Three Models of Global Climate Governance: From Kyoto to Paris and Beyond

Abstract

The Paris Agreement has emerged as one of the world's most important international treaties. Many believe that it offers a new approach to the problem of climate change, can contribute significantly to the goal of reducing emissions, and may hold lessons for how to govern other cross‐border issues. As a result, it has been the focus of considerable debate among scholars and policy makers. But how precisely does Paris seek to govern global warming and is it likely to work in practice? We address this question by contrasting the Paris ‘model’ of climate governance with earlier ones associated with the Kyoto Protocol and Copenhagen Accord. These models have taken different approaches to the problem of governing climate change, each with attendant advantages and limitations. The Paris model advances upon earlier efforts in certain respects, but also blends elements from earlier models. We then lay out the central axes of the debate that has emerged about the future of the Paris model, and discuss research illuminating how it may operate in practice. The agreement's success will depend on how the agreement is implemented, and on how the UNFCCC process interacts with the complementary approaches to climate governance appearing beyond it.

Delaying decarbonization: Climate governmentalities and sociotechnical strategies from Copenhagen to Paris

“…In the leadup to the Copenhagen COP - where a post-Kyoto framework was to have been agreed upon - it was clear that collective confidence in the UNFCCC had broken down. Key issues included global targets, a re-drawing of where responsibilities for emissions reductions would now lie, and issues of finance and adaptation in most vulnerable states; with a fragmenting global politics and austerity-driven lack of resources hanging over the regime ( Gupta, 2010 ; Held and Roger, 2018 ). Layering Bäckstrand and Lövbrand's papers with concurrent analyses, we note that both governmentalities began to converge upon a set of overlapping characteristics that is still being cemented today.…”

“…‘Green governmentality’- the Kyoto-era's regulatory, top-down, compliance-based logic - was rooted in a post-1970s tradition of centralized environmental regime design. With the Kyoto Protocol's failings increasingly exposed, and short on resources and attention, pre-Copenhagen COP negotiations pivoted from ‘making Annex I larger’ towards voluntary, non-binding, ‘nationally determined’ efforts ( Held and Rogers, 2018 ). This arrangement attracted support from states on either side of the Annex I divide.…”

“…For some, Kyoto's logics had always needed to cater to more plural perspectives, sites, and activities than could be managed by an IPCC-UNFCCC duopoly ( Prins and Rayner, 2007 ). For others, the cloud overshadowed the silver lining, with Copenhagen representing an ‘enhanced status quo [in which] states did what they were willing’ ( Held and Roger, 2018 ) in a system of ‘shared unaccountability’ ( Ciplet and Roberts, 2017 ).…”

“…The prevalence of both governmentalities is reflected in various literatures. The top-down, regulatory model of Kyoto is broadly acknowledged ( Gupta, 2010 ; Held and Roger, 2018 ), and came to be the subject of critique as action endemically fell short of pledges ( Prins and Rayner, 2007 ); the potentials of a turn towards polycentric governance remains debated ( Ciplet and Roberts, 2017 ; Bernstein and Hoffmann, 2019 ). The market rationality in climate governance reflecting carbon capitalism as a hegemonic social system ( Oels, 2005 ; Lövbrand and Stripple, 2011 ) is also the subject of liberal environmentalism, which explores norms ( Bernstein, 2001 ), and climate capitalism or commodification, reflecting a vast political economy literature on carbon's marketization ( Paterson & P-Laberge, 2016 ).…”

Introduction: Climate Governance After Paris

“…It includes four articles. The first, our own, explores the Paris ‘model’ itself, contrasting it with two earlier approaches associated with the Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen Accord (Held and Roger, ). By highlighting the different features of each model, we seek to cast the uniqueness of the Paris approach in sharp relief.…”