AOS2 Unit 4 Flashcards
1
Q
Outline key characteristic of Paris Climate Agreement
A
-Goals- deal w GHG mitigaton (aim 2 peak emissions), provide adaption (esp 4 low lying states) + financing (100bil p/y)
- Fundamental requirment= states 2 create NDC (article 4 req them to be ‘ambitious’ ‘represent a progress > time’ and set ‘w the view to achieving the purpose of the agreement’)
- NDC’s reported on every 5yrs h/w no way to force a specific target by a date + no enforcement mechanisms
- Enhanced Transparency Framework- all states legally bound 2 have progress tracked by tech experts + determine ways 2 strengthen ambition t/f must report every 2yrs on mitigation effort (4 peer + expert review)
- Article 4- provide flexibility to change yearly ratchet up meetings
- Article 6- set out basic principles for well-functioning international carbon market
- Article 7- goal of adaption = imp capacity (e.g. adapt 2 renewable energy), resilience (e.g. storm shelters) + reduce vulnerability (e.g. decrease prevalence of climate related events e.g. bushfires) ALL parties 2 plan + implement National Adaption Plans = NAPS
- Article 9- Mobilise 100bil p/yr in climate financing w balance b/w mit + adapt (50/50) + need 4 inc help 4 vuln states (LDCs + island states)
2
Q
Effectiveness of PA
A
- Currently X meeting targets- e.g. UNEP emissions gap report Oct 21- on track for 2.7c inc by 2100 + only on track 4 7.5% dec in GHG by 2030 (need 55%) + April 2022 Nature Journal- 10% chance of achieving 1.5c target based upon current 2030 policies + actions +
- Slow progress in applying pressure- 35/128 analysed 2nd NDCs by Climate Action Tracker revealed that 22 countries + EU have increasingly ambition NDC (h/w 12 countries x inc ambition- 128 2nd NDCs rep 86% emissions + only 9 of states analysed by Climate Action Tracker in July 22 have almost sufficient NDCs (to keep CC bellow 2c) w only 2/9 being western/developed countries)
- Creation of framework 4 involvement from sub-national groups t/f 2 help plug gaps in under ambitious govs- e.g Global Covenant of Mayors = 9k cities, 127 countries (770mil residents) agreeing 2 continue Obama’s commitments following Trump leave PA E.g. Mayor Reed of Atlanta promised city will use 100% renewable power by 2035
3
Q
PMI response 2 CC (actions)
A
- CDP report- Monetary rewards 4 corporate exec teams, management groups + all employees 4 achieving emissions reduction targets + set into ‘annual performance obj’ + ‘annual performance appraisal’ assessed against them
- PMI internal price on carbon ($17USD p/tonne of Co2) w price updated 1-2yrs (upper levels of corporate av =$5-20 h/w sig lower then EU ets of $90-130 euro)
- Enviro criteria applied 2 ALL purchases (creates triple bottom line) inc supplies of tobacco
- Application of 2c scenario + ‘involved in the CDP Road to Paris’ + have regarded commitments to CC based on adaption + mitigation + science outline @ PA
- Assist LDCs + adaption- E.f. following severe draught in S-E Af PMI + Swiss Red Cross support interventions promoting food security e.g., in Mozambique focus on distribution of seeds + farming tools + delivering training to strengthen resilience 2 future climate-disasters + crisis
4
Q
PMI effectiveness of response 2 CC
A
- CDP (not-for-profit charity running global independent audit for investors, companies etc 2 manage enviro impact) – of 9600 submissions for ‘A list’ on climate only 200 😊 inc PMI + PMI 1/118 companies A-listed for water security +1/24 A list for forests (2021) –>dems that actually implementing policies effectively x just rhetorically
- Able to influence behaviour of suppliers- red 70% of GHG (from ’10 level) from tab curing + 0% coal 4 curing + 0% deforestation due to cultivation + curing by ’20
Overall judgement- status as TNC means response to CC can only directly inf own actions + those of suppliers t/f despite sig imp only minute impact on broader crisis
5
Q
Catch Church response to CC (key actions)
A
- 18th June ’15- papal encyclical (Laudato Si) inc churches focus on CC b/c ‘the Earth our home, is beginning to look like an immense pile of filth’ + ‘the remarkable weakness’ of pol responses e.g. need to combat by turning ‘down the unlimited appetites of consumerism’ (i.e. ID’s cause of prob as capitalism) + emphasises moral resp of developed states 2 help developing states
- 24th May ’17- meet w Trump + publicly urges to remain in PA
- 9th June 2018- speaks w oil executives emphasising need to convert to clean energy
- Jan 2019- Pope 2 180x diplomats denouncing the ‘very weak’ response 2 CC by politicians ‘remained a source of grave concern’ – Pope openly using moral authority to denounce pol
- Divested in fossil fuels
- June 2019- declared ‘climate emergency’ met w chief of exec of BP, Shell, Chevron –> ostensibly called on govs 2 put in place carbon piecing (limited inf h/w b/c x implement own policies 2 red emissions)
Overall uses diplomacy (via speeches, UN GA observer status + meetings w pols) 2 apply moral pressure + authority
6
Q
Effectiveness of Cath Church response 2 CC
A
Overall judgement- despite failing to meet goal of radically overhaul of syst h/w have successfully inc pressure + inc ambition + makes doing nothing morally less
- Help 2 set agenda- Yale religion scholar M. Tucker described LS as ‘unprecedented’ + reps ‘structural change’ in how confronting CC = setting agenda (inc need to address underlying causes of CC (cap) t/f inc radical agenda)
- Add moral weight/authority/imperative to climate debate esp b/c of sig membership + dip presence + UN GA observer status + promotes proactive response 2 CC (both pol + corporate) + inc cosmo approach
- Laudato Si- gave credibility to science esp prior 2 Paris + denounce current response e.g. UNFCCC Exec Sec Christina Figueres said ‘encyclical underscores the moral imperative for urgent action on CC 2 lift the planet’s most vuln pop’ (made intersectional issue)
7
Q
Why is the PA limited
A
- State sov- X able to mandate stricter NDCs or policies- Only 9 states analysed by CAT have almost sufficient NDCS (2/9 western)
- No enforcement mechanism aside from condemnation + due to fact little compliance condemnation hold little weight- e.g. only 1 state paying fair share towards clim action (Norway in 2018 vs US paying
- Net zero targets can ‘distract from the urgent need for deep emissions reductions… allowing govs to ‘hide’ behind aspirational net zero targets.’ – political ploy to decrease pressure–> Climate Action Tracker found that 73% inadequate (w exception of UK, Chile + Costa Rica) + often vaguely formulated
- TNC’s + groups use greenwash 2 virtue signal 2 consumers t/f mitigating need 4 systemic change esp b/c engagement w UN X binding + X forced to act e.g. 200+ proposed ‘carbon bombs’ aka mega fossil fuel projects planned –> inc likelihood of exceeding 2c
8
Q
What is the Glasgow agreement inc?
A
- saw goal changed by consensus 2 b 1.5c = inc pressure on states b/c inc stringent goal demands inc action
- Emissions- meetings set in ’22 (November in Egypt) + ’23 also 2 be ratchet up meetings encouraging inc ambition on NDCs
- Climate financing- promise of $500bil in 5yrs + double proportion going 2 adaption (x quite 50/50)
- Phase down coal- 1st time COP decision made direct ref 2 fossil fuels (demonstrates broader inc in ambition)
NB also saw development of smaller multilateral agreements b/w some participating actors (x necassarily unamious)
- E.g. Methane- 100 states agreed 2 scheme 2 cut methame emissions by 30% by 2030 (h/w x inc China, Russia +India)
- Coal- 40 states committed 2 stop investing in coal domestically + internationality + phase out by ‘30s (developed states) + 40s (developing states)- inc Poland, Vietnam + Chilie (major coal using countries)
9
Q
Pos significance of Glasgow COP (no. 26)
A
- Solidified goal of 1.5c- inc pressure on states due to inc stringent goal- help to keep 1.5 alive
- Inc application of pressure by returning to ratchet up in 2022 Nov (Egypt) + 2023 = escalating expectation 2 make action
