START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
1,260,663 people care about Politics

Is a Treaty the Only Way to Stem Global Warming?

Is a Treaty the Only Way to Stem Global Warming?

 

Reading assessments of the recent Durban conference by leading climate wonks, many of them argue that the issue of a binding treaty — to eventually take the place of the Kyoto Protocol — must be viewed against a broader backdrop. In other words, the push to eventually enact global obligations for emission cuts is a fraught endeavor, and other tracks are just as important.

Which raises interesting general questions about treaties as a focus of multilateral effort and public hopes. Are binding treaties always good litmus tests of seriousness in addressing international problems? Are there cases in which the quest to codify and ratify is Quixotic, when the best is truly enemy of the good?

Treaties not ends unto themselves

Not that I have anything against treaties; some of my best advocacy has been around treaties. For some issues they’re essential — last year’s New START agreement on strategic nuclear arms, for one. It’s important, however, to remember that international accords are not ends unto themselves, but instead are means to address real-world problems. The essence of multilateral cooperation is to induce sovereign governments to take steps on behalf of the common good that they’d shirk if left completely to their own devices. It’s like the idea that no one is an island, but then, some nations actually are islands, and they’re the ones most threatened by global warming.

The Durban meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) drove home the points that a) treaties are not the only way to spur this kind of virtuous dynamic, but beyond that b) they can actually backfire. The Council on Foreign Relations’ Michael Levi explained the perverse incentives in a pre-Durban Financial Times piece, looking back at the progress achieved at the last two UN climate conferences in Copenhagen and Cancun:

Countries enter binding international agreements with an eye to ensuring that they will be able to comply with their commitments. The legally binding nature of an international deal can thus deter national ambition in the first place. It is near-certain, for example, that China would not have pledged in Copenhagen to cut its emissions intensity to well below current levels had it been required to embed that in a treaty. The same is true for the absolute emissions’ cuts pledged by the US. It is similarly unlikely that India, China and others would have accepted formal international scrutiny of their emissions cutting efforts had that been made part of a system for enforcing legal obligations.

The question of committing to a timeline for reaching some sort of binding global agreement was the subject of intense diplomatic brinksmanship in Durban and almost tore the process apart, the Europeans having pressed the issue as an ultimatum. As Michael explained in a post-conference piece over at TheAtlantic.com, the resolution was a classic fudge that leaves itself open to multiple interpretations and hardly supports claims about putting the UNFCCC on a clear path to a treaty.

Looking at it another way, the conference’s success wasn’t setting a glidepath to a Kyoto follow-on agreement, but building on earlier successes and keeping the entire enterprise from disintegrating. Here’s how Joe Romm of Center for American Progress put it in a post on CAP’s Climate Progress blog:

It’s worth noting that the alternative was not a binding agreement to stabilize at 2°C ( 3.6°F) warming, but a complete collapse of the international negotiating process.

The Climate Progress team have offered a comprehensive overview of international cooperation on climate, including in other settings than the UNFCC. Perhaps the most important track within the UN process, though, is “climate financing,” funds to aid developing countries as they struggle with the challenges and consequences of global warming. This financial commitment from industrial powers like the US is a key test of their credibility and a sensitive issue for poorer nations likely to be affected by climate change. Indeed, as extreme weather intensifies, it’s inevitable that those countries will say don’t push us when we’re hot.

 

Related Stories:

Canada Drops Out Of Kyoto Protocol

Climate Talks End to Mixed Reviews

One Trillion Dollars Invested in Clean Energy in Past 7 Years

 

Read more: , , ,

Illustration: Boris Rasin

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

31 comments

+ add your own
6:53AM PST on Jan 8, 2012

Noted!

12:32AM PST on Dec 23, 2011

Thanks for the article.

12:39PM PST on Dec 19, 2011

And it would be worthwhile for the USA government to negotiate contracts with fossil fuel firms bribing them with a combination of switching from non-tariff regulation to excise taxes on various pollutants including greenhouse gases and letting them get back most of that excise tax money as credits for investing in controlling the various pollutants. Any source of sustainable energy would be useful enough in controlling greenhouse gases to be worthy of such a tax credit.

12:35PM PST on Dec 19, 2011

Adapting to climate change is enough horribly more expensive than doing what we can to mitigate climate change as much as we can as soon as possible to cut down on the amount of adapting to climate change that will be needed. If we end up with a climate anywhere near what the dinosaurs had, we will NOT be able to grow enough food to feed anywhere near the present world population. Idoubt that even artificially fortified with vitamins and minerals and artificially fklavored meal replacement bars made primarily from GE algae bred to tolerate heat and salt as much as possible and be as nutritious and decent tasting as possible would be anywhere near enough help to support even the USA population at the rate we are going.

7:44PM PST on Dec 18, 2011

Global warming is a political agenda not a reality.

7:33PM PST on Dec 18, 2011

Global warming is a political agenda not a reality.

4:31PM PST on Dec 18, 2011

Thanks

12:10PM PST on Dec 18, 2011

To affect real change would require a halt of all human activity, given what we are all witnessing, is a sign that human are approaching that point...a halt of all human activity, nature will see to that.

7:44AM PST on Dec 18, 2011

All the 'folks' who attended the COP17 in Durban should have walked wherever they needed to go, slept in rooms with no airconditioning and had a taste of living life in a way that did not harm the planet or result in carbon emissions... Gee's like what am I saying, maybe I'm dreaming... lol. Until we as a society can learn to live sustainably and in a way that does drive consumerism and cr@pitalsitc greed we'll be doomed until the end...

5:51AM PST on Dec 18, 2011

thanks

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

Force feeding is cruel and unusual punishment, especially for prisoners we can't prove ever did anything…

This is a great article; really helpful! Thanks!

Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!
ads keep care2 free

more from causes

Animal Welfare

Causes Canada

Causes UK

Children

Civil Rights

Education

Endangered Wildlife

Environment & Wildlife

Global Development

Global Warming

Health Policy

Human Rights

LGBT rights

Politics

Real Food

Trailblazers For Good

Women's Rights




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.