POLB81 Lecture 11.docx

5 Pages
121 Views

Department
Political Science
Course Code
POLB81H3
Professor
M.Hoffmann- Universityof Toronto

This preview shows pages 1 and half of page 2. Sign up to view the full 5 pages of the document.
Description
th POLB81 – Lecture 11 – March 25 2013. There are multiple problems in climate change. Groups have different perspectives on climate change. Is it the emission from producing goods or consuming goods that matter? Etc. International community has tried to govern climate change Governing Global Climate Change Institutionalism  Attempted multilateral solutions. It’s an issue of inter global interdependence  Multilateral governance - Copenhagen 2009  Help states deal with problems that they can’t solve  What kind of problem is climate change? o Cooperation – Climate change is a multilateral cooperation because causes and effects are distributed globally. No government can handle climate change by itself. Institutionalism tells us that we should use the tool of multilateral cooperation to solve problems. o Climate change is a problem of emission reductions. It’s about deciding how much to cut, who will cut and how will it be paid for? How do we distribute emission production? It’s all about deciding a global target, how much to cut, how to distribute those cuts, who is going to do the cutting and how much? This is the key since 1990. o Climate governance is about Mitigation. Before 5 to 7 years ago, the problem of mitigation. Last 5 – 7 years it was a problem of adaptation and mitigation. We going to start adapting to climate change. (Questions: Who’s affected? Who’s responsible?)  Multilateral negotiation in some way, are simple. Building the Climate Change Regime  1980s and early 1990s is when climate change got on the international agenda. Climate scientist said that carbon dioxide was going up too quickly and there needs to be potential change in climate.  UN set up the IPCC which aggregate/put together the best science on climate change. Every 4 or 5 years, they gather all the science info and summarize it as a foundation to negotiating a treaty in the climate regime. We are trying to understand the scientific problem.  The agenda phase was to put together the best scientific info to create a negotiation.  1990s was the first set of negotiations.  The negotiation stage – 1. How we got UNFCCC which was decided in 1992. We needed to see the structure and the interest around the table. o Structure: Climate change has been done through universal negotiations. Negotiations between all stakeholders which is everyone. From the very beginning, the entire UN membership participates in UN negotiations. Most environmental issues deal with specific states. o Consensus rules – the goal is to seek consensus. o Different interests. What interests are around the table? We need to think of this according to negotiations – UNFCCC o UNFCCC Debates:  North-North debates – Europe vs. the US. Europe wanted to have binding emission cuts. US didn’t want binding emission cuts and wanted climate stability. They have different interests because of their domestic politics, there are more green parties in Europe, different level of fossil fuel dependence, US is more dependent on fossil fuels than Europe. 1980s, Europe has switched their fuels to natural gas. There are a number of rules.  North-South Debates – have two very different idea of which is important about emissions. Global south thought the cast emission are the most important. Global North said emissions now are the most important. South said that they needed to be able to develop. South is unwilling to drop emissions because we’re still going, and it’s the North’s fault for emissions. North says that the Global South’s population is going to be affected and Global North’s emissions are not going as high as yours. Global South said the Global North needs to go first, compensation first and help us with adaptations.  South – South Debates- Large developing countries (ex. Africa, China) vs. Oil producers (OPEC), Costal nations (small island nations), LDC –At least 3 blocks; OPEC (Oil Producers) – this is essential the nuclear option for them, if they get a climate treaty, their entire economic market is done. Small island/LCD- accentual threat, whipping them off the map politically  US won the UNFCCC. Agree to non binding target or goal on 1990s levels. There is no emissions reduction. Everyone had to report what their greenhouse gases are.  North-South, there was a compromise – CBDR (Comprehension binding- this is a common problem, we don’t have to act the same way which means differentiate responsibility)  LDC was ignored; OPEC was happy, north-first. It laid out the goal of stabilizing global climate, we’re going to keep meeting annually to flesh out these goals and make specific rules, which leads us to Kyoto Protocol  UN begins to create a protocol. o Structure
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1 and half of page 2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit