Reaching global agreement on a plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is one of the most challenging issues facing the international legal community today. Each country is different and has its own goals and political agendas. A plan to reduce GHG emissions in France might not work for China, and vice versa. So, how can the international community come up with a workable plan before it’s too late?
David Hunter, director of the Program on International and Comparative Environmental Law at American University Washington College of Law, spoke to a group of California Western students and faculty about the progress that’s been made over the last 20 years to reach an international agreement to reduce GHG emissions. While the conversation is ongoing, it appears that a one-size-fits-all approach might not work.
Adopted in 1997 at an international convention in Kyoto, Japan, the Kyoto Protocol set binding targets for 37 of the world’s industrialized nations and the European community to reduce GHG emissions. The protocol has been signed and ratified by 191 states. Hunter says the Kyoto Protocol was a “top-down scientific approach,” where each country committed to reduce their GHG emissions with the goal of limiting global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius in the future.
Early on in the discussions, the United States helped lead the international effort to enact the Kyoto plan, but over time, domestic politics changed. Under President George W. Bush’s administration, the United States chose not to adopt the plan.
“We thought Kyoto would be enough to move things along in the U.S., but we were wrong,” said Hunter. “Hardly ever does international law shift domestic law in the United States, it’s quite the opposite.”
Another complicating factor is the growth of China and India’s economies over the past two decades, and the corresponding growth in their carbon footprint. During the mid-90s, China and India rejected the targets set for more developed countries like the United Kingdom. Now, China is the world’s largest annual emitter of greenhouse gas emissions and India ranks close behind. According to Hunter, the cooperation of those two countries is essential to the global plan to reduce emissions.
“We now need to figure out climate change at the same time as we are figuring out a new world order,” said Hunter.
At the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009, a new model began to emerge. Instead of asking each country to agree to a binding agreement to reduce GHG emissions, each country would state what was feasible for them. This approach allowed the developing countries, who may have higher priorities than reducing GHG emissions, to begin making positive changes without having to agree to a binding commitment.
At the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2011 in Durban, South Africa, an agreement was reached to adopt a universal legal agreement on climate change as soon as possible, and no later than 2015.
In the meantime, Hunter believes the international community will move forward with the comparative approach discussed at the Copenhagen Summit and negotiate a more binding global agreement in the future to meet the goal of limiting global temperature increase to two degrees Celsius. However, it remains unclear whether the United States can agree on a domestic policy to reduce GHG emissions.
The conversation about climate change continues on April 2, when Arizona State Law Professor Daniel Bodansky discusses “The Future of the UN Climate Change Regime: The Road from Durban” at UC San Diego.