Last Word
| Date | 01 December 2015 |
| Published date | 01 December 2015 |
| DOI | 10.1111/2041-9066.12115 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
40 POLITICAL INSIGHT • DECEMBER 2015
Last Word
The Paris climate conference is 21st century politics in action. The mega-conference approach is
evolving into a more effective model, but too slowly to mitigate the worst effects of climate change,
writes Paul Tobin.
The Copenhagen talks in 2009 were
a nightmare for all concerned.
The climate-friendly EU was on
home turf, both ideologically
and geographically, but ended up ignored.
The world’s two biggest emitters, the USA
and China, monopolised the talks. Yet the
proposed Accord – unambitious at best
– was merely ‘taken note of’ rather than
adopted, as marginalised states refused to
support it. The December Paris conference
was designed to be more bottom-up, to
avoid repeating this situation.
This time around, states had to submit
their targets (‘Intended Nationally
Determined Contributions’, or INDCs, in UN
Speak) before the conference. This approach
has been developed to build momentum
and guarantee a minimum level of success.
As a result, the positions of many of the
key actors was established beforehand,
reducing uncertainty. The possibility of
outright failure is therefore less likely in
Paris than at previous conferences. But the
prospect of overwhelming success is not
much better, either.
At the heart of the current problem with
mega-conferences is the number of actors
who participate but are unable to register
any impact on the proceedings. Tens of
thousands of activists campaigned outside
the Copenhagen conference hall in 2009, only
to wait helplessly as those inside struggled
to reach an agreement. This same frustration
is felt by many of the state actors taking part
in the negotiations, most of which lack the
geopolitical clout to sway discussions.
With such a large number of voices comes a
vast array of competing narratives for how to
frame climate change. While states are careful
not to challenge explicitly the capacity of
the UN approach to succeed, most states are
concerned to some degree about ‘free-riders’
beneting from their emissions reductions,
and being portrayed as naïve in their domestic
media. A clear undercurrent to this fear is the
persistence of climate deniers to maintain
that ‘it’s all a hoax’. For example, bizarrely, in
February 2015, Senator James Inhofe threw a
snowball in the US Senate to highlight a lack
of scientic support for climate change.
At the other end of the spectrum, many
activists – and states vulnerable to ooding,
such as small islands – seek to portray
climate change as an opportunity. Examples
of states that have proted from exporting
climate-friendly technologies, such as
Germany and Sweden, are heralded as the
path forward, but this stance overlooks the
predominance of fossil fuels to many states’
economies. The preponderance of Canadian
tar sands and Polish brown coal explain their
states’ positions.
Somewhere between ‘hoax’ and
‘opportunity’ lie concerns over equity. India,
for example, champions the argument that
poorer states should have a fair crack of
the whip to lift their citizens out of poverty,
as many developed states have already,
increasing emissions in the process. Most
countries want to see poverty and climate
change mitigated; they just disagree over the
small print. And mega-conferences are not
ideal for ne-tuning the details.
Over the coming few years, expect to see
a shift away from the ‘all-our-eggs-in-one-
basket’, mega-conference model. The USA
and China promised to limit emissions in a
bilateral agreement last year. This surprise
outcome showed the potential for successful
climate negotiations when there are not too
many feet at the table.
Rather than being the site of late night
wrangling over minutiae, the UN’s mega-
conference model can play a vital role as an
annual agenda-setter. The most ambitious
agreements are likely to arise from small
groups of states that are negotiating with
those they share the most similarities, and
view most directly as competitors.
The UN’s climate model is improving
every year, but time is running out. The
heart-breaking and horrifying challenges
faced by Syrian refugees have shown the
costs of war to everyone. If climate change
is left unabated, then ooding, drought and
famine will ensure that refugees will become
a permanent xture in the latter half of this
century. The only way to avoid this reality is if
every member state pulls its weight, both at
annual mega-conferences, and the rest of the
year. And for this, citizens must change their
behaviour, too.
Paul Tobin is a Leverhulme Trust-funded
postdoctoral researcher at the University
of York. He is Co-Convenor of the PSA
Specialist Group on Environmental
Politics. Twitter: @_paul_tobin_
-20
0
20
40
60
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
2010
2013
Rises in Global Seas Levels
Source: Satellite sea level observations.
Credit: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Rate of change
3.22
mm per year
To continue reading
Request your trial