Why International Community Fail to Reach Agreement on Reducing Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Essay Example

From Kyoto to Doha, the International Community Has Consistently Failed to Reach Any Meaningful Agreement on Reducing Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Discuss. Table of Contents Introduction 3 The International, EU and UK Legal Framework to Regulate Decision-Making Concerning Climate Change 4 The Emerging Trends in the Approach to Climate Change 4 Variety of Institutions Which Regulate Decision-Making for Climate Change 7 7 Critically Analysing the Existing Procedures and Techniques to Combat Climate Change 9 Importance of Sustainable Development as an Environmental Policy Goal 9 Public Participation in Achieving Environmental Objectives 11 Conclusion 13 References 14 Appendix 20 Introduction “Scientists now predict that despite global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, climate change effects like long-term droughts and significant sea-level rise are inevitable” - Bortscheller (2010: 49) International treaties concerning climate change have long been debated by critics on the basis of efficiency which was apparently identifiable in terms of the gaps persisting in the goals and the obtained outcomes. Astonishingly, irrespective of the repeated interventions from international bodies in binding legal coalitions to restrict climate change, the role and efficiencies of such agreements have been criticised in often instances being influenced by the uncontrollably rising green house gas emissions. One of the most debated international treaties towards climate change can be identified as the Kyoto Protocol which is also attributed as one of the initial coalitions established concerning sustainable development (Karp & Zhao, 2008). The subsequent international coalitions such as 18th Conference of the Parties (COP 18), better known as “Doha Climate Gateway”, the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer among others have been under deep scrutiny on the basis of its failure to reduce the emissions and thus ensure minimisation of the rate of climate changes (Boyle, 2012; United Nations Environment Programme, 2001; United Nations Environment Programme, 2000). Undoubtedly, it has become a matter of significant concern to identify the fundamental reasons due to which the international treaties have had no apparent influence on the rising emission rates and climate change (Boyle, 2012). Taking these aspects into concern, the study will aim at identifying the background of the International Environmental Agreements (IEAs) with the intention to recognise the influences which have hampered the functional competencies of the treaties. The ultimate objective of the study will therefore be concentrated on rationalising the causes of failure of the IEAs, initiated till date, in the context of climate changes. With this concern, the study will initially attempt to identify the trends concerning the measures adopted to combat climate change from international, European Union (EU) and UK perspectives taking onto account the various institutions which tend to regulate such coalitions or IEAs. The discussion will further proceed to critically analyse the procedures and techniques which have been and are being implemented in the milieu of the signed IEAs. The International, EU and UK Legal Framework to Regulate Decision-Making Concerning Climate Change The Emerging Trends in the Approach to Climate Change The trends in relation to collective measures implemented against climate change in the global, regional as well as national peripheries can be witnessed as growing rapidly with greater and increasingly critical considerations towards sustainable development (European Commission, 2013; Saadatian & et. al., 2012; Engel, 2006). When reviewing the industrial as well as the social trends of the late 20th century and the 21st century, the inclusion of sustainable development concerns rendering due significance towards environmental hazards caused by emissions and pollutions can be witnessed apparently. These fundamental aspects can be observed to be functioning as one of the major drivers of IEAs in relation to climate change. Stating precisely, the trends of establishing collaborative approaches have been significantly influenced by the economic ideas which deliberately intend to account for the implications of such environmental hazards on the sustainability development at the national, economic and international levels (Burtraw & Woerman, 2013). In comparison to other national groupings, EU had been amongst the foremost signatories to attempt the establishment of collaborative policy measures to combat climate changes (Egenhofer & Alessi, 2013). One of its apparent illustrations can be identified with reference to the Kyoto Protocol which was brought into effect in the year 1997. Since its enforcement, the Kyoto Protocol was criticised on the basis of its failures ab initio. It was intended to contribute to the progress of technology transfer with the objective to facilitate better fuel efficiency and lower Green House Gas (GHG) emission in developed countries in particular. It was enacted as an addition to UNFCCC in order to gain momentum to accomplish its ultimate objective of GHG concentrations and thus prevent the increasing rate of anthropogenic effects on the world climate conditions (Ma, 2010). It is in this context that owing to its sole concentration on the functions and sustainable development of developed nations based on the assumption that it was the principle responsibility of developed nations to reduce GHG emissions disregarding the roles of developing nations from a futuristic perspective (Arcas, 2011). In the later period, during the initial decade of the 21st century, it was observed that irrespective of being a developing nation, owing to its huge population base and rapid industrial developments, the nation had emerged to be a major emitter of GHG. Thus, the participation of China in the Kyoto Protocol and its position as one of the UNFCCC parties was acting as a major reason for the non-participation of developed nations, especially of the US observed in the 15th