- Created precedent in which smaller groups able to take individual action- X excuse 4 inaction- e.g. 100 states agreed 2 scheme 2 cut methame emissions by 30% by 2030 (h/w x inc China, Russia +India)
- Inc platform for ppl 2 air greivences- 30k participants from 200+ countries
- Inc socio-corporate response = 450 financial institutes e.g. investment banks (130tril in assets) promised 2 align portfolios w achieving net zero by 2050
- 1st time coal mentioned in agreement
10
Q
Limitations of COP26
A
-Only India submitted NDC directly b4 COP26 = expectation of UN
-Lack of progress on finance- wealthier nations block move 2 create a loss-and-damage fund 2 compensate developing states 4 harm caused by CC (dems lack of equity)
o Still x address difficulty 2 finance LIC (esp > MIC)
-No agreement 2 end fossil fuel subsidies
11
Q
Aims of UN response 2 CC
A
- Peak emissions ASAP
- Pledge 100bil p/y as floor 4 funding w further support negotiated by 2025
-Paris goals- keep global temps “well bellow” 2c above pre-industial times + now is 1.5c to survive (2c seen an insufficient)
oLimit GHG emitted by human activity 2 level in which trees, soil + oceans able 2 absorb naturally b/w 2050 + 2100 (aka net zero)
oReview each county’s contribution 2 cutting emissions every 5 yrs so inc challenge (b/c belief ambition inc > time due to accountability)
oRich countries provide climate financing 2 poorer states 2 adapt 2 CC + switch 2 renewable energy
12
Q
What is the EU 2020 climate package (key goals)
A
Enacted in legislation in 2009- w key goal of 20% dec in GHG from 05 levels
- 20% inc in energy efficiency
- 20% of EU energy from renewables
13
Q
How did the EU 2020 climate package aim to reach it’s goals?
A
- Emissions Trading Scheme- covers 45% of EU’s GHG emissions (inc power + industry, aviation sectors)- goal for 21% red on 2005 levels
- Effort sharing decision- 55% of EU’s GHG covered (inc housing, waste, ag, transport)= covered by binding targets 4 EACH state 2 cut emissions based upon nat wealth (4 total of 10% across EU) = reviewed EVERY yr
- Renewable energy directive- national action plans 4 inc renewable energy- legally binding- vary depending on state + eco capacity from 10% (Malta) to 49% (Sweden)
- Energy Efficiency Directive- creates reg on energy efficiency for houses for rent, household appliances, lighting, renovations on gov owned houses (sets target @ 20% imp)
- Innovative + financing- esp 4 low carbon tech (e.g. Horizon 2020 received 80bil eu in funding from ’14-20)
- Regulation 443 (created 2009)- creates Co2 limits in passenger cars so that by 2015 100% of newly registered cars need to emit less then 130g/km w $$ associated w failure e.g. 5 euro for 1st g >, 15 euro for 2nd etc + inc ambition so that in 2019 1st g > = 95 euro + 2020 goal of 95g/km
14
Q
Outcome of EU 2020 climate + energy package (legislated in 09)
A
- Outcome of effort sharing decision- inc equity in climate mitigation + b/w -13-15 all states found to be compliant w targets
- GHG emissions goals- Met 2020 goal in 2016 @ 23% bellow 1990 level (h/w ’17 = 2.1% inc = concerning reversal)–> 2020 =24% bellow
- EU relative share of GHG feel from 17.3% in 1990 to 9% in 2018 = faster rate of prog then rest of world w/o sacrificing eco growth (GDP grew 53% in same period)
- Industries covered by ETS fell by 26% (05-16) + non-ETS ind emissions red 11%
- Inc energy efficiency- e.g. Av car emissions in ’17 = 118.5g/km 22g/km reduction since ‘10
- Renewable energy goal- 22% in 2020 (inc from 9.6% in 04) - w 10 memb states expected to have had surplus of renewable energy in 2020
- Limit- 2016 preliminary report revealed Malta, Belgium, Finland + Ireland likely to X meet non-ETS target (h/w did + EU provided policy advice)
- Energy efficiency goal- GHG/GDP halved b/w 1990-2020 (h/w x significant b/c global decline by 58%)
- Some states only found to be compliant b/c bought credits t/f x as sig progress as pos e.g. Malta bought credits from Bulgaria in ‘13-15
15
Q
What is the 2030 climate + energy framework + evo?
