International Climate Politics

Tuesday’s deal between US/ChinaUS: 26-28% reduction from 2005 levels by

2025China: stop growth of emissions by 2030 plus

20% renewablesAre these real commitments? Probably so.Should we be impressed?

199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920100

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

ChinaUnited States

CO2

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

ChinaUnited States

CO2 per person

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

ChinaUnited States

CO2 per $GDP

The good news about US/China dealMaking a commitment is better than not making oneCommitments were meaningful

US – commitment goes beyond Obama earlier & KyotoChina – level off emissions that are sharply increasing

AND committing to more renewablesCommitments prompt political and economic

processesDomestic pressures for actionInternational pressures for actionTechnological innovations

Provides momentum for Paris 2015 talks

What’s coming up on the international sceneParis 2015 = next “real” negotiation that

might do somethingUS/China agreement provides momentum

Different country groups in the international negotiationsDeveloped (Annex I) states

US – United StatesEU – European Union

Developing states: “cumulative emissions … will have surpassed those of developed countries by 2020” AOSIS – Alliance of Small Island States. “Calls by small island

states and other vulnerable countries for compensation for the damage resulting from climate impacts such as rising seas and droughts.”

OPEC – Organization of Petroleum Exporting CountriesBASIC – Brazil, South Africa, India, ChinaLatin American/Caribbean countries committed to climate

actionOther developing states

National ComparisonsEmissions/$: US ~50% higher than EU or JapanEmissions/person: US 2x higher than EU or Japan

and 4x higher than world averageGrowth from 2005-2020: US - 14%, EU - 2.5%,

Japan - 5%, China/India - 70%Emissions since 1850 (CO2 last ~100-200 years)

US - 30% of energy-related CO2China - 7%All developing countries will exceed 50% by 2020

Source: Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2009. Climate change 101: understanding and responding to global climate change. http://www.pewclimate.org/climate-change-101

Source: Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2009. Climate change 101: understanding and responding to global climate change. http://www.pewclimate.org/climate-change-101

Source: Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2009. Climate change 101: understanding and responding to global climate change. http://www.pewclimate.org/climate-change-101

Where National NegotiatingPositions Come From

Ecological Vulnerability

(benefits of action)

Low High

Abatement Costs

(costs of action)

Low Bystanders Pushers

High Draggers Intermediates

Where National NegotiatingPositions Come From

AOSIS?

Ecological Vulnerability

(benefits of action)

Low High

Abatement Costs

(costs of action)

Low Bystanders Pushers

High Draggers Intermediates

Where National NegotiatingPositions Come From

Ecological Vulnerability

(benefits of action)

Low High

Abatement Costs

(costs of action)

Low Bystanders

PushersAOSIS

High Draggers Intermediates

Where National NegotiatingPositions Come From

OPEC?

Ecological Vulnerability

(benefits of action)

Low High

Abatement Costs

(costs of action)

Low Bystanders

PushersAOSIS

High Draggers Intermediates

Where National NegotiatingPositions Come From

Ecological Vulnerability

(benefits of action)

Low High

Abatement Costs

(costs of action)

Low Bystanders

PushersAOSIS

High DraggersOPEC

Intermediates

Where National NegotiatingPositions Come From

US?

Ecological Vulnerability

(benefits of action)

Low High

Abatement Costs

(costs of action)

Low Bystanders

PushersAOSIS

High DraggersOPEC

Intermediates

Where National NegotiatingPositions Come From

Ecological Vulnerability

(benefits of action)

Low High

Abatement Costs

(costs of action)

Low Bystanders

PushersAOSIS

High DraggersOPEC, US

Intermediates

Where National NegotiatingPositions Come From

EU?

Ecological Vulnerability

(benefits of action)

Low High

Abatement Costs

(costs of action)

Low Bystanders

PushersAOSIS

High DraggersOPEC, US

Intermediates

Where National NegotiatingPositions Come From

Ecological Vulnerability

(benefits of action)

Low High

Abatement Costs

(costs of action)

Low Bystanders

PushersAOSIS, EU

High DraggersOPEC, US

Intermediates

Source: Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2009. Climate change 101: understanding and responding to global climate change. http://www.pewclimate.org/climate-change-101

Questions and strategies of International agreementFormal/binding or informal/non-bindingWho to involve: which states, non-statesWhat to discuss: pollutants, activities, approach

CO2 / CH4 (not NOx)Fossil fuels, forests, land useMitigation / Adaptation / Compensation

How ambitious to beHow to frame thingsMeans of implementationResponse to compliance and noncomplianceNegotiation process

Negotiation TheoryZOPA (Zone Of Possible Agreement)Finding the existing ZOPA

Interests as exogenously “given”Can’t do more than countries involved want to do

Creating a new ZOPAInterests as endogenously createdLeadershipArgument and persuasion

Bringing external pressure to bearEngaging NGO communityCreating deadlines and expectations

Ensuring agreement but also follow through

Other Recent Climate DealsGoal: limit warming to 2 degrees and possibly 1.5 Quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets by

developed countriesDeveloping countries “will” take mitigation actions Registry for developing country actionsGreen Climate Fund ($30 billion for 2010-12; $100 billion per

year by 2020) – compare to economic stimulus bill (~800 million)International Technology Mechanism Cancun Adaptation FrameworkREDD + (forest-related emissions)International forum for consequences of climate policyCarbon-capture-and-storage as policy optionLULUCF included

Current statusCommitment to new agreement in Paris in 2015

UNEP for 4F: 44 GtCO2e by 2020/ 22 by 2050; 2010 was 50; BAU is 59 in 2020; “good” would be 52 in 2020

Kyoto renewed at weak level (fewer countries, generally weaker commitments)

Current statusLegal form unclearFinancial assistance stalledTechnology requests rejectedAlliances shifting a bit

Much is in flux

Not Just International Action

Governments: India, China, US, Europe, Japan; Costa Rica: 3.5% carbon tax since 1997

States: Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative; Western Climate Initiative

Cities: ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability: >1000 cities, towns

NGOs/Corporations: WWF, Greenpeace, Nike, Levi’s, etc.

Religions: Faith Action on Climate Change, Interfaith Power & Light, Evangelical Environmental Network,

Individuals: Voluntary Simplicity, direct action