COP (Bortscheller, 2010). Consequently, international negotiations of the UNFCCC over the recent periods among the 19 signatories has also been raising significant challenges in the enforcement of effective policy measures to combat climate change in a progressive manner. Concerning the progress of UNFCCC, it has often been argued that sympathy of all countries based on equitable and strong international agreements are necessary to combat climate change at such a large scale (Arcas, 2011). It is worth mentioning in this context that even though the international progress of the UN had been unsatisfactory by a large extent and have been criticised on various grounds, the most common being transparency and equitability, the regional as well as the national performances of the EU and UK respectively have been quite relieving. However, when comparing the trends in the regional level, i.e. concerning the EU frameworks and legal policies to counter climate changes with the performance of UK at the national level, it can be apparently observed that UK’s conservative but innovative approaches had been more effective than the unilateralism approach. Where on one hand, EU’s initiatives to ambitiously reduce the GHG emissions are being respected all around the world, flaws existing in its approaches in terms of rationality and accuracy in terms of forecasts and resource allocation as well as interventions accused to be infringing the sovereignty of the member nations have been criticised in the global level as the fundamental causes for its failures (Scott & Rajamani, 2010). Again, in the similar context, the policies and frameworks adopted by the UK government based on a conservative approach have been quantitatively proved as effective in reducing the GHG emissions within the national context (refer to table 1 in appendix) (Baggott & et. al., 2007). It is worth mentioning in this context that as a prime signatory, UK had been highly benefitted by international coalition treaties established by UNFCCC such as the Kyoto Protocol obtaining the incentive of reduced financial risks as well as social pressures or economic obligations (Tol & Verheyen, 2004). Variety of Institutions Which Regulate Decision-Making for Climate Change It is worth mentioning in this context that climate change regimes and the consequent international coalitions have been regulated by the international institutions over the past years and thus have been significantly influencing the successes of these enforced IEAs. Few of the most active institutions had been the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), World Trade Organisation (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and UNFCCC. Decisions regarding environmental concerns through banning of weapons, industrial conservatism or even researches and developmental initiatives in the international plethora had been enforced on the basis of an interdependent regulatory framework. These kinds of frameworks, especially those linked with the UN had often been criticised on the grounds that such commandments were mostly based on theoretical and generalised assumptions rather than focusing in the realistic performances of the regulatory measures enforced (Keohane, 2010). Such associations between international institutions have thus resulted in the development of complex regimes, creating confusions, lack of adaptability as well as flexibility in the practical scenario. As stated by Keohane & Victor (2011), “There is no integrated regime governing efforts to limit the extent of climate change. Instead, there is a regime complex: a loosely coupled set of specific regimes”. Focusing at the national level, the specific regimes adopted by country level institutions can further be observed as highly affected by the political elements of the nation which in turn, accumulatively creates a binding influence on the international institutions regulating the IEAs. It is in this context that the above mentioned international institutions constitute various sovereign bodies which are further controlled by the features of democratic political regimes, distinct economic visions as well as unique social limits (Adger & et. al., 2009; Held & Hervey, 2009). It can be thus argued in this regard that with the strong influences caused by these rudimental factors, international regimes enforced by the institutions regulating climate change coalitions tend to face numerous challenges in its implementation phase in particular. Emphasising on this particular issue, theorists and experts have been arguing that cooperation, collaboration and continuous efforts need to be compiled at the national, international as well as regional contexts to obtain success in terms of IEAs (Ostrom & et. al., 1999). Critically Analysing the Existing Procedures and Techniques to Combat Climate Change Importance of Sustainable Development as an Environmental Policy Goal When assessing the various IEAs enforced with due concern towards the increasing hazards in terms of climate change, it can be observed that the issue of sustainable development seizes the position of a pivotal goal in the environmental policies. The importance can be apparently observed with the critical assessment of the incentives offered to the signatories in reward to their participation in the IEAs to combat climate change. It is worth mentioning in this context that one of the core assumptions often considered as a guiding light for IEAs in relation to climate change dictates that countries which tend to be reluctant in participating in international negotiations can be encouraged to enforce self-directed environmental regimes by subsidising their incentives in the policy framework. It can be explained with the transfers received by the non-signatory countries from the signatory countries to act in cooperation to the international policy frameworks to reduce GHG emissions, which is proportionately less than the incentives required to be exchanged in case the countries had directly participated in the IEAs (Hoel & Schneider, 1997). However, in the recent studies, incentives were not concluded to be a major factor in deriving stability of the international coalitions related with