The consistent failure of state-centric negotiations to produce globally binding emission reductions is primarily attributed to two interconnected factors: the state-centric negotiating framework itself and the inflexible principles upon which the climate change agreements are founded.
The limitations of this approach have led to ongoing impasses, procedural gridlock, and the inability to establish quantified, globally binding targets.
1. The State-Centric Negotiating Framework
The international climate change governance structure, rooted in the United Nations (UN) system, is fundamentally ill-suited to address borderless environmental challenges like climate change.
- Sovereignty as a Barrier: The UN system relies on a long-established, state-centric top-down decision-making approach based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members. However, ecological and climate change issues are inherently borderless and do not respect state-centric sovereignty.
- National Interest Over Global Solutions: The continuous failure of UNFCCC negotiations demonstrates the inadequacy of this approach. Key actors, particularly the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) and the USA, have remained firm on their sovereign right to development and their economic interests. This focus on national interest, often disguised as sovereignty, was identified as the primary cause of the debacle at the Copenhagen Summit in 2009.
- Procedural Problems (Veto Power): The 1992 Convention adopted procedural rules requiring a consensual approach to reach decisions and agreements, which frequently grants a veto to a country. This consensus-based decision-making has been "obfuscated by the large number of parties" involved. The difficulty of the process has led to procedural problems, such as negotiations being blocked by countries like Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus over objections to previous decision-making. The source suggests that without discarding the "consensus veto politics," real progress is unlikely.
2. The Hindrance of Climate Change Principles
The core principles guiding negotiations—equity, historical responsibility, and Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR)—have created a deep division that negotiators have been unable to bridge or redefine.
- Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR): CBDR requires developed countries to take the lead in combating climate change, while developing countries are allowed flexibility as they address their own economic and development needs. This principle, along with historical responsibility, divided the world into Annex I (developed) and Non-Annex I (developing) countries, a split noted as the regime’s "greatest weakness" due to the persistence of "dysfunctional North-South Politics".
- The "You First" Gridlock: This framework has led to the perennial problem of a "you first attitude".
- Developing Countries' Stance: Developing countries, including China and India, insist that climate agreements must honor the Convention's principles, arguing that climate change is primarily due to the unrestricted historical emissions by developed countries during their industrialization. India has a firm commitment to the principles of equity and adequate funding for developing nations.
- Developed Countries' Stance: Conversely, industrialized countries and major emitters like Canada, Japan, Russia, and New Zealand have declared they will not accept quantified targets unless major emitters from developing countries are also bound by quantified commitments. They argue it is meaningless to take on new targets when emerging economies have none. For instance, the EU noted it could not solve global warming when it was responsible for only 11 percent of global emissions, requiring the cooperation of those emitting the other 89 percent.
- Free-Riding by Major Emitters: Although the Kyoto Protocol was a legally binding treaty, the USA refused to ratify it, criticizing it as unfair because developing countries were not required to limit their emissions. China and India have consistently refused to make any binding commitments, leading to major emitters remaining free riders.
The source argues that achieving the goal of limiting global temperature below 2°C requires major emitters from developing countries to take binding targets, but the principles of CBDR and historical responsibility, as currently framed, do not contribute to the pragmatic measures needed to break this gridlock. A radical transformation in energy production and consumption, along with climate leadership, is required.
0 Comments