A new process for negotiating multilateral environmental agreements? The Asia–Pacific climate partnership beyond Kyoto

Kellow, Aynsley

doi:10.1080/10357710600696183

Cited by 25 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is therefore beyond the scope of this article to engage in the ongoing debate about whether the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the most effective instruments for responding to the threat of climate change. Different perspectives in this debate can be found in Kellow (2006), Prins and Rayner (2007), Rayfuse and Scott (2007), Stephens (2008), Victor (2004) and Yamin (1998). 4.…”

Section: Constructivist Scholars Of International Relations Have Propmentioning

confidence: 98%

Cheating on climate change? Australia's challenge to global warming norms

Stevenson

2009

Australian Journal of International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Constructivist Scholars Of International Relations Have Propmentioning

confidence: 98%

Cheating on climate change? Australia's challenge to global warming norms

Stevenson

2009

Australian Journal of International Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…(DFAT, 2003, p. 67) Interestingly, and despite its reluctance to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the Howard government was committed to, and met, the target set in 1998. It has also launched the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate (APP), where Australia worked with the United States, China, India and South Korea to try and solve climate change outside the Kyoto framework (Kellow, 2006;McGee and Taplin, 2006). A second point of contention between the EU and Australia in relation to international environmental agreements in general lay in the setting of targets and deadlines.…”

Section: Divergencementioning

confidence: 98%

A New Era for EU–Australia Relations? Sustainable Development and the Challenge of Climate Change as Litmus Test

Hussey

Lightfoot

2010

The Round Table

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The election of the Labor government in 2007 appeared to usher in a new era of EU-Australian relations with a greater focus on those areas of agreement between Australia and the EU. This paper therefore explores the potential for closer cooperation between the EU and Australia in the area of sustainable development. It takes climate change as a 'litmus test' for the EU-Australia relationship due to the prominence given to the issue by both the EU and Australia and the contentious nature of the issue in relations between the EU and Australia under the previous government. After outlining the major tenets of the 'new era' under the Rudd government, those areas of policy divergence and convergence and thus opportunities for closer cooperation are highlighted and the residual issues that could offer opportunities for closer cooperation. It is concluded that these residual issues hinder developments in the relationship, but more signs of a new relationship are seen than previously.

show abstract

“…However, Kellow's claim of the APP's advantage in relation to fairness is very questionable given the APP appears to contradict the key equity principle of common but differentiated responsibilities contained in the UNFCCC (as mentioned above). Bäckstrand15 refutes Kellow's14 argument that the APP is a new model for multilateral climate action saying that it ‘…captures “old” modes of governance, in which private actors are co‐opted into voluntary agreements with states’ 15. Referring to our7 argument that the APP has the capacity to compete with Kyoto, she observes that it ‘contributes to the fragmentation of climate governance by setting up a technology partnership outside the Kyoto‐based framework’ 15.…”

Section: Opinions On the Partnershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This elevates the market as the ‘solution’ to GHG emissions reduction via a deeper market liberal model than Kyoto, and ultimately negates addressing ‘dangerous climate change’. We disagree with Kellow's assertion that the agreement is superior in terms of its effectiveness because all major polluters including developing countries have agreed to reduce emissions voluntarily 14. Indeed, Kellow's claim of effectiveness appears doubtful in the light of the ABARE modeling of the APP approach, mentioned above, that indicates that the APP approach if implemented globally will lead to at least a doubling of carbon equivalent emissions over the period 2006–2050.…”

Section: Opinions On the Partnershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Asia‐Pacific Partnership: implementation challenges and interplay with Kyoto

Taplin

McGee

2009

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Asia‐Pacific Partnership (APP) for Clean Development and Climate, a multilateral agreement between Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea (Korea) and the United States of America, is a nonbinding memorandum of understanding directed at international cooperation on development, energy, environment and climate change issues involving business and industry voluntary action on technology transfer, and research and development. It has been hailed as a new model for an international climate agreement and as an alternative to the Kyoto Protocol. However, APP implementation has had challenges. As an opposing model to that of Kyoto, it is in contravention of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's (UNFCCC's) principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and a contributor to the crumbling of climate governance. Cooperation rather than competition ideally should be the future for the relationship between the APP and the UNFCCC/Kyoto. Business and industry are involved in implementation of the Kyoto mechanisms under the UN climate regime currently; and for that reason, synchronicity between the APP and Kyoto agreements would be ideal. For example, APP nations could be involved in joint ‘regional’ emissions trading as the United States, Canada, Australia, Korea, and Japan all are in the process of establishing national schemes. However, for the APP to be a complement to Kyoto and not a barrier to its effectiveness, many hurdles need to be overcome including equity issues, additionality questions, capacity building concerns, trade barriers, intellectual property issues, adequacy of funding, assessment of APP emissions reductions, and renewal of US interest in UN climate regime participation. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance

show abstract

A new process for negotiating multilateral environmental agreements? The Asia–Pacific climate partnership beyond Kyoto

Cited by 25 publications

References 18 publications

Cheating on climate change? Australia's challenge to global warming norms

Cheating on climate change? Australia's challenge to global warming norms

A New Era for EU–Australia Relations? Sustainable Development and the Challenge of Climate Change as Litmus Test

The Asia‐Pacific Partnership: implementation challenges and interplay with Kyoto

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About