Keep an eye on the blog for daily updates from Paris on what’s happening at the COP! Leave us comments if you have any questions/issues you’d like us to focus our coverage on!
Month: November 2015
Potential Inequity Leading to Paris
By Hiba Ahmed
In 2013, a World Bank report stated that climate change would affect all nations. The report further stipulated that the impact distribution was likely to be unequal, impacting the world’s poorest regions in the world. As the Paris agreements on climate change near, developing countries are looking for a plan to ensure financial and environmental assistance is deterring the adverse effects of climate change. However, the condensed, twenty-page United Nations draft of the climate agreement caused hesitation among African countries – many believed that the draft further disenfranchised and segregated them from the developed, modern world. Small Pacific countries believe that the UN-sponsored agreements are an excuse for wealthy nations to acknowledge climate change without addressing the main concerns of the international community. The Fiji Prime Minister said, “I have yet to detect the necessary political will on the part of many of the industrialized nations to face up to their obligation to humanity to effectively confront this crisis.”
Negotiations aside, climate change adversely affects developing regions of the world. In 2013, a typhoon, exacerbated by rising temperatures, left an estimated 10,000 dead and thousands homeless in the Philippines. Climate change affects Africa by increasing the frequency of severe droughts. In Asia, extreme climate changes impacts the likelihood of forest fires, floods, droughts, and cyclones. Rising sea levels directly impact small island states and their coral reefs. As the World Bank notices, developing nations are more vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change due to fluctuations in their political, social, and economic resources. For example, as the coastal cities of Africa and Asia grow, many of the city’s poorest residents create settlements on unlivable land. The new settlements are often near riverbanks with poor sewage systems, drainage, and other public services. The settlements are also not protected from flooding, an adverse effect of climate change within these regions. Historically, adverse climate conditions correlate with conflict. The likelihood of rural uprisings in China historically correlated with droughts. The present conflict in Syria also coincides with a drought in the Fertile Crescent made likely by climate change in the region.
Furthermore, smaller developing nations respond poorly to the emergencies caused by climate change due to their lack of financial resources and stability. For example, communities in developed countries build secure homes able to withstand emergency situations. In the case of disaster, insurance and government protection rehabilitates regions in need. Because of financial constraints, developing countries are unable to protect against and then restore their communities against the impacts of climate change.
While climate change unequally impacts the developing world, developed countries emit much of the pollution contributing to climate change. The nations that emit the most carbon dioxide around the world include China, the United States, Russia, India, and Japan.China and the United States combine to produce more than 40% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. While the Philippines emit 0.9 metric tons of carbon per capita, the United States emits 17.6. Therefore, developing countries believe that emitting countries should bare a financial burden to assist regions that emit less – a theme surrounding the Paris agreements.
Organizations such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) hope to display this disparity at the Paris agreements this December. The UNDP recognizes the threat of climate change on developing nations and calls to safeguard these nations by securing and financing their sustainable futures. However, researchers believe that nations at an individual level are too self-interested – the idea of cooperation, a fundamental key to unlocking success at Paris, is being ignored. In preparation for Paris, individual countries submitted their own plan for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Professors and researchers at the University of Cambridge believe that these individual plans preclude cooperation and beneficial negotiation.
Developing countries most vulnerable to climate change simply want an assured commitment to greater financial assistance to reduce the carbon input, invest in technology, and adapt to the impacts of climate change. The Fiji Prime Minister stated that developing countries are “Doomed to suffer the most negative impact of the rising temperatures caused by the carbon emissions that have accompanied the industrial age.” If cooperation is not met between developed and developing countries, the formation of a beneficial climate agreement in Paris is unlikely.
Threatened Livelihood in the Turkana Region
By Hiba Ahmed
Developing countries attempted to remind rich, developed countries of their concerns regarding climate change in Bonn, Germany. Regions in Kenya, for example, experience large threats from rampant climate change due to their social, political, and economic inability to deal with the climate crises.
Climate change threatens the health and livelihood of residents in the Turkana Region, one of the poorest regions in Kenya. With a population of 1.2 million, the government is struggling to provide access to food, water, health, and stability in the region. Within forty-five years, the temperature in the northwest corner rose between three and five degrees Fahrenheit, altering rainfall patterns and the availability of water. As riverbeds dry and lakes recede, the Human Rights Watch predicts that conflict in the region is expected to worsen as these grazing lands decrease.
