Climate change mitigation framework: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:08, 7 April 2022

Latest revision as of 19:53, 27 May 2025

(4 intermediate revisions by 4 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 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 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 ==