Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Is the UNFCCC process flawed?
Not far enough
. The first major flaw in the UNFCCC procedure is that it has failed to de-
liver any lasting agreement and it has been criticized for not going far enough with the sug-
gested targets. This is based on the scientific view that a global cut of up to 60 per cent on a
1990 baseline is required to prevent major climatic change by 2050. If room is to be left for
development, it would mean that the developed world would have to cut emissions by at
least 80 per cent.
No enforcement
. The fundamental problem with international agreements and treaties is
there there are no real means of enforcement. This was one of the arguments that the USA
used when proposing the Copenhagen Accord, suggesting that even binding targets must in
effect be voluntary as countries decide whether or not to comply. This is why policies and
laws are required at a regional level, such as the EU, and at a national level, such as the
UK's Climate Change Act. The only way to translate international treaties is through re-
gional and national laws. This multi-level governance is also required to stop gaming of
particular systems.
Green colonialism
. Many social and political scientists have raised philosophical and ethic-
al doubts about climate negotiations as a whole. The main concern is that they reflect a ver-
sion of colonialism, since rich developed countries are seen to be dictating to poorer coun-
tries how and when they should develop. Countries such as India and China have resisted
calls to cut their emissions, stating that it would damage their development and attempts to
alleviate poverty. Others have supported measures such the CDM as they provide a devel-
opment dividend moving money from the rich to the poorer countries. Again, however,
since 80 per cent of the project credits are allocated to China, Brazil, India, and Korea,
which are among the richest developing countries, funding is still not necessarily reaching
the world's poorest. Also, 60 per cent of carbon credits have been purchased by the UK and
the Netherlands, resulting in a very skewed financial exchange. The moral high ground of
supposedly anti-green colonialism was employed by the EU and international NGOs during
the Kyoto Protocol process to block the suggestion of global carbon trading. They felt that
those who had polluted the most should be the first to cut back. However, national NGOs
such as Greenpeace Brazil, some developing countries, and the USA argued strongly that
global carbon trading was the only way forward to ensure everyone signed up to the Kyoto
Protocol. In many ways the then US president, Bill Clinton, knew the only way to get emis-
sions reduction policies through Congress was to include a trading mechanism. As we
know, the moral high ground won and only CDMs were included. It led to the USA's with-
