Transcript Slide 1

Combating Climate Change:
Where Do We Go From Here?
Daniel Bodansky
University of Georgia
January 18, 2007
Phases in the development of
the climate change regime


Foundational (1957-1985)
Agenda-setting (1985-1990)
– Development of scientific interest
– Development of political interest


Constitutional (1991-1995)
Regulatory (1995-present)
Foundational period
 Revelle/Seuss article,
1957
– “Humans are now
carrying on a large-scale
geophysical experiment”
Keeling
Curve
Foundational period

Development of scientific concern
– 1963 Conservation Foundation report:
• “It is estimated that a doubling of the carbon dioxide
content of the atmosphere would produce a
temperature rise of 3.8 degrees C.”
– 1979 NAS report:
• “There is no reason to doubt that climate changes will
result and no reason to believe that these changes will
be negligible”
Agenda-setting, 1985-1990

Development of political interest
– Role of scientific knowledge brokers
• 1985 Villach meeting
• 1988 Villach and Bellagio meetings
– Role of environmental politics
• 1987 Brundtland Commission report
• Discovery of ozone hole
• US Congressional hearings
– Role of sudden shocks
• 1988 heat wave in North America
Agenda-setting

Development of political interest
– Role of scientific knowledge brokers
• 1985 Villach meeting
• 1988 Villach and Bellagio meetings
– Role of environmental politics
• 1987 Brundtland Commission report
• Discovery of ozone hole
• US Congressional hearings
– Role of sudden shocks
• 1988 heat wave in North America
Agenda-setting

Development of political interest
– Role of scientific knowledge brokers
• 1985 Villach meeting
• 1988 Villach and Bellagio meetings
– Role of environmental politics
• 1987 Brundtland Commission report
• Discovery of ozone hole
• US Congressional hearings
– Role of sudden shocks
• 1988 heat wave in North America
Agenda-setting

Development of political interest
– Role of scientific knowledge brokers
• 1985 Villach meeting
• 1988 Villach and Bellagio meetings
– Role of environmental politics
• 1987 Brundtland Commission report
• Discovery of ozone hole
• US Congressional hearings
– Role of sudden shocks
• 1988 heat wave in North America
Agenda-setting

Development of political interest
– Role of scientific knowledge brokers
• 1985 Villach meeting
• 1988 Villach and Bellagio meetings
– Role of environmental politics
• 1987 Brundtland Commission report
• Discovery of ozone hole
• US Congressional hearings
– Role of sudden shocks
• 1988 heat wave in North America
1988
Development of International
Climate Change Regime
1988
1992
1997
2001
2005
Kyoto entry
into force
IPCC
established
Framework
Convention
(UNFCCC)
Kyoto
Protocol
Marrakech
Conference
Scientific
assessment
Non-binding
aim
Binding
emissions
target
Agreement on
Kyoto rules
Negotiating Constants
Major Blocs
Basic positions
– EU
– Binding emission reduction targets
– [Top-down regulation / Limited flexibility]
– US
– Concern about economic costs
– Maximum flexibility
• Domestic choice of policies and
measures
• Market mechanisms (emissions
trading)
– Developing country participation
– G-77
– No emission targets for developing
countries
– Financial and technological assistance
Framework
Convention/Protocol Approach

Allows states to proceed incrementally

Framework convention establishes
general system of governance

Specific obligations developed in
protocols
Elements of the UNFCCC




Objective and principles
Obligations
Institutions
Implementation mechanisms
UNFCCC:
Objective and principles


Objective: stabilization of GHG
concentrations at safe levels
Principles
– Equity
– Common but differentiated
responsibilities
• Industrialized countries must take the lead
– Precautionary principle
– Cost-effectiveness
UNFCCC:
Obligations

All countries
– GHG inventories
– National strategies and measures
– Reporting

Industrialized countries (listed in Annex I)
– Return emissions to 1990 levels by 2000

Western industrialized countries (Annex II)
– Financial assistance to developing countries
UNFCCC:
Institutions
Conference of the Parties
(COP)
Meets yearly
Secretariat
Science Advisory Body
(SBSTA)
Financial
Global Envt.
Mechanism = Facility (GEF)
Implementation Body
(SBI)
UNFCCC Scorecard



