Inside Copenhagen: The State of Climate Governance

Abstract

This article clarifies the outcome of the Copenhagen climate conference from the perspective of a government delegate. Access behind closed doors reveals the full extent of the damage. The failure at Copenhagen was worse than our worstcase scenario but should not obscure a bigger and brighter picture. Aggregate climate governance is in healthy condition that contrasts with the plight of multilateral climate governance. While the multilateral UN process is damaged, multilevel governance comprising regional, national and local climate policies worldwide is steadily gaining speed. The challenge to the academic community is to develop a composite measure of multilevel governance that captures aggregate public and nonstate policy initiatives at various levels. (c) 2010 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Reassessing the Links between GHG Emissions, Economic Growth, and the UNFCCC: A Difference-in-Differences Approach

“…Annex I countries set emissions reductions targets for 2020 [16]. These pledges were non-binding, and the Accord was beset with several other issues, including the number and scope of international agreements to be negotiated; targets for temperature increase, carbon concentrations, and aggregate emissions reductions; the methods for determining country targets; and the role of agricultural and forest policy [17]. However, even if the high-income countries were to fulfill their emissions reduction commitments under the Copenhagen Accord, the target of 2 • C may never be met [18].…”

From conflict to resilience? Explaining recent changes in climate security discourse and practice

“…(Interview, UK senior government official, 11 November 2011, London) Simultaneously to these scientific developments, it became apparent to UK representatives that international climate politics would fail to deal with this fundamental threat (Dimitrov 2010). The failure to agree on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol during the Conference of the Parties 2009 at Copenhagen was increasingly seen as indicative of an insurmountable government impasse.…”

Determinants of bargaining success in the climate change negotiations

“…This is rather surprising given that most accounts of the climate change negotiations claim that powerful countries, such as the US, China, India and Brazil, have the most influence (see e.g. Dimitrov, 2010b;Cozier, 2011). So how can the results of this study be aligned with the usual interpretation of the negotiation process?…”