A
- Intially- 2014 policy created to replace 2020 Clim + en framework w inc ambitious targets e.g. set goals x3 (40% cut in GHG from 90, min 27% renewable energy, 27% imp in energy efficiency)
- Evolution- EU Green deal (2019)- inc in ambition of package- Inc 2 50 (ideally 55% red in GHG by 2030 from 2019 levels)
- Aims of EU Green deal- inc freight by rail (>air travel = less polluting), only make trade deals w states that stick 2 Paris climate targets (currently X w US, Aus, China etc = inc inf > other states), create carbon border adjustment mech, 1TRIL euro investment package (+750bil extra from covid-19 recovery package [30% of package total]) + provides $$ 4 companies judged on 6x criteria, from 2021 40% of ag subsidies + 30% from fishing will be devoted to reduce GHG in these sectors, inc GHG from shipping into ETS
16
Q
How has the EU pursued 2030 clim + energy framework
A
- Euro Climate Law- made 55% reduction in emissions legally binding for ALL memb states (2021)
- Sep 20 Climate Target Plan- spend 30% of EU budget on climate related measures
- EU actions Plan Towards Zero pollution for Air, Water and Soil- red premature death b/c of air pollution by 55% + plastic litter @ sea by 50% by 2030
- EU reno wave = overhaul of 220mil buildings by 2050 2 inc enviro performance
- Fit for 55- package of policies (master plan) 2 reach 55% red by ’30 (inc revise ETS 2 inc shipping + dom heating + red credits –> goal = 61% red on 05 levels by ’30 (adopted June 2022)), Emission standards for vehicles- 100% red by ’35 (aka x possible to buy/sell diesel or petrol car in EU (agreed June ’22), Energy efficiency targets inc from 32% to 39%(agreed by EU com t/f parl neg 6/22) + carbon boarder adjustment mechanism
17
Q
Evaluate EU response 2 CC
A
- Good- Inc ambition > time (esp w EU green deal + fit for 55% vs OG 2030 clim + en framework)
- Able to use eco power/size to inf other states (e.g. china - EU-C summit in Sep ’20 t/f China inc ambition 2 net zero by 2060, peak emissions by 2030 + X invest in coal abroad) + Carbon boarder adjustment scheme able to protect EU eco from more competitive + less eco policies–> PMI internal carbon pricing of $17p/tonne)
- EU relative share of GHG feel from 17.3% in 1990 to 9% in 2018 = faster rate of progress then rest of world w/o sacrificing eco growth (GDP grew 53% in same period)
Limit- X ambitious enough targets- climate activist lament is ‘a fire works display over a rubbish dump (i.e. X ambitious enough) + need 65-70% dec by ‘30
- Still argues that continuous growth can be pursued while saving climate NI still @ forefront h/w LT sust more focus + denies capitalism as cause
- X restraints on how 70% remainder of budget spends –> still subsidising fossil fuels
- Still facing push back from memb states e.g. Hungary + Poland
18
Q
What are PMI’s climate related goals
A
- Aligned self w SDGs- Good Agricultrural Practices (GAP) prog- aim 2 red 70% of GHG (from ’10 level) from tab curing + 0% coal 4 curing + 0% deforestation due to cultivation + curing by ’20
- Transport- achieved 7% imp in en efficiency in ’15 alone (10% overall)
- Manufacturing- red 36% emission b/w ‘10-’18 w aim of 40% by ’30
19
Q
How has PMI tried to achieve climate goals
A
- Imp energy efficiency via changing energy supplier or replacing boilers + ’14-’25 ran 200x energy saving products
- CDP report- Monetary rewards 4 corporate exec teams, management groups + all employees 4 achieving emissions reduction targets + set into ‘annual performance obj’ + ‘annual performance appraisal’ assessed against them
- PMI internal price on carbon ($17USD p/tonne of Co2) w price updated 1-2yrs (upper levels of corporate av =$5-20 h/w sig lower then EU ets of $90-130 euro)
- Enviro criteria applied 2 ALL purchases (creates triple bottom line) inc supplies of tobacco
- Application of 2c scenario + ‘involved in the CDP Road to Paris’ + have regarded commitments to CC based on adaption + mitigation + science outline @ PA
- Assist LDCs + adaption- E.f. following severe draught in S-E Af PMI + Swiss Red Cross support interventions promoting food security e.g., in Mozambique focus on distribution of seeds + farming tools + delivering training to strengthen resilience 2 future climate-disasters + crisis
20
Q
How has the US responded to CC
A
- Trump pres- Erased or loosened nearly 100x rules + reg on pollution (air, water + atmos) inc rules on CO2 emissions from cars (i.e. remove emissions cap) + methane leaks
- W/drew from PA (announced in ’17 + went into effect in ’20) –> unilateralism
- Approved oil + gas exploration e.g. Anwar in Alaska
- Appointed 3x conserve judges to SC = shift balance LT impact
- Biden pres- 1st day in office (20.1.21) resigned PA, placed moratoriums on Anwar, revoked permit 4 Keystone XL Pipeline permit, paused new leases on off shore oil + gas on pub land + set goals of achieve carbon pollution free sector by 2035 + create 0 emission gov auto fleet
- Diplomatic engagement- Invited world leaders 2 virtual clim summit on Ap 22-23 ’21 2 inc ambitious clim targets which US modelled + commit 2 cutting GHG by 50-52% by ’30 + Net-0 by ‘50
- Policy- Inflation Reduction Act- passed senate on 7th Aug 2022 + house- seeks 2 reduce GHG 40% from 05 levels by ’30 + create 1.5mil jobs- e.g. aims to transition eco via tax credits (inc clean en industries), fees imposed on methane leaks from oil + gas + offer rebate of 7.5k or 1.6k 4 ppl to buy EV or insulate house (resp)
21
Q
Ineffectiveness of US response 2 CC (broad name + detail)
A
- Prevented implementation of effective policies + X see benefits- E.g. -Trumps repeal of 100x pol- est to cause 1.8bil EXTRA met tons of GHG by 2035 (more then 1yr of Ger, Can + Br’s combined emissions) + NYT found jobs in auto sect dec since ’19 + domestic coal production in ’19 @ lowest level since 1978
- Inc polarisation of CC- appointment of 3x SC judges- limits Biden’s use of executive power via EPA + red pub willingness 2 coop E.g. 20% inc (from ’19) in rep believing that inc enviro reg will hurt eco- now @ 75%
- Inf other states- Promotion of eco growth + misinfo > meaningful CC actions = copied by Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil + Scomo (Aus)
22
Q
Effectiveness of US response 2 CC
A
- US setting agenda + modelling more ambitious behaviour- All G7 leaders committed to net-0 by ’50 + all sig inc ambition of ’30 targets
- 140 countries committed to net-0 by 2050 or achieved carbon neutrality (i.e Bhutan + Suriname) h/w 4x
- China pre-emptively intro Net-0 by 2060 in Sep 2020 (assuming Bi come to power) b/c want to be seen as global leader inc competition 4 IS = pos
- Able to position clim action fuelling eco growth, jobs/employment + ind growth 1.5mil jobs t/f able to leverage capitalism to work 4 them E.g. Aug 22 Inflation Reduction Act
- Esp eff b/c second largest emitter behind China (13% of global emissions) + dip power = influence other states
23
Q
What does pub opinion in Aus reveal about a challenge to CC
A
24
Q
List key features of Climate change
A
- Resource exploitation
- National interests
- methods of adapting to and reducing CC
25
Q
List key features of eco instability
A
- Globalisation- x cause =exacerbate eco instability by allowing it to be a contagion in inc interdependence
- Capitalism’s boom-bust cycle- cause (?)
- Role of key actors (e.g. IMF) as stabilisers- part of resolution
26
Q
Analyse the key aspect of globalisation in the crisis of eco instability
A
- Defn globalisation- a rapid intensification of trade of goods, serv, capital + x which promotes interdependence b/w states
- state impact on EI- X cause h/w may exacerbate eco inst when occur + extend it’s effect b/c interdependence –> inc likelihood that spreads 2 other states (esp b/c eco integration)
- E.g.- US imposed 250bil in tariffs (up to 25% on 40% of C imports) + C retaliate by putting 100bil of tariffs on US goods in 2018 –> impact on global eco= 0.3% red in growth (aka 65bil) + global growth rate @ slowest since GFC (aka 3%) (IMF report)
27
Q
Analyse the key aspect of the role of key aspects as stabilisers in global eco (in EI)
A
What- Any institutions or practices in an eco that red fluctuations in business cycle via offsetting amounts of income available 4 spending (i.e. disposable income) –> E.g. Stimulus, manipulate IR, Bailouts, Austerity + regulation
- Role- oft seen as part of resolution b/c have inc access 2 resources + coordinated action > other states- esp imp in poorer states- e.g. 57bil in 2018 to bailout Argentina 2 prevent balance of pmt dif
- H/w impact on wealthier states oft limited b/c able to ignore advice due 2 x as dependent on $$- e.g. IMF Aug 2019 stating x find ev of C currency manipulation (undermine ddddddd) + July ‘21 call 4 lifting of tariffs = ignored across presidences in US
- H/w in Argentina- trad policy advice X always resolve internal prob- e.g. 50% inc in pov + despite est inc in GDP in ‘18 + ‘19 actually dec
28
Q
How to analyse key aspect of glob crisis?
A
- Analyse in context (aka e.g./ev) of crisis
- Determin impacts, relative imp (e.g. although role of key actors is imp in LIC, b/c in HIC…), impact on effective res
- EVIDENCE
29
Q
Analyse the key aspect of capitalism’s boom bust cycle in EI
A
- What- natural fluctuation b/w market expansion + contraction- oft measured by GDP growth, u/e rates + inflation 2 indicate health of eco
- Cause- h/w b/c cap suggest inevitable contraction it is artificial elongation of booms via policy (e.g. low IR) or market failure (e.g. due to asymmetrical info –> asset bubbles)
- Impact on res- dif approaches determined by dif economists t/f x unified approach
30
Q
Analyse the key feature of resource exploitation in crisis of CC
A
- Seen as cause + challenge to effective res of CC (mainly CONTINUAL burning of FF)
- Cause- Burning FF releases GHG - trap heat in atmosphere - + 3x inc since 1970s + deforestation = loss of carbon sinks/emissions from burning trees (approx responsible 4 80% biodiversity loss + 50% co2 emissions)
- Impacts- Natural- Soil erosion- inc rate of erosion 10-14 e.g. intense farming in Appalacian Mount. Dec ag productivity 100x +forced migratio- est to reach 150-200mil (p/yr) by 2050 (International Org for Migration) + 2x inc in conflict
- Challenge- continual dependency (80% of global energy production = ff) + most energy dense form of energy t/f most efficient- e.g. NLG has 53.1MJ/kg vs lithium iron battery has 0.504MJ/kg t/f wanting to mitigate eco impact of transition (off-shore wind 6x more expensive then cheapest fossil fuel)
Imp- derived from fact contributes 50%+ of co2 emissions + exponential inc (3x inc since ’70s)
31
Q
Analyse National interests as a key feature of Climate Change
A
- Challenge to resolving CC- often used as reasons 2 x respond efficiently to CC (esp eco) b/c state prioritise individual eco + pol stability > collective climate action = diffusion of responsibility (+ form of unilateralism 2 an extent)
- Effects- dilutes or repeals/prevents meaningful climate action (e.g. Aus carbon tax 2010-2013 Lab gov implement Carbon tax which b/w June ‘13+’14 saw 1.4% red in emissions (largest ever annual dec) h/w b/c Tony Abbot was able 2 red pub support 4 lab by claiming would cost $550 p/y p/person -won election t/f repealed tax in July 14- dems that eco prosperity inc imp > immediate action
- E.g. Conflict in Ukraine- Geopolitics ban on Russian coal, oil + gas imports + R decreasing sales - inc gas AND coal prices (coal = $400 p/tonne in March ’22 b/c ½ of Eu coal from R) t/f cheaper to purchase coal > gas t/f Mario Draghi then Italian PM will reopen old coal plants + UK x close the 3 coal stations scheduled for closure in ‘22- dems interest of avoiding eco prob > climate action
32
Q
Analyse adaption + mitigation as a key feature of CC
A
- Both imp b/c need 2 adapt 2 impacts of CC already have neg impacts of CC + need to inc resilience of vuln ppl
(e. g. global Commission on Adaption (NGO) est CC lower ag yields b/w 5-30% + GCA est 5bil ppl could suffer water shortages @ least 1 month p/yr (when pop @ 11mil) - Effects- Bangladesh e.g. ¾ of country can be flooded up to 9 months p/yr t/f early warning syst 4 cyclones, concrete cyclone shelters + new rice varieties 2 help w increasing salinity in water + floating farms (inc scale) t/f dec deaths + food insecurity
- Effects of mitigation- red trajectory of heating- from pre-Paris est of 4c 2 (UNEP emissions gap report Oct 21) on track for 2.7c inc by 2100 (if meet all proposed targets) or 1.9c re Ap 22 Natural Journal
- Limited impact- X receive funding- e.g. UN enviro prog est will cost 140-300bil p/yr by 2030 h/w only 30bil invested in 17-18 (OXFAM) + overall investment in climate mitigation + funding X evenly split + in forms of loans t/f less effective OXFAM est in 17-18 only 22bil in grants + 30bil in grants ’19 (nature) + only Norway is paying ‘fair share’ in grants (120% success)
