Student: Michaela Koke
Graduation date: May 2016
Type: Area of Interest (double major)
Date approved: November 2013
Summary
Climate change dominates today’s environmental discourse. It has been pegged as one of the greatest challenges facing mankind. And why is this? To find out, one must look at one of the biggest hurdles to tackling climate change — international relations (e.g. Kyoto Protocol).
Many issues plague climate change negotiations and subsequent international policies. For one, the divide between Annex I and non-Annex I countries (UNFCCC 2014), which has improved in recent negotiations, highlights the inequality of climate change: developing countries will likely feel the negative effects of climate change more severely than their industrialized counterparts, which is due in part to their capability to address the resulting damage (Aldy et al. 2010). Moreover, one of the main debates surrounding the fairness of climate policy concerns developing and emergent nations that utilize fossil fuels to industrialize; many feel they have the right to burn carbon until they prosper and that wealthier countries should take responsibility for the impact they have already made on global climate (Stern 2008, 67). Secondly, Lack of enforcement of international climate policies both encourages countries to go back on their commitments — like when Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2011 — and discourages other countries to adhere to the policy because there is no punishment for states who do not. This highlights another issue inherent in climate change negotiations: a high level of uncertainty in international collective action. Lastly, there is little incentive for states to adopt these climate policies because it is more economical in the short run to “free ride”, which adds to the uncertainty (Wiener 2007, Aldy et al. 2010).
This area of interest examines the ins and outs of international climate conventions, like the UNFCCC, and how negotiations have been suffering or where they have improved. For example, the accord between China and the US after the November 2014 APEC Summit was momentous. China, for the first time, agreed to peak its carbon emissions by 2030 while the US agreed to limit its emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025 (Landler 2014). Although this was a bilateral agreement that happened outside of the UNFCCC framework, it sets the stage for the December 2015 Paris convention. This interaction essentially signaled to the world that the two biggest emitters, who have continually disagreed on climate policies, are newly committed to climate action and that it’s time for the rest of the world to follow suit. However, domestic pressures, especially within the US, inevitably impact a state’s ability to meet these commitments. These are the types of bilateral and multilateral agreements that I would explore that each offer insight into climate change negotiations and barriers to policy making on a global scale. The other aspect to this area of interest is to examine when climate policies have been successful and where they floundered.
Climate policies vary across the world. In fact, for the 2015 Paris convention each country is proposing their own individualized pledge to limit carbon emissions. This is no doubt a substantial breakthrough however, policies vary greatly by country. The US, for example, is against federal emissions taxing while the EU has an extensive cap-and-trade program (Aldy et al. 2010, Bailey 2007). Thus far, the EU was the only global entity to meet its Kyoto target of 8% reduction of emissions below 1990 levels. It took many negotiations, beginning with the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, to create an “EU climate regime;” which did not happen until 2003 with the creation of the EU’s cap-and-trade program (Bailey 2007). However, this the cap-and-trade agreement “was negotiated with surprising speed and efficiency” (Bailey 2007, 435). How was the EU able to not only establish a climate regime with great expediency but also meet its Kyoto targets in actuality? One policy the EU has implemented is a “burden sharing” policy where some states reduced emissions to allow others to increase their emissions while still meeting their target of 8% reduction from 1990 levels. Germany and Denmark had emissions reductions goals of 21%, while Portugal had an increase of 27% and Greece, 25% (European Commission 2015, Klepper 2008). I would like to explore burden sharing and other ways the EU has been able to meet their Kyoto targets to examine their applicability outside of the EU.
This area of interest would explore the applicability of successful climate policies and the potential barriers to implementation. This is why it is necessary to examine international climate negotiations outside of a domestic scale. Burden sharing requires commitments from many countries working in tandem to meet emissions targets. By examining the barriers to and the many nuances of international negotiations, I will gain better insight into when and how certain policies could be implemented. This is possible because climate policy is certainly a political, as well as an economic, social, ethical issue.
References
Aldy, Joseph E. et al. 2010. “Designing Climate Mitigation Policy.” Journal of Economic Literature. 48 (4): 903-934. doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29779703
Bailey, Ian. 2007. “Neoliberalism, Climate Governance, and the Scalar Politics of EU Emissions Trading.” Area. 39 (4): 431-442. doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40346065?origin=JSTOR-pdf
EDGAR. 2013. “CO2 time series 1990-2011 per region/country.” Joint Research Center: European Commision.
European Commission. 2013. “Climate Action.” European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/index_en.htm
European Commission. 2015. “Kyoto Emissions Targets: Joint fulfillment, ‘burden sharing’ and base years.” Accessed April 23, 2015.
Klepper, Gernot and Sonja Peterson. “The European Emissions Trading Regime and the Future of Kyoto.” In Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto. (Paris: Brookings Institution Press, 2008): 101-111.
Landler, Mark. 2014. “U.S. and China Reach Climate Accord After Months of Talks.” The New York Times, November 11. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/world/asia/china-us-xi-obama-apec.html.
Stern, Nicholas. 2008. “The Economics of Climate Change.” American Economic Review. 98 (2): 1-37.
UNFCCC. 2014. “List of Annex I Parties to the Convention.” Accessed October 2, 2015. http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/parties/annex_i/items/2774.php
Wiener, Jonathan B. 2007. “Climate Change Policy and Policy Change in China.” UCLA Law Review 55: 1805.
Questions
- Descriptive: What policies to meet Kyoto targets have been implemented by the EU? What criticisms have arose as a result of these policies? How have negotiations between countries in the UNFCCC developed since its inception?
- Explanatory: Why do states choose to join or opt out of international climate agreements? What accounts for the differences in policies between actors? What are the largest barriers impeding the UNFCCC today (political, economic)?
- Evaluative: How different are climate policies between different states? What is a ‘successful’ climate change mitigation policy? Is the current setup of the UNFCCC conducive to meeting the goals it sets out or does it need to be completely overhauled?
- Instrumental: How applicable are EU policies to the rest of the world? Can individualized policies by country effectively mitigate climate change? How does the UNFCCC need to adjust to produce effective climate change policies?
Arts and humanities courses
- PHIL 215 (Philosophy and the Environment, 4 credits). Pre-approved A&H course; no justification required.
- HIST 303 (China in Transformation, 1840s-1960s, 4 credits), fall 2014, study abroad.