climate changes (Bosetti & et. al., 2011). Thus, it can be affirmed that even though sustainability development happens to be a prime objective of international coalitions which is further intended to be facilitated with adequate incentives for signatory and non-signatory countries, the stability of such coalitions are subjected to various other factors which perhaps related with the fundamental structures of these alliances. For instance, the main reason for the failure of Kyoto Protocol had been widely argued as its primary concentration of the transfer between developed nations, disregarding the role of developing countries as the major emitters of GHG. Based on this particular limitation of the Kyoto Protocol, various conventions and protocols were further developed which aimed at the collaborative participation of both developed and developing countries. Illustrating the views raised in the Montreal Protocol in the year 2000 and the Vienna Convention in the year 2001, both organised by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), it can be argued that major concern has been rendered towards the transfers of information, resources, facilities, incentives and other elements of policy regimes, rather than focusing on the more effective implementation of the developed protocols in succession to its failures (United Nations Environment Programme, 2000; United Nations Environment Programme, 2001). It has certainly been driven by the significance of sustainable development as a primary goal of IEAs, that international bodies, particularly the UNFCCC and the EU had been inclined towards developing new protocols with due consideration towards the causes of failures witnessed in the previous coalitions. One such recent development in the international coalitions can be illustrated as the “Doha climate gateway”. The continuous dismays argued in the international forefront with respect to the failures of previous protocols and the necessity to counter climate change impacts had been the fundamental issues in concern in the recently held 18th CoP. Apparently, in the convention, due regards were offered towards the inclusion of developing countries along with the developed countries as the signatories of UN policy frameworks with concern to climate change. Additionally, in the aftermath of the recent global turmoil, adequate funds required to combat climate change was also argued to be a fundamental issue raised in the convention (Harvey, 2012). As per the protocol finally debated, UK, US and other nations which are characterised as developed shall have to responsibly assist the poor nations in combating the challenge. Subsequently, questions have already been raised in relation to the effectiveness of this particular protocol, owing to the financial health of the developed nations which are in its national level suffering from budget deficits. Even though its effectiveness in the near future remains a major conflicting issue, the process focused on in this convention was accumulatively argued by the representatives to be a significant step forward to counter the ill-effects of climate change (Harvey, 2012). Public Participation in Achieving Environmental Objectives One of the major strengths of the IEAs framed with concern towards climate change has been the globally accepted significance of sustainable development obstructed due to the increasing rates of GHG emissions as a consequence of reckless industrial exposure. Apparently, this particular aspect has been influencing the participation of a majority of countries to combat the environmental hazards in terms of climate change which further indicates a major strength of the IEAs. However, its weaknesses and performance failures have been more apparent in its previous implementation processes causing limited positive effects on the international climate change. The failures of the protocols previously adopted by the international institutions had been mostly influenced by its structural weaknesses identifiable in terms of the exclusion of developing nations irrespective of being the foremost emitters of GHG, complex regimes, and greater concern towards policy development rather than implementation through public participation among others. Irrespective of the deadlocked situation, often argued in the context of UN environmental protocols, it can be argued that policy frameworks implemented in the national levels are thriving, mainly benefitted with multilevel governance system concentrating on the rudimental structure of the economy, society and industry (Dimitrov, 2010). While the national level protocols had been precise and more apparent to the participants, the international regimes had been complex and ambiguous which can further be attributed as a major cause for its failure, especially in the EU context obstructing greater public participation (Egenhofer & Alessi, 2013). Contextually, it has also been argued that the composite factors of the UN policy frameworks concerning climate change have been acting as a barrier to the sovereignty of many participating countries to a certain extent persuading those signatories to depart from the planned coalitions resulting in the failure of the entire protocol. Correspondingly, research studies (e.g. Eichner & Pethig, 2013; Barrett & Stavins, 2002; Barrett, 1993 and Barrett, 1992) have argued that the self-enforcing nature of policy regimes at the national as well as at the regional levels act as the main success driver. It is in this context that self-enforcing nature of policy regimes tend to encourage greater public participation in the international prospect and thus shall prove quite beneficial in driving the overall success of IEAs. Therefore, it can be argued that international institutions should focus on encouraging greater participation from the public in the global plethora with the implementation of unambiguous and self-enforcing model of environmental protocols. Conclusion The consequences of such capricious and reckless industrial expansion, which once the scientists argued to be the sole concern of international bodies have indeed, come true today. Climate change, pollution, increasing emission and various other ciphers