Mechanisms of international cooperation The IPCC, the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol Session 6.
-
Upload
janice-jackson -
Category
Documents
-
view
226 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Mechanisms of international cooperation The IPCC, the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol Session 6.
Mechanisms of international cooperation
The IPCC, the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol
Session 6
Introduction An apparent paradox
The action of a single country in the fight against climate change is meaningless.
At the same time, the participation of some countries is a necessary condition for a successful agreement.
Problem of the free-rider
How to translate a scientific consensus into collective action Took a long time to build up Relationship between science and policy International cooperation on climate change was first a story of
scientific cooperation
The need for international cooperation Climate change as a global public ‘bad’
Climate change as a market failure: global externality Affects all peoples and all generations, though diversely The protection of climate can only be provided through
international cooperation
Difficulties of international cooperation Tragedy of the commons Free rider Need for a global climate regime
Three key mechanisms of international cooperation
1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Established in 1988 jointly by UNEP and WMO Open to all member countries of UNEP and WMO Main task: assess the risks and impacts of climate
change Main outcome: the Assessment Reports, issued every 5
or 6 years (4 reports so far) About 2,500 (unpaid) scientists, appointed by their
government: lead authors, contributing authors, reviewers
Structure of the IPCC
The scientific process The IPCC does not carry out any research The Assessment Reports are just a synthesis of previously
published works Triple peer-reviewing
Peer-review at the time of publication of original works Scientific peer-review by experts Political peer-review by governments
The reports need to be approved by both all scientists and all governments: they are bpth a scientific and a political document
Reports organised on the basis of scenarios
Comments and criticisms Highly authoritative, due to intensive peer-reviewing
But this authority is currently being questioned: ‘climate gate’, mistake about the Himalaya glaciers, etc.
The IPCC as a political actor How to address these criticisms? Can we doubt about climate science?
Minimal consensus Are the reports too prudent and conservative?
Scenarios underestimate reality Need for revision Need for a global reform of the IPCC?
2. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Main outcome of IPCC and the Rio Earth Summit (1992), and
first international agreement on climate
Choice between 2 possible options: A global treaty on the atmosphere A treaty focused on climate change
General objective: the stabilisation of a GHG concentration at a level that would avoid dangerous interference with the climate
Two key priciples: Common but differentiated responsibility Respective capacities.
Not binding, no mandatory limits for GHG emissions. Sole obligation: GHG inventory to be submitted each year.
Three important mechanisms: Mandatory protocols Countries divided in Annex I countries, Annex II countries (a
subset of Annex I) and developing countries COP to be held every year
3. The Kyoto Protocol Mandatory update of
UNFCCC Opened for signature in
1997, entered into force 8 years later
Conditions: 55 parties, and 55% of CO2 emissions
176 countries have ratified. Only 37 have to reduce their emissions
General design of the Protocol Fixed term: expires in 2012 General objectives: cut GHG emissions by an average
5% from 1990 (base year) Underpinning principle: common but differentiated
responsibility Distinction between Annex I countries and non Annex I
countries Flexible mechanisms Heavy emphasis on mitigation, little emphasis on
adaptation
Kyoto and Europe All EU-members’ ratifications deposited simultaneoulsy on 31 May
2002 EU counted as an individual entity EU produces about 22% of gas emissions Agreed to a cut of 8% from 1990 levels One of the major supporters of the treaty EU elected to be treated as a ‘bubble’, and created an EU
Emissions Trading Scheme France: 0%. No need to cut emissions Germany: -21%. Has reduced its emissions by 17.2% between 1990
and 2004. UK: -12.5%. Appears to be on course to meet its target.
Different commitments
Flexible mechanisms Innovative aspect of the Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms relying on the market, rather than on
states Highly criticised as paramount of ‘environmental
liberalism’ Three mechanisms:
Carbon market (‘cap and trade’) Clean Development Mechanism Joint Implementation
The carbon market:The EU Emission Trading Scheme General principle: maximisation of economic efficiency – at
the expense of ethics? Industries are given quotas of emission allowances Application of the ‘polluter pays’ principle Scheme started in 2005, all 27 countries take part Problems:
Price of carbon highly versatile Covers about half of the EU’s CO2 emissions Too many quotas on the market
Second phase from 2012, with auctioning and a central authority
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Aims to combine development and climate, equity and
efficiency Economic efficiency: costs of abatment are cheaper in
developing countries Functioning:
Alternative to domestic reductions Allow Annex I countries to invest in projects that reduce
emissions in developing countries New carbon credits: Certified Emission Reductions
(CERs)
Geographical distribution of CDMs
Criticism Reality of avoided emissions
Principle of additionality Incentive to misrepresent reality Overpricing and overestimation
Unlimited credits A country could completely externalise its efforts Transfer of emissions?
Development objectives ? Almost no CDM projects in Africa
Joint implementation
Similar mechanism as CDMs, but in Annex I countries (i.e. In Eastern Europe and Russia)
Provides Emission Reduction Units (ERUs), where 1 ERU = 1 ton of CO2
No new credits Long and fastidious process
Some final words Kyoto is an agreement between industrialised countries,
where developing countries are mostly oberservers:
No limits on emissions Do not benefit from flexible mechanisms Treaty focused on mitigation, not adaptation
Role of civil society in international cooperation