Post on 16-Dec-2015
www.perspectives.cc · honegger@perspectives.cc © 2014 Perspectives GmbH
CLIMATE ENGINEERING GOVERNANCE – IS THE CLIMATE CONVENTION THE RIGHT PLACE
FOR IT?
Climate Engineering Conference, Berlin, 2014
Dan Bodansky
Axel Michaelowa
Matthias Honegger
Ying CHEN
Co-hosted by:
www.perspectives.cc · honegger@perspectives.cc © 2014 Perspectives GmbH
The UN Climate Convention is the most adequate forum to
launch a decision making process on CE
Matthias Honegger
honegger@perspectives.cc
Berlin, 20.08.2014
www.perspectives.cc · honegger@perspectives.cc
What is this about?
Different wording for governance: decision-making processes What decisions? Who? On what?
«The likely» versus «the best» forum for a decision process: Evidence based arguments not the same as normative Applicability of evidence for prospective is debatable Normative arguments could be deduced from Political Theory
– applying principles from similar governance problems: climate change & novel technologies for public goods
The Governance Debate is evidence for the need of societal answers and the need for a broad and inclusive approach
www.perspectives.cc · honegger@perspectives.cc
Evidence based arguments
A1: Climate engineering currently taboo in the UNFCCC C1: Adaptation was taboo but is a core issue now A2: UNFCCC has not delivered emissions reductions C2: The interest-structure of SRM is fundamentally different
from mitigation burden-sharing A3: UNFCCC « will explode » – due to overload of issues C3: The problem is complex; negotiations need to mirror the
problem; epistemic community used to this complexity A4: Too inclusive (debatable normative element) and
therefore impractical (empirical claim) C4: 1) Inclusion may be necessary, enabling politically on int.
level
2) Governments need legitimacy to prevent domestic backlash
3) Consensus not as stringent as outsiders think
4) Negotiations force governments to engage the public
www.perspectives.cc · honegger@perspectives.cc
Normative arguments against involvement
A5: International multilateral negotiation fora are not legitimate – representative / close to “the public” enough
C5: 1. Decisions not taken by the decision forum, but by the Parties shaped by domestic interests and decision processes
2. Transparency, public attention: Draft decision texts, statements at the negotiations publicly available; level and breadth of involvement of media and NGO’s is unique under the UNFCCC
3. Some decisions are to be taken locally, some require global coordination: international fora are to coordinate & identify common ground
A6: Efforts should not be diverted from mitigation/adaptation negotiations
C6: Addressing CE in other political venues may do the same; a political choice of allocating resources; CE-interest structure may be different enough to unblock negotiations
www.perspectives.cc · honegger@perspectives.cc
Why the UN Climate Convention?
The right issue focus the necessary negotiation dimensions- Mitigation level and mitigation responsibilities- Adaptation support level- Compensation payments e.g. loss and damage, tech transfer,
mitigation support, etc. The epistemic community familiar with climate complexity Substantial international attention year after year
- Political weight- Transparency and accountability of governments
Based on principles important for agreement on climate change e.g. equity & pursuit of sustainable development
No better alternative for long-term decision making on climate change