Redefining success in the climate change negotiations : what we consider a breakthrough

The concluding document of the climate change negotiation round in Durban, the Durban Agreement, has been hailed as a ‘historic breakthrough document. This appraisal is primarily based on the fact that the document outlines a negotiation process that realizes a climate regime in which all negotiating Parties are to participate. However, we argue, realizing the prominence of the commodity-based paradigm in climate change policy and the bifurcation in perspective between developing and developed countries, that the current formulation of ‘success’ is misguided and is incapable of realizing an international agreement that can be described as equitable, sustainable, and just. The current formulation of success is incapable of achieving the required system restructuring towards a low-carbon, sustainable, and equitable society. As such, we propose a reformulation of success away from emission reduction targets, realized through market-based policies and instruments, towards a prioritization of developing country context-specific sustainable development objectives, priorities, and needs. The integration of bottom-up processes within the international community allows for an architecture in line with developing countries’ goals and, therefore, is more likely to realize ambitious commitment by the developing countries. This increased mobilization further weakens the developed countries’ negotiation position as it eliminates one of their core arguments for inaction. We argue that the developed countries need to take responsibility in domestic climate change action, while simultaneously supporting developing countries’ sustainable development efforts.

[1]  E. F. Schumacher Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered , 1973 .

[2]  J. Last Our common future. , 1987, Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique.

[3]  A. Nandy Science, hegemony and violence : a requiem for modernity , 1990 .

[4]  Michael Grubb,et al.  THE GREENHOUSE-EFFECT - NEGOTIATING TARGETS , 1990 .

[5]  G. Chichilnisky Development and Global Finance: The Case for an International Bank for Environmental Settlements , 1997 .

[6]  R. K. Dixon,et al.  Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change , 1998 .

[7]  J. Werksman The Clean Development Mechanism: Unwrapping the ‘Kyoto Surprise’ , 1998 .

[8]  T. Tietenberg The Tradable Permits Approach to Protecting the Commons: What Have We Learned? , 2002 .

[9]  Y. Sokona Climate Change and Sustainable Development: Views from the South , 2002 .

[10]  Barry G. Rabe,et al.  Statehouse and Greenhouse: The Emerging Politics of American Climate Change Policy , 2004 .

[11]  Robert A. Reinstein A Possible Way Forward on Climate Change , 2004 .

[12]  J. Byrne,et al.  Globalization and sustainable development: a political ecology strategy to realize ecological justice , 2006 .

[13]  Kelly Sims Gallagher,et al.  China Shifts Gears: Automakers, Oil, Pollution, and Development , 2006 .

[14]  John Byrne,et al.  Transforming power : energy, environment, and society in conflict , 2006 .

[15]  Karen Holm Olsen,et al.  The clean development mechanism’s contribution to sustainable development: a review of the literature , 2007 .

[16]  S. Rayner,et al.  Sustainable Development and Mitigation , 2007 .

[17]  Christopher Sutter,et al.  Does the current Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) deliver its sustainable development claim? An analysis of officially registered CDM projects , 2007 .

[18]  John Byrne,et al.  American policy conflict in the greenhouse: Divergent trends in federal, regional, state, and local green energy and climate change policy , 2007 .

[19]  D. Liverman,et al.  CDM, development and ethics : A Reformed CDM – including new Mechanisms for Sustainable Development , 2008 .

[20]  Barry G. Rabe,et al.  States on Steroids: The Intergovernmental Odyssey of American Climate Policy , 2008 .

[21]  K. Hughes The city as a community-based force for sustainability in energy systems , 2009 .

[22]  Y. Saueressig-Schreuder The corporate greenhouse : climate change policy in a globalizing world , 2009 .

[23]  R. Stavins A Portfolio of Domestic Commitments: Implementing Common But Differentiated Responsibilities , 2009 .

[24]  P. Pattberg,et al.  Shaping the architecture of future climate governance , 2010 .

[25]  D. P. Vuuren,et al.  Evaluation of the Copenhagen Accord. Chances and risks for the 2C climate goal , 2010 .

[26]  K. Begg,et al.  Challenges and Solutions for Climate Change , 2010 .

[27]  S. Boehmer-Christiansen,et al.  The International Politics of Climate Change , 2010 .

[28]  D. Ockwell,et al.  Intellectual property rights and low carbon technology transfer: Conflicting discourses of diffusion and development , 2010 .

[29]  R. Stavins,et al.  What Hath Copenhagen Wrought? A Preliminary Assessment , 2010 .

[30]  D. Popp International Technology Transfer, Climate Change, and the Clean Development Mechanism , 2011, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy.