Climate change mitigation framework: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:39, 13 July 2021

Revision as of 01:10, 14 July 2021

Line 18:

== 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}}</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 minilateral forums.

== Polycentric approach ==

Line 31:

== Minilateralism ==

Minilateralism (groupings with select state membership) does falls only loosely into the category of the bottom-up framework as it is against integrating nongovernmental actors and governmental actors in approaching the problem.{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}} Aside from this main difference, minilateralism encourages the smallest possible break from the current top-down UNFCCC-led approach where the UNFCCC is still employed but other intergovernmental bodies are also incorporated.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last1=Hjerpe|first1=Mattias|last2=Nasiritousi|first2=Naghmeh|date=2015-06-15|title=Views on alternative forums for effectively tackling climate change|journal=Nature Climate Change|language=en|volume=5|issue=9|pages=864–867|doi=10.1038/nclimate2684|bibcode=2015NatCC...5..864H|issn=1758-6798|url=http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:855124/FULLTEXT01}}</ref> Possible intergovernmental bodies to be utilized include the OECD, the G20, or other international leading bodies that could address the issue further. This encourages the UNFCCC to not completely stop working on addressing the issue from a top-down approach, but in the interim these other bodies are important in furthering the cause.{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}} Multilateralism opens up the opportunity for international cooperation initiatives, where the UNFCCC could be supplemented by other multinational organizations that work towards climate change.<ref name=":5" /> This does not account for the free rider problem that the bottom-up approach with sanctions approach accounts for, and instead encourages those who are willing to make change do as much as possible.<ref name=":5" /> This then puts the burden on those who are willing to make change, and can create an example of what should be done, but offers no penalties for those who do not follow suit.{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}}

== Failure of governance ==

Line 41:

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=Bill.|first=Gates,|title=How to Avoid a Climate Disaster|date=2021|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/1237289604|publisher=Penguin Random House Audio Publishing Group|oclc=1237289604|access-date=2021-07-12}}</ref>

== References ==

{{Reflist}}