Climate change mitigation framework: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:00, 15 July 2021

Latest revision as of 19:53, 27 May 2025

(6 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Theoretical framework}}

There are various theoretical frameworks to [[Climate change mitigation|mitigate climate change]]. Frameworks are significant in that they provide a lens through which an argument can be addressed, and can be used to understand the possible angles from which to approach solving climate change. Frameworks in [[political science]] are used to think about a topic from various angles in order to understand different perspectives of the topic; common ones in international political science include [[Rationalism|rationalist]], [[Culturalism|culturalist]], [[Marxism|marxist]], and [[Institutional liberalism|liberal institutionalist]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/theoreticalframework|title=Theoretical Framework|last=|first=|date=November 21, 2019|website=USC Libraries|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=November 22, 2019}}</ref> See [[international relations theory]] for more frameworks through which problems can be analyzed.

== History of approach to solving climate change ==

Line 6 ⟶ 7:

=== Free rider problem ===

Unanimous{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}} consensus decision making has presented problems where any small number of countries can block passage of a resolution on what all countries will do to address the issue. Because of this small number of countries that do not want a resolution to the problem, all other countries are faced with the choice to attempt to combat the collective problem unilaterally, or also defect and economically benefit from not allocating the necessary resources to change. This is essentially the [[Free-rider problem|free rider problem]] present in the [[tragedy of the commons]], where the world's climate is a public, non-rival, non-excludeableexcludable good. The free rider problem can be summarized as the issue of a party receiving benefits of a public good without contributing to the cost.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Nordhaus|first=William|date=2015-04-04|title=Climate Clubs: Overcoming Free-riding in International Climate Policy|journal=American Economic Review|language=en|volume=105|issue=4|pages=1339–1370|doi=10.1257/aer.15000001|issn=0002-8282|url=https://www.aeaweb.org/aer/app/10504/presidential2015_app.pdf}}</ref> This often results in the good being overused or damaged by parties who are unable to be excluded from the using the good, resulting in a suboptimal good for everyone.

=== Montreal Protocol ===

Line 15 ⟶ 16:

=== Paris Agreement ===

[[File:The Eiffel Tower Is Illuminated in Green to Celebrate Paris Agreement's Entry into Force.jpg|thumb|The [[Eiffel Tower]] Is Illuminated in green to celebrate the Paris Agreement's entry into force]]More recently, the 2016 [[Paris Agreement]] has come out with [[Intended Nationally Determined Contributions|Nationally Determined Contributions]] (NDCs), which are determined by countries and must be ambitious and progressive with every 5 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement|title=The Paris Agreement {{!}} UNFCCC|website=unfccc.int|access-date=2019-10-23}}</ref> Since the NDCs are determined by each individual country, there is a potential problem of countries not being stringent enough with themselves, misreporting, or simply not setting goals<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Robiou du Pont|first1=Yann|last2=Jeffery|first2=M. Louise|last3=Gütschow|first3=Johannes|last4=Rogelj|first4=Joeri|last5=Christoff|first5=Peter|last6=Meinshausen|first6=Malte|date=2016-11-19|title=Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris Agreement goals|journal=Nature Climate Change|language=en|volume=7|issue=1|pages=38–43|doi=10.1038/nclimate3186|issn=1758-6798|url=http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/14181/1/Equitable_mitigation_to_achieve_the_Paris_Agreement_goals.pdf}}</ref> that will meet the under 2°C increase in temperature requirement set out by the [[Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C|2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report]] that is deemed necessary to meet in order to mitigate detrimental effects on hundreds of millions of lives.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/|title=Summary for Policymakers — Global Warming of 1.5 º°C|access-date=2019-10-23}}</ref>

== History of climate change frameworks ==

As a result of the historical precedent that international consensus and decision making can be accomplished under the threat of a global environmental issue, with the depletion of the ozone layer, there has been a tendency towards a top-down, consensus-based approach to addressing climate change through the [[United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change|UNFCCC]]. This approach is the dominant one where all world governments are engaged, which makes sense as the entire population of the world is affected by this issue. The top-down approach is that of strong central oversight by a majority of world governments in determining how various approaches to climate change mitigation should be implemented.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Sépibus|first1=Joëlle de|last2=Sterk|first2=Wolfgang|last3=Tuerk|first3=Andreas|date=2013-06-01|title=Top-down, bottom-up or in-between: how can a UNFCCC framework for market-based approaches ensure environmental integrity and market coherence?|journal=Greenhouse Gas Measurement and Management|volume=3|issue=1–02|pages=6–20|doi=10.1080/20430779.2013.798782|bibcode=2013GGMM....3....6D|s2cid=219598938|issn=2043-0779|url=https://boris.unibe.ch/90362/1/Top-down%2C%20bottom-up%20or%20in-between%2C%20how%20can%20a%20UNFCCC%20Framework%20for%20Market-based%20Approaches%20Ensure%20Environmental%20Integrity%20and%20Market%20Coherence.pdf}}</ref> This approach has been the largest route to tackling the goal of solving climate change, however the world is not on track to reach the under 2°C warming in average temperature that would help hundreds of millions of people.<ref name=":1" />

