The document, "The limits of climate change agreements: from past to present," by Chandra Lal Pandey, is a research paper that aims to demonstrate why very little progress has been made in arresting climate change. Managing climate change is identified as one of the greatest challenges humanity faces in the 21st century.
Core Argument and Findings
The central argument of the paper is that the inadequate outcomes leading to the continuing rise in emissions are primarily due to the state-centric negotiating framework and the principles of climate change negotiations. Despite numerous UN climate change conferences and the emergence of four major agreements—the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Kyoto, Copenhagen, and Doha—no ambitious or globally binding agreement has been produced to arrest climate change. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have continued to rise, and quantified targets to address the problem have yet to be agreed upon, allowing major emitters to remain "free riders".
History of Climate Agreements and Rising Emissions
International climate negotiations began with the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The UNFCCC was established with the objective of stabilizing GHG concentrations, recognizing the principle of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR). However, voluntary approaches were soon realized to be inadequate. Since the Convention's adoption in 1992, global GHGs have increased by one-third.
Key agreements include:
• The Kyoto Protocol (1997): This legally binding treaty set emissions targets for industrialized countries, aiming to lower emissions by 5% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. The USA, however, did not ratify the Protocol, criticizing it as unfair because it did not require developing countries to take action.
• The Copenhagen Accord (2009): This last-minute accord, produced through consultations among the USA and the BASIC countries (Brazil, China, South Africa, and India), proposed voluntary targets. It failed to meet the UNFCCC's objective due to its voluntary nature and lack of legal standing, with its pledges being far less ambitious than required.
• The Doha Climate Gateway (2012): This extended the Kyoto Protocol for a second commitment period. However, countries like Japan, Russia, Canada, and New Zealand renounced the extension, arguing it was meaningless to accept new targets when emerging economies had none. Negotiators agreed in Doha to come up with a new legally binding treaty by 2015, to be implemented by 2020.
The urgency of action is underscored by rising emissions data. The world is failing to put the global energy system onto a sustainable path to meet the target of limiting warming to 2°C. The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicted that under current policies, CO2 emissions will continue to rise, consistent with a long-term global temperature increase of more than 3.5°C by 2035. China is the world’s number one emitter, and India is number three. Scientists agree that current UNFCCC pledges would most likely result in 3.5–4°C warming.
Critique of the State-Centric Framework and Principles
The paper argues that the UN's long-established state-centric, top-down decision-making approach, founded on the idea of sovereignty, is inadequate for tackling borderless ecological issues like climate change. The state-centric consensus-based decision-making process has been criticized for giving a veto power to countries, leading to endless delay and impasse. The failure of UNFCCC negotiations over the years testifies to the inadequacy of this approach.
The three central principles of negotiation—CBDR, historical responsibility, and equity—have resulted in a dysfunctional division between developed (Annex I) and developing (Non-Annex I) countries.
• Developed countries like the USA, Canada, Japan, and New Zealand have refused to accept binding targets unless major emerging economies also commit to them. The EU also noted that it cannot solve global warming alone, being responsible for only 11% of global emissions.
• Developing countries (including BASIC) maintain that developed nations, recognizing their historic responsibility, must take the lead in combating climate change. They emphasize that any future allocations of emissions must be equitable.
This clash of state-centric positions leads to a "you first attitude," preventing serious progress.
A Way Forward
The goal of limiting global temperature below 2°C requires binding targets from both developed countries and major emitters from developing countries. To break the gridlock, flexibility and serious commitment are needed from all countries. The paper concludes that without a fundamental rethink and redefinition of the CBDR principle and the discarding of "consensus veto politics," real progress is unlikely.
To address the problem, the author suggests four measures:
1. Reframing and redefining the CBDR debate to ensure all industrialized nations and major developing country emitters commit to quantified emission reductions.
2. Including individuals as a unit of analysis alongside nation-states.
3. Developed countries deploying available low-carbon technology to developing countries.
4. Responding seriously to climate change to ensure a better future.
0 Comments