Was This Years Summit Even Worth It?

There is a national debate about climate change and the steps needed to create international fundamental goals. In Government 306 and Government 459 (Seminar of Comparative politics) students have been discussing whether or not adequate change will come about in the future.  With the current UN Climate Summit just happening its important that new objectives are created to focus on reducing carbon dioxide and other green house gas emissions.

In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was created as an international agreement. Developed under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Kyoto was created to reduce emissions on green house gases. The goal of Kyoto was to mainly prevent dangerous emissions that were human made and have green house gas emissions reduced by 5%. However with very few incentives and poor technology replacements Kyoto did not accomplish its goals that were set out. Over time emissions in countries increased, and States who originally ratified the protocol pulled out of the agreement.

Even as Kyoto was not perceived as successful, I do believe that it was a stepping stool for climate change. After Kyoto, the Montreal Protocol was formed. Signed in 1987 and effective in 1989 Montreal is considered a more successful agreement in fighting climate change. The Montreal protocol, had incentives for compliance, and technology replacements (wind/ solar power). This protocol specifically identified a problem and a specific gas—Chlorofluorocarbons.

For an agreement to be successful it must possess these three things:

            1) Attract a broad participation

            2) Deter countries from not complying

3) Have substantial action required for all countries to participate and comply too

(How Not to Repeat the Mistakes of the Kyoto Protocol, Scott Barrett)

            A major key difference that is noted within the Kyoto Protocol, Montreal Protocol, and even the UN Summit is the idea of Pusher States, Dragger States, Intermediate States, and Bystander states. Without the help of powerful states pushing for specific ideas, an overall agreement can fail. This is seen within the Kyoto Protocol when the United States and China were classified as dragger states.

            Recently the UN Climate Summit was held on September 23^rd in New York. However, on the day of the summit, not all international leaders were in attendance. Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron; Indias Prime Minister, Narendra Modi; Chinas Premier, Xi Jinping; Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin; India’s Prime minister, Narendra Modi; and the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Modi we not there. Out of 190 potential world leaders, only around 120 were there. From the leaders listed above, representatives did show up in their place. (Link to the article titled below)

            I do not believe that these states listed above are “draggers” but I definitely do not believe they are extreme pushers. As China is rapidly developing within industrialization, and India is constantly developing in population, these two states have historically produced high emissions (11 slide in Lecture 8). Even as Britain has their own Carbon Budget established through the Climate Change Act, and Russia is dealing with foreign affairs (Ukraine), I do think that for these two countries the Climate Change Summit was not a major priority. If huge political leaders in these countries do not show up, it does show that climate control is less of an importance. 

            Apart of this argument I do believe that emission reductions will stay small and only gradually reduce. I think that at this point until new technological booms advance, the reduction of green house gases will plateau.  For example, France decided to donate 1 billion to the Green Climate Fund. The Green Climate Fund was created to allow developed countries to transfer money to developing nations. The money being transferred would assist in climate change practices, projects, programs, and policies.  The Green Climate Fund is a great idea, however, I do not believe it will significantly reduce climate change. Even as it will prevent progressive climate change in other countries, I do not think it will adequately make an influence on developed nations with their climate control.

            For a significant reduction in climate change, all state actors need to be involved. When other states 1) have other priorities or 2) believe that they have done enough, it makes for a steady but small increase in change.  As much as I like to believe green house emissions will reduce, I think the progress in the next years will be ineffective.

(Leaders under fire for failure to attend post-UN climate summit meetings http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/24/leaders-under-fire-for-failure-to-attend-post-un-climate-summit-meetings)