UNFCCC establishes basic
framework
But no binding emission reduction
targets
Instead, non-binding aim to return
emissions to 1990 levels by year
2000

Post-Rio
– Institutions up and running
– First round of reporting and
review

COP1, Berlin, 1995
– COP to periodically review
obligations of parties, Art. 7.2(a)
– Review of adequacy of FCCC,
Art. 4.2(d)
• Existing targets inadequate
– Berlin Mandate: to negotiate
additional commitments for
developed countries

COP 3, Kyoto, 1997
Kyoto Protocol: Basic
Elements

Binding emission targets for
each developed country
– US: -7%
– EU: -8%
– Japan: -6%
– Russia: 0%

Compared to 1990
levels
Applies to five-year commitment
period, 2008-2012
Kyoto Protocol Scorecard:
EU Targets/US Architecture


Tough US
emissions
target
No emission
targets for
developing
countries

But US won longsought-after
architecture: flexible,
market-oriented
– Emissions trading
– Credit for reducing
emissions in developing
countries
– Credit for carbon sinks
Fleshing Out Kyoto
Kyoto defined the basic architecture
 ......But most of the detailed rules still needed
to be agreed

– How market mechanisms will work
– How to include carbon “sinks” (forests and
farmlands)
– Compliance system

Demands by developing countries for money,
technology
Bringing Kyoto into Effect

Kyoto rules finalized in 2001 at COP-7:
Marrakech Accords
Marrakesh Accords



No quantitative limits on emissions
trading
Significant credits (removal units, or
RMU) for forest and cropland
management
Caps on CDM credits for sink
activities, and no credits for avoided
deforestation under the CDM
Where are we now?


Growing scientific concern
Weak global response
– Although Kyoto has
entered into force, won’t
have much effect on
global emissions
– Reluctance to negotiate
for post-2012 period

But growing activities at
other levels
– EU emissions trading
system
– State and local initiatives
in US
– Growing carbon market
Annex 1
countries with
targets
30%
Countries
without/rejecting
targets
70%
Year 2000 emissions, 6 gases,
Source: WRI/CAIT
The climate change regime:
An environmentalist scorecard
Where are we heading?


Kyoto’s first commitment period will end in
2012
Post-2012 discussions
– Convention dialogue
– Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments
– Review of the Kyoto Protocol

40+ proposals for future climate change
effort
Prevailing approach:
Climate change a collective action problem
Country Y
States are unitary actors,
rational utility maximizers

Cooperative outcome
leaves everyone better
off
Abate Pollute
Country X
– Each state has an
individual incentive to
pollute
– But if each state pollutes,
leaves everyone worse off
+1
Abate +1
+2
-2
-2
Pollute +2
-1
-1
Prevailing approach:
Climate change a collective action problem

Issue: How to achieve the cooperative
outcome?
– Encourage states to participate
• US: address concern about high costs
• Developing countries: address concerns that
climate commitments could limit economic
development
– Provide assurance of compliance
But is “collective action” the right
frame?

On climate change, many of key
players don’t want binding targets
– US, India, [China], [Brazil]

Fundamental shift
– No longer primarily a collective action
problem
… Instead, problem of domestic politics –
lack of political will
Lessons learned
Top-down vs. Bottom-Up

Kyoto’s approach top-down
– Start with international
agreement.
– This will put pressure on states to
act

But all politics are local
– Domestic usually drives
international, rather than vice
versa
> Bottom-up approach:
International action should grow
out of, rather than precede,
domestic action
How to proceed?
An institutionalist perspective


Issue: how to remove “inefficiencies,”
exploit whatever political will exists
Possible strategies:
– Reduce transaction costs
– Give countries flexibility through bottomup approach
– Address concerns about high mitigation
costs
How to proceed?
A constructivist perspective


Issue: how to raise level of political
will?
Possible strategies
– International leadership
– Development-oriented approaches
How to proceed?
A more variable geometry



Kyoto club: targets and timetables
Continued developments at state and local
level, and by industry – linkages of trading
systems
US develops domestic program, involving
cap-and-trade with safety valve
– Builds out through arrangements with other
countries

Looser coordination internationally