economies in transition” states found in Figure 14.2). Source: [8] Figure 14.3 European Union greenhouse gas emission trends and projections versus the United States and JapanThe 27 nations comprising the European Union have leveled their greenhouse gas emissions. Can they keep doing so? Europe as a whole has clearly succeeded where the United States has not, in leveling off overall greenhouse gas emissions. The 15 original members of the EU (the EU-15) have a Kyoto target of an 8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with base-year levels (mostly 1990) by 2008–2012. Compared with base-year levels, an overall reduction of 2.0% was achieved. EU-27 emissions saw a similar decrease compared with 2004 levels and in 2005 were 11% below the base-year levels. Note: NMS indicates new member states in the EU, largely eastern developing economies from the former Soviet bloc (such as the “economies in transition” states found in Figure 14.2). Source: [8]

 

Bibliography

  1. Barrett S (2007) Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods. (Oxford University Press, Oxford). http://apps.sais-jhu.edu/faculty/faculty_bio1.php?ID=2
  2. Benedick RE (2007) “Lessons from the Montreal Protocol,” (topic ed) Cleveland CJ, in Encyclopedia of Earth, (ed) Cleveland CJ. (Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington, DC). http://www.eoearth.org/article/Lessons_from_the_Montreal_Protocol
  3. Benedick RE (2007) Perspectives: Avoiding Gridlock on Climate Change. Issues in Science and Technology. http://www.issues.org/23.2/p_benedick.html
  4. CGIAR (2008) Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (read October 8, 2008). http://www.cgiar.org
  5. Cicerone RJ (2000) Human forcing of climate change: easing up on the gas pedal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97(19):10304?– 10306. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/extract/97/19/10304
  6. Cicerone RJ (2006)Finding Climate Change and Being Useful. (National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington, DC). http://ncseonline.org/
  7. Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) (2008) North American Mosaic. Commission for Environmental Cooperation (read November 12, 2008). http://www.cec.org
  8. EU Environment Agency (2008) Environmental Indicators. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/indicators/pdf/leaflet_env_indic_2008.pdf
  9. Fri RW (2008) America’s Energy Future: Summary of a Meeting, in The National Academies Summit on America’s Energy Future, eds Committee for The National Academies Summit on America’s Energy Future, National Research Council. (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC). http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12450.html
  10. Gupta S, Tirpak DA, Burger N, Gupta J, Höhne N, Boncheva AI, Kanoan GM, Kolstad C, Kruger JA, Michaelowa A (2007) Policies, Instruments and Co-operative Arrangements (in Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA) ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf: http://www.ipcc.ch
  11. Hoffert MI, Caldeira K, Jain AK, Haites EF (1998) Energy implications of future stabilization of atmospheric CO2 content. Nature 395:881?– 884. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v395/n6705/abs/395881a0.html
  12. Lagos R, Wirth TE, El-Ashry M (2008) Framework for a Post-2012 Agreement on Climate Change. Global Leadership for Climate Action. http://www.globalclimateaction.com
  13. Lakhani KR, Panetta JA (2007) The principles of distributed innovation. The Berkman Center for Internet and Society Research Paper No. 2007-7. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1021034
  14. Mallon K, Bourne G, Mott R (2007) in Climate Solutions: WWF’s Vision for 2050. (World Wildlife Fund). http://www.panda.org/climate
  15. McKibben W, Wilcoxen PJ (2008) Building on Kyoto: Towards A Realistic Global Climate Agreement. Brookings High Level Workshop on Climate Change. http://www.brookings.edu/experts/mckibbinw.aspx
  16. Milford L (2007) Consultative Group on Climate Innovation: A Proposed Complementary Technology Track for the Post-2012 Period. Road to Copenhagen 2009: Conference on Leadership, Sustainable Development and Climate Change. http://www.cleanegroup.org
  17. Milford L, Dutcher D, Barker T (2008) Climate Choreography: How Distributed and Open Innovation Could Accelerate Technology Development and Deployment. http://www.cleanegroup.org
  18. Pershing J (2008) Thoughts on Bali (UNFCCC 13th Session; Kyoto Protocol Third Session). National Conference on Science, Policy, and the Environment. http://ncseonline.org/climatesolutions
  19. Schelling TC (2007) Developing Countries Will Suffer Most from Global Warming. Resources for the Future. http://www.rff.org/Publications/Resources/Documents/164/RFF-Resources-164_Thomas%20Schelling.pdf
  20. Socolow R, Pacala S (2004) Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 304(5686):968?– 972. http://www.sciencemag.org
  21. UNFCCC (2007) The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali. COP 13. United Nations Climate Change Conference Bali, Indonesia UNFCC (read October 10, 2008). http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_13/items/4049.php
  22. UNFCCC (2008) Bonn Climate Change Talks. UNFCC (read October 6, 2008). http://unfccc.int/meetings/sb28/items/4328.php
  23. UNFCCC (2008) Kyoto Protocol UNFCC (read August 24, 2008). http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
  24. Wilcoxen PJ (2008) Energy and Climate Policy for the Next Administration. Presentation to OASIS, October 27, 2008. Maxwell. http://wilcoxen.maxwell.insightworks.com/
  25. Wilcoxen PJ (2008) How Large Is a Quadrillion BTU? In Externalities and Public Goods: Facts about Energy. Maxwell (read November 11, 2008). http://wilcoxen.maxwell.insightworks.com/pages/index/
  26. World Bank (2008) World Bank Board Approves Climate Investment Funds: Targeting $5 Billion over Next Three Years to Support Developing Countries. Press Release No:2009/001/SDN (July 1, 2008). http://www.worldbank.org/cif
  27. Zakaria F (2008) “The Future of Energy: Best and the Brightest.” Newsweek, October 13, 2008. http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/archive.html

Online resources

Action items

  • Action 22: Availability of Technology to Mitigate Climate Change
  • Action 33: Diverse Perspectives on Climate Change Education?— Integrating Across Boundaries
  • Action 34: Building People’s Capacities for Implementing Mitigation and Adaptation Actions

Instructor resources

(password required)

 

 


This is a chapter from Climate Solutions Consensus.
Previous: Chapter 13: Where the Science, Policy, and Public Meet  |  Table of Contents  |  Next: Chapter 15: All of the Above! Solutions in Perspective
 

 

 

 

Citation

David Blockstein, Leo Wiegman (Lead Author);Peter Saundry (Topic Editor) "Climate Solutions: Chapter 14". In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). [First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth June 16, 2010; Last revised Date May 7, 2012; Retrieved June 20, 2013 <http://www.eoearth.org/article/Climate_Solutions:_Chapter_14>

The Authors

David Blockstein       David E. Blockstein is a Senior Scientist with the National Council for Science and the Environment, a nonpartisan organization of scientists, environmentalists, business people, and policymakers working to improve the scientific basis of environmental decisionmaking. Dr. Blockstein joined the organization in 1990 and was its first Executive Director. Presently, he organizes NCSE's annual National Conference on Science, Policy and the Environment. Dr. Blockstei ... (Full Bio)

Leo Wiegman A former book publisher, Leo serves as Mayor of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York, and is Vice Chair of the Northern Westchester Energy Action Consortium. Leo is the founder of E to the Fourth Strategic Communications, a firm dedicated to helping environmental groups communicate more effectively. Leo is co-author of The Climate Solutions Consensus with David Blockstein at the National Council on Science and the Environment and of the forthcoming, Heirlooms to Live In: H ... (Full Bio)

0 Comments

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. Click here to login