Climate and the Environment

Question 1

Why is environmental governance distinct?

Answer 1

• non cooperation by 1 undermines all cooperation
• importance of epistemic communities
• wide range of issues
• tragedy of the commons

Question 2

What is the tragedy of the commons

Answer 2

• dilemna

- we overharvest a resource limited world (own interests) -> has huge collective impact

Question 3

How is it proposed to overcome the tragedy of the commons

Answer 3

Elinor Ostrom

• IOs enforce rules and regulations or
• building up community trust to regulate harvesting themselves

Question 4

How likely is environmental cooperation according to the theoretical theories?

Answer 4

realism:
-hegemonic states take lead
-must be conceived as security threat
neoinstitutionalism:
-cross border phenomenon
-corporation maximises gains; limits costs
liberalism:
-domestic pressure by civil society
constructivism:
-norms
-environmental activist role as norm entrepreneur
-autonomous effects of institution

Question 5

Trends of global environmental governance

Answer 5

• increasing range of non-state actors participating
• inclusion of civil society = legitimacy
• IGOs, multilateral agreements

Question 6

What is UNEP?

Answer 6

UN Environmental program 
subsidiary body to the GA seated in Nairobi, Kenya
-no own membership
-no compulsory dues
-very small budget

Question 7

What are UNEP’s origins

Answer 7

results of the Stockholm Conference (1972) by Sweden gov. and UNGA

Question 8

What are the criticisms of the UNEP?

Answer 8

Size & Budget:
-too dependent on GA
-too small budget (relies on voluntary contributions by states -> vulnerable)
-too small for importance of issue
Structure: should be a specialized agency
Enforcement: lack of enforcement power
Logistics:
-location too remote for communication (but important to focus on developing countries)

Question 9

What is a successful environmental agreement?

Answer 9

Montreal Protocol

Question 10

What did the Montreal Protocol achieve

Answer 10

States agreed to phase out ozone depleting resouces (CFCs) using:

• impact on health and genes
• ozone depletion scientific data

Question 11

How did this transition with time?

Answer 11

Washington Conference (1977); planning with UNEP
Vienna Convention (1985): agreement for cooperation for research and data
Montreal Conference (1987): universal ratification!
Further amendments: London -> Copenhagen

Question 12

What are the reasons for the Montreal Protocol success?

Answer 12

• led by powerful state coallition (toronto group)
• epistemic community with high legitimacy
• domestic pressure (American public)
• US hegemonic leadership
• concessions to developing countries
• technical solution/alternative
• compliance monitoring (reports)

Question 13

What portrays global climate governance as a failure?

Answer 13

dilemna: ecological vs. short term economic interests
- temperature and emissions acceleration
- rising sea levels
- extreme weather
- deteriorating food, water, living conditions

Question 14

History of environmental global governance (1992…)

Answer 14

1992: Framework Convention on Climate Change
1997: Kyoto Protocol
2016: Paris Agreement

Question 15

What did the Kyoto Protocol do?

Answer 15

• came into force in 2005
• wanted to reduce greenhouse gases
• No US and no more (2015) Canada
• EU is member

Question 16

What did the Paris Agreement (2016) do?

Answer 16

• commitment to well below 2 degrees
• Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)
• financial assistance -> developping countries
• capacity building framework
• legally binding monitoring of implementations
• bottom-up commitments (from sub/non-state actors e.g. cities/companies)

Question 17

What is the overall roles of IO in global climate governance?

Answer 17

Assist implementation:
-financing assistance
-administering and overseeing mechanisms
Monitoring (reports)
Info on research and data

Question 18

What are some arguments for the Paris Agreement (2016) being a failure?

Answer 18

• no legally binding emissions target (letting developed countries off the hook)
• ambiguous financial assistance
• no liability provision
• no changes in basic policy premises