The ‘New’ Impacts of the Implementation of Climate Change Response Measures

Abstract

One of the more politically sensitive elements of the Paris package (although one of the less well known) is how it addresses the negative impacts of mitigation action on economic developmentalso known as 'response measures'. This article analyses the Paris outcome in the context of protracted discussions on response measures across the historical span of the climate negotiations. First, it charts the widening scope of the debate beyond the traditional concern of oilexporting developing countries about the negative economic impacts of decarbonization. Other developing countries have also raised concerns in relation to sectors such as agriculture and tourism, especially from trade-related measures. Second, efforts at constructing an institutional space have had mixed results, finding deadlock on the appropriate structure for substantive discussions. The Paris Agreement marks a new phase in how response measures are treated in the global climate change governance architecture, reflecting the substantive and institutional evolution of the subject.

COP26 and the dynamics of anti‐fossil fuel norms

“…The text of the 1992 UNFCCC does not refer to fossil fuels as a cause of climate change. The only mentions of fossil fuels are in the context of the possible impact of climate change “response measures” (i.e., measures to reduce emissions) on fossil fuel‐producing countries (Chan, 2016). The Paris Agreement does not mention fossil fuels at all, though its goal of “[m]aking finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate‐resilient development” (UNFCCC, 2015, Article 2(1)(c)) can be interpreted as an inducement to shift financial flows away from, among other things, fossil fuels (van Asselt & Kulovesi, 2017).…”

Intercontinental shipping in the European Union emissions trading system: A ‘fifty–fifty’ alignment with the law of the sea and international climate law?

“…This wording reflects a compromise of the historical dispute within UNFCCC negotiations on whether, in light of the CBDR-RC principle, developing countries should be supported, or even compensated, for economic impacts they may suffer as a result of developed countries' climate policies. 147 The latter were hesitant to acknowledge a general right of developing countries to financial support or compensation for such potential economic impacts, as it could lead to disproportional liabilities-for instance, requests to compensate the losses of oil-exporting developing countries due to decreased fossil fuel demand, caused by developed countries' stringent climate policies. 148 In 2018, the UNFCCC parties established a forum dedicated to fleshing out how negative economic consequences of response measures can be minimized for developing countries, while maximizing potential cobenefits.…”

Fossil Fuel Subsidies and the Global Climate Regime

“…avoid any reference to energy' in the Convention (Dessai 2004: 19). Their concerns were reflected in the Convention and have led to a protracted discussion on the impacts of 'response measures' on developing countries (Depledge 2008;Chan 2016).…”