Sino-US Climate Discord and Cooperation under the UNFCCC: A comparison of COP 15 and COP 21

Pedersen, Tina

4. term

Development and International Relations, Master

2016

2016-05-31

53

Klimaforandringer påvirker alle lande og kan gøre områder ubeboelige gennem tørke, oversvømmelser og stigende temperaturer. For at handle oprettede verden FN’s rammekonvention om klimaændringer (UNFCCC) i 1992 og vedtog Kyoto-protokollen i 1997, med første forpligtelsesperiode 2008-2012 og en anden 2012-2020. Protokollen bandt primært de udviklede lande og dækkede derfor kun omkring 60 procent af de globale udledninger; USA og Canada ratificerede ikke, og hverken USA eller Kina var juridisk bundet til reduktioner. Forhandlingerne om en efterfølger til Kyoto kulminerede i København i 2009 (COP15) uden en egentlig aftale, mens der i Paris i 2015 (COP21) blev opnået en aftale. Specialet undersøger, hvorfor COP15 mislykkedes, men COP21 lykkedes, og hvilken rolle USA og Kina spillede. Analysen anvender neorealisme og neoliberalinstitutionalisme. Neorealisme ser det internationale system som præget af selvhjælp og fokus på relative gevinster, hvilket – som Kenneth Waltz’ idé om 'tyranny of small decisions' illustrerer – gør det svært at træffe store beslutninger om dybe reduktioner. Neoliberalinstitutionalisme forklarer, hvordan institutioner kan gøre samarbejde muligt ved at skabe information, gennemsigtighed og overvågning af efterlevelse, som øger aftalers troværdighed. I København prægede mistillid forhandlingerne og førte kun til mindre kompromiser i Copenhagen Accord om blandt andet begrænsning af udledninger, gennemsigtighed og finansiering, herunder etableringen af MRV (måling, rapportering og verifikation) og to finansielle tilsagn fra udviklede til udviklingslande. Under forløbet holdt Kina hårdt på den eksisterende differentiering af ansvar fra Kyoto, mens USA havde begrænset at tilbyde, men lovede ekstra midler betinget af udviklingslandes tiltag og MRV. I Paris blev der derimod vedtaget en aftale, der kombinerede et nedenfra-og-op system af nationale løfter om reduktioner med et ovenfra-og-ned gennemgangssystem, som skal løfte ambitionsniveauet for at holde den globale opvarmning under 2°C. Aftalen byggede også på et kompromis om differentiering, som USA og Kina nåede frem til i 2014. I Paris søgte USA at udvide ansvaret – også for finansiering – til fremvoksende økonomier som Kina, Indien og Brasilien; Kina var mere villig til at påtage sig ansvar, men dets alliancer (G-77/Kina og BASIC) ønskede at fastholde Kyotos gamle differentiering. København kan derfor forklares neorealistisk: USA og Kina så få relative gevinster ved juridisk bindende forpligtelser. Paris kan derimod tilskrives en mere omfattende gennemsigtighedsramme, der overvåger alle parter og dermed øger aftalens troværdighed. Samtidig forblev USA begrænset af hjemlig godkendelse i Kongressen eller Senatet, mens Kina opbyggede kapacitet og indflydelse og i højere grad fik interesser, der flugter med at begrænse klimaændringer.

Climate change affects every country and can make places uninhabitable through droughts, floods, and rising heat. In response, the world created the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 and adopted the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, with a first commitment period in 2008-2012 and a second in 2012-2020. Because the Protocol set binding targets mainly for developed countries, and the United States and Canada did not ratify it, it covered only about 60 percent of global emissions; neither the United States nor China was legally bound to reduce emissions. Efforts to agree on a successor to Kyoto came to a head in Copenhagen in 2009 (COP15) without a full agreement, whereas negotiators reached one in Paris in 2015 (COP21). This thesis asks why COP15 failed but COP21 succeeded, and what role the United States and China played. It applies neorealism and neoliberal institutionalism. Neorealism views an international system of self-help in which states focus on relative gains; as Kenneth Waltz's 'tyranny of small decisions' suggests, incremental choices can crowd out the 'big decision' to cut emissions deeply. Neoliberal institutionalism explains how institutions can enable cooperation by increasing information and transparency, monitoring compliance, and boosting the credibility of agreements. In Copenhagen, distrust dominated, yielding only small compromises in the Copenhagen Accord on mitigation, transparency, and finance, including the creation of MRV (measurement, reporting, and verification) and two financial pledges from developed to developing countries. China took a hard line to preserve the Kyoto-era differentiation of responsibilities, while the United States had little to offer but pledged additional funding conditional on developing countries' mitigation and MRV. In Paris, by contrast, parties adopted an agreement that combined a bottom-up system of national mitigation pledges with a top-down review process to raise ambition toward keeping warming below 2°C. The agreement also reflected a compromise on differentiation reached by China and the United States in 2014. In Paris, the United States sought to extend responsibilities—including finance—to emerging economies such as China, India, and Brazil; China was more willing to take on responsibilities, but its groups (the G-77/China and BASIC) still favored Kyoto's older differentiation. The Copenhagen outcome fits a neorealist explanation: the relative gains from discord outweighed those from cooperation because both China and the United States saw little benefit in binding commitments. Paris is attributed to a more comprehensive transparency framework that monitors all parties and increases credibility. Throughout, the United States remained constrained by the need for domestic approval by Congress or the Senate, while China built capacity and influence and increasingly aligned its interests with mitigating climate change.

[This abstract was generated with the help of AI]

Climate change negotiations ; US-China Relations ; COP15 ; COP21

Download
View record in AAU Student Projects

Pedersen, Tina:

• Sino-US Climate Discord and Cooperation under the UNFCCC: A comparison of COP 15 and COP 21 (2016)