Opportunities for and Alternatives to Global Climate Regimes Post-Kyoto

Abstract

International policies for mitigation of climate change provide a global public good and thus suffer from “free riding,” i.e., inaction of governments. In 25 years of negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the regime has changed its character from a top-down approach based on mandatory emissions commitments to a bottom-up system of voluntary government pledges. At the same time, various initiatives by governments at all levels and private companies have been established, but most are limited to emissions reporting and exchange of knowledge on mitigation technologies. None of the alternatives has shown a higher mitigation effectiveness than the Kyoto Protocol. Generally, the transition toward a bottom-up regime risks a reduction of transparency and increases in the transaction costs of mitigation. Although it could give rise to a club of countries engaging in strong mitigation that could expand over time, it is unlikely to be ambitious enough to achieve the target of limiting warming to 2°C. On the one hand, carbon prices will be applied in a larger number of jurisdictions, and mitigation technologies diffuse around the world. On the other hand, carbon price levels will remain relatively low, and their mitigation benefits will be more than outweighed by the growth of infrastructure and consumption. Thus, a temperature increase of at least 3°C by 2100 becomes more and more likely.

Collective climate action and networked climate governance

“…Studies in International Relations and International Political Economy have traditionally focused on international climate negotiations and their outcomes in terms of producing a legally binding global climate treaty. 3,[53][54][55][56] Given the negotiation outcomes, most studies concentrated on identifying the reasons for the failure of international cooperation. 57,58 However, in the past decade politicians and political scientists had to acknowledge the proliferation of new actors and forms of global climate governance.…”

“…Studies in International Relations and International Political Economy have traditionally focused on international climate negotiations and their outcomes in terms of producing a legally binding global climate treaty . Given the negotiation outcomes, most studies concentrated on identifying the reasons for the failure of international cooperation .…”

“…After years of stalemate in international climate negotiations, governments reached a new and universal climate change agreement to govern the post‐Kyoto era at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCCC) in Paris. The Paris Agreement not only aims to limit global warming to ‘well below 2°C above pre‐industrial levels’; the Parties also agreed on ‘pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C.’ Reaching this goal will require constant action and strong commitments from state and a range of other actors in both the developed and developing world, since the new climate governance system is based on so‐called national pledges . Moreover, there is consensus that incremental policy change will not suffice to respond to climate change, necessitating a society‐wide transformation .…”

“…The Paris Agreement not only aims to limit global warming to 'well below 2 C above pre-industrial levels'; the Parties also agreed on 'pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 C.' 2 Reaching this goal will require constant action and strong commitments from state and a range of other actors in both the developed and developing world, since the new climate governance system is based on socalled national pledges. 3 Moreover, there is consensus that incremental policy change will not suffice to respond to climate change, necessitating a society-wide transformation. 4,5 This requires fundamental changes in production and consumption patterns, 6 thereby indicating that responses to climate change require broad support from collective actors in the economy, from society, and from individuals alike.…”

Political economies of climate change

“…This debate on international climate cooperation tends to frame it as a question of “top down” versus “bottom‐up” approaches (Andresen, ; Green, Sterner, & Wagner, ; Hare, Stockwell, Flachsland, & Oberthür, ; Michaelowa, ; Rayner, ; Stavins et al, ). It is generally accepted that a “top down” global agreement would be optimal in both environmental and economic senses (Gollier & Tirole, ; Stern, Bowen, & Whalley, ), but there are various reasons to do with the incentives states face that mean this cannot be achieved especially in the face of the urgency of meeting a 2°C target, prompting policymakers and economists to look more towards the bottom‐up approach (Chung, ; Sabel & Victor, ).…”