which perpetually indicate the degradation of the amenities necessary for living bodies on earth have attracted serious attentions on the international, regional as well as national grounds over the past few decades. Based on this particular issue, the study reveals that institutions should essentially focus on addressing the weaknesses observed in the previous environmental regimes to combat climate change issues. The major causes of failures in reducing the level of GHG emission rates in the international level has apparently been affected by the complex, ambiguous and limited rationality features of the protocols which were majorly influenced by the political views of the various signatories rather than being based on the social concerns directly addressing the consequences of climate change. Although the significance of sustainable development in IEAs is unarguable, the procedural errors remain to be a major concern for analysts. The study also explained that obstructions observed in relation to self-enforcements further obstructing public participation was also observed as a major cause of failure for the protocols designed to combat climate change issues and should be considered while developing future IEAs. References Adger, W. N. & et. al., 2009. Are There Social Limits To Adaptation To Climate Change? Climatic Change, Vol. 93, pp. 335–354. Arcas, R. L., 2011. Alternative Architecture for Climate Change - Major Economies. European Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 4, Iss. 1, pp. 25-56. Baggott, S. L. & et. al., 2007. UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990 to 2005. Annual Report for submission under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, ISBN 0-9554823-1-3. Barrett, S., 1992. Self-Enforcing International Environmental Agreements. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 92-34. Barrett, S., 1993. Heterogeneous International Environmental Agreements. The Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, ISSN 0967-8875. Barrett, S. & Stavins, R., 2002. Increasing Participation and Compliance in International Climate Change Agreements. NOTA Di Lavoro 94.2002. Bortscheller, M. J., 2010. Equitable But Ineffective: How The Principle Of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities Hobbles The Global Fight Against Climate Change. Sustainable Development Law & Policy, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 49-53. Bosetti, V. & et. al., 2011. Incentives and Stability of International Climate Coalitions: An Integrated Assessment. Climate Change and Sustainable Development Series, Vol. 97. Boyle, J., 2012. A Mirage in the Deserts of Doha? Assessing the Outcomes of COP 18: A Climate Insights Product. The International Institute for Sustainable Development. Burtraw, D. & Woerman, M., 2013. Economic Ideas for a Complex Climate Policy Regime. Discussion Papers. Dimitrov, R. S., 2010. Inside UN Climate Change Negotiations: The Copenhagen Conference. Review of Policy Research, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 795-821. Egenhofer, C. & Alessi, M., 2013. EU Policy on Climate Change Mitigation since Copenhagen and the Economic Crisis. CEPS Working Document No. 380. Eichner, T. & Pethig, R., 2013. Self-Enforcing Environmental Agreements and International Trade. CESIFO Working Paper no. 4125. Engel, K. H., 2006. Mitigating Global Climate Change in the United States: A Regional Approach. Arizona Legal Studies, Discussion Paper No. 06-01. European Commission, 2013. The 2015 International Climate Change Agreement: Shaping International Climate Policy Beyond 2020. Communication From The Commission To The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of The Regions. Harvey, F., 2012. Doha Climate Change Deal Clears Way for Damage Aid To Poor Nations. Guardian News and Media Limited. [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/08/doha-climate-change-deal-nations [Accessed March 28, 2013]. Harvey, F., 2012. Doha Climate Gateway: The Reaction. Guardian News and Media Limited. [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/10/doha-climate-gateway-reaction [Accessed March 28, 2013]. Held, D. & Hervey, A. F., 2009. Democracy, Climate Change and Global Governance. Policy Network Paper. Hoel, M. & Schneider, K., 1997. Incentives to Participate in an International Environmental Agreement. Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 9, pp. 153–170. Karp, L. & Zhao, J., 2008. A Proposal for the Design of the Successor to the Kyoto Protocol. University of California, Berkeley and Giannini Foundation. Keohane, R. O., 2010. International institutions: Can interdependence Work? Foreign Policy, Vol. 110, pp. 82-96. Keohane, R. O. & Victor, D. G., 2011. The Regime Complex for Climate Change. Articles, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 7-23. Ma, Z., 2010. The Effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol and Consummating the Legal Institution for International Technology Transfer. Asian Social Science, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 19-30. Ostrom, E. & et. al., 1999. Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges. Science’s Compass Review, Vol. 284, pp. 278-282. Saadatian, O. & et. al., 2012. Sustainable Development Review; from Old Tribal beliefs to Rio+20. Mathematical Modelling and Simulation in Applied Sciences, pp. 118-122. Scott, J. & Rajamani, L., 2010. EU Climate Change Unilateralism: International Aviation in the European Emissions Trading Scheme. European Law at University College London. Tol, R. S. J. & Verheyen, R., 2004. State Responsibility and Compensation for Climate Change Damages—A Legal and Economic Assessment. Energy Policy, Vol. 32, pp. 1109–1130. United Nations Environment Programme, 2001. The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer. Ozone Secretariat. [Online] Available at: http://ozone.unep.org/pdfs/viennaconvention2002.pdf [Accessed March 28, 2013]. United Nations Environment Programme, 2000. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Ozone Secretariat. [Online] Available at: http://ozone.unep.org/pdfs/Montreal-Protocol2000.pdf [Accessed March 28, 2013]. Appendix Table 1 Source: (Baggott & et. al., 2007) Read More