The Relative Gains Problems of Climate Change

Blog Layout

Olav Bing Orgland

Nov 18, 2020

International climate agreements have always been hard to negotiate and even harder to implement, but increasing anarchy in the internal system will likely make them impossible in the future.

Introduction

Climate change has become one of the defining political issues of the 21st Century, with 2019 seeing global protests and strikes in favour of more international action in most Western countries. Despite increasing national and international interest in climate change, international climate cooperation continues to produce mixed results. This cooperation includes a myriad of bilateral and multilateral agreements signed on a regional level, and the truly international conventions, agreements and protocols negotiated through the different organs of the U.N.

Although limited success has been achieved on a regional level in the mitigation of crucial Greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as Chlorofluorocarbons, international emissions are still increasing beyond a sustainable level. In addition to the global increase in emissions, the history of U.N sponsored international climate agreements is one of compromise, non-ratification, non-compliance, and withdrawal. Most recently seen in the Trump administration's decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement (PCA) effective in November 2020, and China’s widespread use of banned Ozone-depleting substances. As 2020 also marks one of the key target years in the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) admitted by the signatory parties to the PCA, it seems like an appropriate time to analyse the success and failure of the international climate regime.

A Short History

The history of climate change as a political issue dates back to the early 1970s when scientist and meteorologists started to notice signs of human activity impacting the climate. This movement saw limited international success in the 1970s, as can be seen in the Stockholm Conference which led to the creation of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in 1972, and multilateral treaties such as the Geneva Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution in 1979. The international interest and focus grew throughout the 1980s when the Arctic Ozone hole was discovered. This caused two major developments; in 1987 several countries adopted the Montreal Protocol to phase out seven chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gasses, and in 1988 the Toronto Conference called for a 20% reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2005.

Further international cooperation saw the adoption of the Framework Convention on Climate change (UNFCCC) after the seminal U.N meeting in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This framework is critical since it institutionalised the concept of differentiated commitments to climate change between the developed and developing countries in Article 3. The idea that developed countries would take the lead in mitigating climate change was already featured in the Montreal Protocol, but the UNFCCC made the distinction static with its separation of 42 ‘Annex-1’ developed countries and developing countries. This separation further created a moral implication that developing nations had the right to expand their economies and create emissions to even the historical emissions of the developed world. As a result, it created an asymmetrical structure that emphasised legally binding emission cuts in the developed countries and voluntary participation by developing nations.

In 1997 members of the UNFCCC adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which attempted to set out legally binding international goals for developed countries, also known as Annex-1 countries. This was not universally accepted, and the United States refused to ratify and eventually left the protocol over the controversial burden put on Annex-1 countries. The protocol required the acceptance and ratification by at least 55 parties accounting for 55% of global emissions before entering into force. This proved especially problematic after the United States pulled out of the protocol and was only achieved in 2004 after several concessions were bestowed onto Canada and Russia.

In 2005 global emissions were 34% higher than in 1988, thus marking the failure of the Toronto conference. In 2009 a summit in Copenhagen collapsed due to China's unwillingness to offer real action to curb its emissions. This was the first attempt at reshaping the ‘common but differentiated approach’. The frustration over China's unwillingness to change and the binding targets of the protocol eventually led Canada to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol in 2011. Russia and Japan also refused to implement new targets after the end of the initial commitment period from 2008-2012. In the end, only European Union member states were willing to officially accept new emission targets in the second Kyoto period. The second commitment period, therefore, failed to gain enough signatories to enter into force.

As a response, a new international climate conference was held in 2015. This treaty, known as the Paris Agreement, tried to set a specific global climate target committing signatories to keep global warming well below 2˚C by 2100. It allowed each nation to pursue this goal through Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC). This was done in part to overcome the lack of commitments from developing nations, as they could contribute with a plan that fitted their own domestic situation. However, the agreement was criticised by some for not correcting the asymmetric emission system favouring the developing states. This pressure eventually led the United States to withdraw from the agreement with its secession set for November 2020.

This short history shows that the international approach to climate change has so far been one of compromise, non-ratification, non-compliance, and withdrawal. The one exemption to this trend remains the Montreal Protocol which has been ratified and implemented by every U.N. member. However, recent data indicate that the level of compliance with the protocol is questionable at best, with researchers discovering large quantities of banned substances emanating from China. This means that even the most successful climate treaty has serious compliance issues. As a result, it should not be controversial to state that the international climate regime has failed. Even its most adamant supporters accept its ineffectiveness and lament its poor performance.

Understanding the failure.