33
Q
How has Aus responded 2 CC (details)
A
- Carbon tax- 2010-2013 Lab gov implement Carbon tax (X on consumers) which b/w June ‘13+’14 saw 1.4% red in emissions (largest ever annual dec) B/c Tony Abbot was able 2 red pub support 4 lab by claiming would cost $550 p/y p/person t/f won election t/f repealed tax in July 14= ACTIVELY stopping effective policies
- 2018 Liberal Leadership spill- Internal politics of lib party (broad based church party) saw inc opposition (esp by Abbot + Dutton) 4 Turnbull’s National Energy Guarantee (offered GHG red target + price on carbon) Morison become party leader despite claim policy was ‘woefully inadequate’
- Gas lead covid recovery
- 2022 Climate Bill- Labour seeking to legislate 43% red by 2030
34
Q
Effectiveness of Aus clim action
A
Pro- July 22 putting 45% red in GHG by 2030 into leg sig b/c red ability 4 opposition 2 change if re-elected
Con- current policies ‘like bring a bucket of water to a house fire’ Adam Bandt
- Continual leadership spills > CC made meaningful action a ‘3rd rail item’
- Scomo able to talk ‘about desiring- but not committing- to reach net zero emissions by 2050’ = X actually implement meaningful change- goal of 26-28% bellow ’05 levels by 2030- delaying action makes prob bigger= E.g. of lack of action- 20% of Aus energy from renewables vs OECD av of 45% t/f inc effort NOW to catch up
35
Q
Explain the dif b/w int coop + crisis diplomacy- using e.g. for both
A
- Key dif- Crisis dip= unplanned that leads to negotiations that attempt to resolve prob vs international coop = coordinated + ongoing action b/w global actors w shared goal
- Int coop can both prevent or respond to crisis (e.g. CC) while crisis dip oft aims to result in an agreement- h/w x necessarily as may fail- refers to the negotation itself
E.g. UN COP 26= planned agreement b/w 191 memb of PA to conduct global stock take of climate policy w aim of inc NDC ambition
vs phase 1= neg b/w C + US to attempt to resolve trade war in Jan-20
36
Q
List causes of eco instability
A
- Black swan events
- Exogenous shocks
- Market failure/ cap boom bust cycle (aka business cycle)
- Unilateralism
- Poor internal eco policies
- Political uncertainty
- Globalisation (kinda- more so exacerbates prob)
37
Q
What is crisis diplomacy
A
Negotiations- b/w global actors in response to an immediate crisis-
- E.g. eco, health crisis, conflict + natural disasters = X planned meetings (COP26= NOT Eg)
- E.g’s from content- Phase 1 Jan 2020 b/w US + C, Biden April ‘21 virtual climate summit pledging inc action to clim emergency
38
Q
What is international cooperation
A
refers 2 when 2 global actors work-together (aka ACTION) 2 achieve common ideals or goals
- Can be planned or unplanned- but refers to actions taken
- E.g’s from content- PA- 191 states ratified t/f agreeing to take action –> 191 + EU have submitted NDCS w 151 + EU having submitted 2nd NDC (by Sep 21)
39
Q
What is unilateralism?
A
Refers to the policy of A (SINGLE) state acting ALONE w little regard 4 views or interests of other global actors in pursuit of foreign policy objectives-
E.g. Trump w/drawl from PA in 2020 (officially) + 100+ policies repelled –> est addition of Ger’s av yr pollution by 2050
E.g. US imposition of tariffs on China (2018 US imposed $250bil of tariffs on 40% of C goods- causing C to retaliate w tariffs on $110bil of US imports)- impact on global eco = ‘poorer + more dangerous place’ (IMF in ‘19) –> 0.3% of global GDP reduced (aka 65bil)
40
Q
What is globalisation?
A
T he acceleration and intensification of the exchange of goods + services, labour + capital that promote interdependence . Oft facilitated by rapid improvements in technology + communications