Thus, the top-down framework of only utilizing the UNFCCC consensus approach has been proposed to be ineffective, with counter proposals of bottom up governance and decreasing the emphasis of the UNFCCC.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Cole|first=Daniel H.|date=2015-01-28|title=Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy|journal=Nature Climate Change|language=en|volume=5|issue=2|pages=114–118|doi=10.1038/nclimate2490|bibcode=2015NatCC...5..114C|issn=1758-6798|url=https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/1415|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last1=Sabel|first1=Charles F.|last2=Victor|first2=David G.|date=2017-09-01|title=Governing global problems under uncertainty: making bottom-up climate policy work|journal=Climatic Change|language=en|volume=144|issue=1|pages=15–27|doi=10.1007/s10584-015-1507-y|bibcode=2017ClCh..144...15S|s2cid=153561849|issn=1573-1480}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last=Zefferman|first=Matthew R.|date=2018-01-01|title=Cultural multilevel selection suggests neither large or small cooperative agreements are likely to solve climate change without changing the game|journal=Sustainability Science|language=en|volume=13|issue=1|pages=109–118|doi=10.1007/s11625-017-0488-3|s2cid=158187220|issn=1862-4057}}</ref> There is a lack of consensus leading to various frameworks being proposed with varying levels of involvement of the UNFCCC and other intergovernmental actors, with proposed local-level approaches, emphasis on innovation and competition, enforcement mechanisms, and minilateralmultilateral forums.

== Polycentric approach ==

Line 36 ⟶ 37:

Another approach suggests that government should be entirely forsaken because of the free-rider problem and shortcomings with consensus, and instead innovation, entrepreneurship, and investment in sustainable technology should be focused on.<ref name=":4" /> This is largely proposed because of the free rider problem of countries defecting from international agreements for their own economic gain in the short run. This is compounded by the non-excludable harms and benefits of mitigating climate change, where penalties harsh enough to sufficiently incentivize countries into taking action may not be practical, and countries will not act unless sufficiently incentivized.<ref name=":4" /> Under the failure of governance argument, the problems facing governance are massive and it would be less costly to invest in innovation and technology rather than governance.{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}}

== The Reduce is not Zero problem ==

Bill Gates' 2021 [[How to Avoid a Climate Disaster|Climate Book]] states the world is failing to meet goals due to a fundamental flaw in approach. He refers to this as "Reduce is not Zero". Reduce involves working on each hydroelectric dam or wind farm separately; whereas Zero involves handling the entire batch of needed equipment at one time. Equipment primarily includes hydroelectric dams, wind farms, solar panels, and nuclear reactors. When one works with a large batch, they can justify factories that mass produce. Additional factory automation is helpful since it allows one to handle large volumes at low cost. In order to implement Zero, one needs a [[Low-carbon economy#Decarbonisation plans that get to zero CO2 emissions|plan that describes how to get to zero global CO₂ emissions]]. Currently, the world does not have a plan, and is doing Reduce.

The Manhattan 2 Project's [https://www.manhattan2.org/global-decarbonization-initiative Global Decarbonization Plan] is an example of a plan that gets the world to zero emissions. It proposes that the US Government spend $10B/yr to develop factories that mass produce green energy production equipment; and give the designs of the factories away for free, to facilitate global decarbonization. The US gives instead of sells for selfish reasons -- it does not want harm to come to its shores due to climate change. The plan utilizes factory automation to drive down the cost of green energy to a level below carbon-based fuels. This causes others to go green since it saves them money. This approach uses a combination of mitigation framework, market forces, automation engineering, and free factory designs to facilitate global decarbonization. From a foreign policy perspective, the US gains influence by injecting key technology into international markets.

The disadvantage of a plan that gets us to zero is it involves trillion of dollars of equipment, and very few people, both inside and outside government, feel qualified to deal with such large numbers.<ref>{{Citation|last=Gates|first=Bill|title=How to Avoid a Climate Disaster|date=2021|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/1237289604|pages=195..216|publisher=Penguin Random House Audio Publishing Group|oclc=1237289604|access-date=2021-07-12}}</ref>

== References ==

{{Reflist}}