In essence, climate change constitutes an economic, moral and security problem on a global scale. To further complicate the matter, it involves large unknowns surrounding the scale and cost as well as the actual timeframe of the change itself. Even more troubling is the fact that climate change does not exist in a foreign policy vacuum and may according to some reports extenuate civil wars, mass-migration, and other security problems. All these factors make international climate treaties hard to negotiate and even harder to implement.

However, the proponents of international climate change diplomacy point to the same problems as potential factors that might lower relative gains concerns among nations and foster a unified response towards climate change. In effect, they argue that the global threat posed by climate change will overshadow short-term relative gains concerns and merit cooperation on a global scale. Although, admirable, this approach is deeply flawed and ignores much of the history of the climate change regime.

The first and most successful international climate treaty the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987, and it managed to get signed and ratified by both the United States of America and the USSR. However, it initially only banned the production and consumption of 7 core Ozone-depleting gasses. This allowed the signatory states to compensate for the economic cost by increasing other gasses and invest in alternatives. Furthermore, the USSR collapsed before the full weight of the agreement entered into force and the economic downturn caused by the collapse aided tremendously in reducing the production and consumption of the harmful gasses in Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, the collapse of the Soviet Union also means that we have no historical evidence to support the idea that the treaty would have been as successful if the Cold War had continued.

The Kyoto Protocol, on the other hand, was negotiated and signed in a period of unrivalled American hegemony. As David A. Lake put it in 1999: ‘(the United States) Released from the constraints of the Cold War competition, is the dominant superpower, free to act where and when its interests and desires lead’. This unrivalled power position should have made the coefficient of the United States as low as it possibly could and lowered their relative gains concerns to the lowest possible level.

Yet, despite their dominance as the world’s sole superpower, the United States Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution restricting the participation of the United States in any international climate agreement that put legal restrictions on developed nations but not developing ones. The United States had the biggest emissions of any other nation in 1997, which directly translated into higher costs if they were to accept legally binding emission reductions. Even so, the gap in economic and military power between the U.S and its closest adversary was too grand to be bridged through binding emission reductions.

In 2001 the United States still maintained an unparalleled position as the world’s hegemonic power. Yet, on April 27, 2001, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency announced that the U.S would withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. The reasoning behind the Bush Administration’s decision was in their own words; ‘lacking scientific proof in support of the protocol, lacking commitments from developing nations and the costs of implementing the protocol’.

The withdrawal of the U.S from the Kyoto Protocol at the height of their power does not bode well for other international climate agreements, especially since the rise of other powers is likely to make relative gains concerns even more pronounced for the United States in the 21st Century.

The Paris Agreement was signed and negotiated in 2015, and American hegemony had been significantly diminished compared to the period just after the Cold War. The United States was still the world’s leading military and economic power, but the gap between the U.S and ‘developing’ nations like China was closing fast.

In 1980 China’s GDP was less than $300 billion by 2015 it was $11 trillion, second only to the United States. In some areas like consumption, automobile production and other sectors, China even surpassed the United States. After the 2008 financial crash, China also surpassed the United States as the chief driving engine in the world economy. China is still adamant that they are a ‘developing’ nation in relation to climate change negotiations. They support this claim by focusing on historical emissions and emissions per. capita in order to justify their protected status. China is currently the world’s biggest single emitter, and some studies seem to indicate that most of their emissions go unreported. Still, the Paris agreement accepted China as a ‘developing’ nation and continued the separation between Annex-1 and non-annex one nations from the UNFCCC, this despite being signed 22 years later.

The rise of China should have increased the sensitivity of the U.S to relative gains and this seems to be the case as the U.S State Department listed the unfair economic impact on American workers, and taxpayers as a core reason for the U.S withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Furthermore, the recent policy changes in trade away from a reliance on China and towards a more protectionist domestic approach also indicate that the U.S is getting more sensitive to relative gains concerns.

Despite these developments, the United States has managed to cut its emissions drastically, from 6.13 Billion tons in 2007 to 5.13 Billion tons in 2019. According to the latest report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) there is a direct correlation between lower emissions in the U.S since 2007 and an increase in cheap and available natural gas. The rise in Shale has also helped make the United States self-sufficient with energy and bolstered their geopolitical security. This indicates that the reduction in emissions is more a positive side effect rather than a direct national policy.

These examples show that relative gains concerns are still a vital determining factor in international climate change negotiations. Although some progress has been made on the regional level and within developed nations, there remains a large gap between the commitments of developing and developed countries. This gap in commitments creates relative gains concerns and has become institutionalised since the creation of the UNFCCC in 1992.

Finally, the long-time horizon endemic to climate change allows for the influx of more temporary security concerns. As both America and China see their own geopolitical position threatened by the other, neither party is likely to sign any treaty that disproportionately affects one power and not the other. This is especially worrying as the 21st Century is likely to see both increased geopolitical rivalry between America and China as well as an increasing need to mitigate climate change.

Appendix 1.

[1] An interactive comprehensive list can be found at: https://unfccc.int/process/parties-non-party-stakeholders/parties-convention-and-observer-states?field_national_communications_target_id%5B514%5D=514

Time of Signing:	Agreement:	Signatories:	Aims of Agreement:	Result:

1987	Montreal Protocol	Remains the only agreement to be signed and ratified by all 197 UN members.	Limit and reduce 6 initial and later 100+ specific Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gasses harmful to the Ozone layer.	Widely regarded as the most successful international agreement. In 2019 reports found China emitting CFC's since 2012 in violation of treaty.
1997	Kyoto Protocol	Currently 192 parties.	Set legally binding international goals for Annex 1. Countries together with an international climate finance system.	Limited success, European countries saw emission reduction mainly due to collapse of USSR. Global emissions still increased. U.S and Canada withdrew from the protocol. The second commission period from 2012 failed to gain new commitments.
2015	Paris Agreement	All UNFCCC members (189 nations are parties to it).	Broad goals that could be set on the national levels to maintain the global temperature increase below 2?C by 2100.	U.S., set to withdraw in 2020, and most countries on track to miss their national targets. Global emissions still rising.

Notes:

Allison, Graham. Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap?, (London: Scribe Publications, 2017).

Axelrod, Robert, 'The Emergence of Cooperation among Egoists', The American Political Science Review, Vol.75, 2, (1981).

Axelrod, Robert and Keohane, Robert O., 'Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions', World Politics, Vol. 38, 1, (1985).

Christensen, Thomas J.' Fostering Stability or Creating a Monster? The Rise of China and U.S Policy toward East Asia', International Security, Vol.31, 1, (2006), 81-126.

EPA, 'Inventory of U.S Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2018', Environmental Protection Agency, (2020). Last Accessed 25.08.2020. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks

Lake, David A., Entangling Relations: American Foreign Policy in Its Century, (Princeton: Princeton University Press: 1999).

McGrath, Matt, 'China CO2 emissions: Coal' error' caused wrong calculations', BBC, (2015). Last Accessed 30.07.2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33972247.

McGrath, Matt, 'Dodgy, greenhouse gas data threatens Paris Accord', BBC, (2017). Last Accessed 30.07.2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40669449.

McGrath, Matt, 'Ozone Layer: Banned CFCs Traced to China say scientists', BBC, (2019). Last Accessed 30.07.2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48353341.

Phillipson, Martin, 'The United States Withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol', Irish Jurist, Vol.31, (2001).

Ritchie, Hannah and Roser, Max, 'CO2 and Greenhouse Gas Emissions', Our World in Data, (2017). Last accessed: 30.07.2020. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions#citation

Ritchie, Hannah and Roser, Max, 'Ozone Layer', Our World in Data, (2017). Last accessed: 30.07.2020. https://ourworldindata.org/ozone-layer#summary

Schellenberger, Michael, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, (Harper Collins Publishers: New York, 2020).

U.N., Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (with annex). Concluded at Montreal on 16th September 1987, 26369, (U.N.: 1987).

U.N., United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, (UN:1992). Last accessed: 30.07.2020. https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf

UNFCCC, A Guide to the Climate Convention Process, (UN:2002).

UNFCCC, Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and its effect on Canada's reporting obligations under the Protocol, (UN:2014).

UNFCCC, China's First Nationally Determined Contribution Submission, (2016). Last accessed: 30.07.2020. https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NDCStaging/Pages/Search.aspx?k=china

UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, (UN:1998).

UNFCCC, Paris Agreement, (UN:2015).

UNFCCC, Standing Committee on Finance, '2018 Biennial Assessment and Overview of Climate Finance Flow Technical Report', (UN:2018).

UNFCCC, U.S.A First Nationally Determined Contribution submission, (2016). Last accessed: 30.07.2020. https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NDCStaging/Pages/Search.aspx?k=U.S.A

U.S State Department, 'On the U.S withdrawal from the Paris Agreement', (2019). Last accessed: 30.07.2020. https://www.state.gov/on-the-u-s-withdrawal-from-the-paris-agreement/

Victor, David G., Global Warming Gridlock: Creating More Effective Strategies for Protecting the Planet, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 2011).

Appendix

< Older Post

Newer Post >