The detrimental effect of climate change on the availability of water impacts fishing and agricultural economic prospects as well. Of the 1.2 million residents in the Turkana Region, many are farmers or fishermen. As the droughts continue, economic instability within the region may ensue. Furthermore, as droughts in the region continue, residents must walk longer distances to search for water in dry riverbeds in order to survive. A Turkana resident said, “The rains have stopped coming – our herds are dead, there is no water. See these children? They will never grow old like me, there is no future for the Turkana people,” recognizing the desperate conditions of the region.
Fishery in Lake Turkana is also threatened from commercial developments in Ethiopia. Ninety per cent of Lake Turkana’s water comes from Ethiopia’s Omos River, but the Ethiopian government recently developed irrigated sugar cane plantations, damns, factories, and other commercial farms along the river, impacting residents of the Turkana region by devastating the availability of water and fishery. These developments may also trigger conflict among communities competing for grazing land and water.
The goal of the negotiations in Bonn, Germany was to set a paradigm for the Paris talks in a few weeks. Instead, the Bonn conversation reiterated developed nations concerns on financial commitments.Climate change disproportionately affects regions and nations with limited resources and wealth. In order to reach a more successful discussion at Paris, developed nations must take this into account when addressing further concerns and conversations about the international role in counteracting climate change.
In Light of Paris Attacks, Need to Address Climate Change Greater Than Ever
by Sarah Pugh
The world was shaken Friday when terrorists attacked Paris, leaving at least 129 dead and more than 300 injured. But as French President François Hollande has said, “France has prevailed over much more formidable opponents than these cowardly assassins.” Part of France’s plan to move forward following Friday’s attacks involves continuing to move full steam ahead with the upcoming UN climate change summit, COP21.
Despite the tragedy, world leaders are still set to gather in Paris in less than two weeks for the much-awaited international climate talks. United States President Barack Obama has confirmed his attendance at COP21, as have many other heads of state. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has said, “[The summit] will go ahead with reinforced security measures. This is an absolutely necessary step in the battle against climate change and of course it will take place.” There have already been some changes made to the COP21 schedule of events. Public Climate marches, concerts, and other festivities related to COP21 have been canceled; however, the core climate negotiations talks will proceed as planned.
Climate change has the potential to cause grave social, economical, and environmental disasters worldwide. Some have even suggested that climate change has had an impact on the rise of terrorism and global conflict, in addition to hunger, instability, and poverty. Stephane Hallegatte, a senior economist at the World Bank, says, “Ending poverty and fighting climate change cannot be done in isolation—the two will be much more easily achieved if they are addressed together.” The same holds true for other complex global issues; climate change must become a part of the strategy. Christiana Figueres, the chair of the UN agency overseeing COP21 echoed this sentiment on social media, claiming that COP21 is needed more than ever and operates on the premise of mutual respect and collaboration. Furthermore, the attacks could possibly increase the likelihood of a successful outcome of the COP21 negotiations.
The circumstances are unfortunate, but society, economics, and politics demand a greater focus on climate change.
UN General Assembly Adopts post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals, Marking New Chapter in Development for the Next 15 Years
By Yasmeen Hussain
The end of September not only marked the formal end to summer and transition to fall, but it was also the transformation of something that will affect the world for the next fifteen years: the United Nations General Assembly formally adopted the Sustainable Development Goals over the weekend of September 25 in New York to mark a transition from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which expired this year. The Sustainable Development Goals (also referred to as the SDGs) are deemed more ambitious and comprehensive than their predecessors, outlining seventeen goals that encompass ending world hunger, eradicating poverty, achieving gender equality, ensuring health and well-being, among others, but with an emphasis on protecting the environment and promoting sustainability for the next fifteen years in order to protect our present and future generations.
To address the shortcomings on the enforceability of the MDGs, each Sustainable Development Goal has specific targets to provide further guidance for state and non-state actors, private companies, international organizations, and the international community as a whole to follow. For instance, Goal 13 states: “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.” The targets that supplement Goal 13 call for strengthening resilience of natural disasters in all nations, integrating climate change measures into national policies, improving education regarding climate change, implementing the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change by mobilizing a substantial amount of capital to address the needs of developing countries, and promoting mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change planning and management in least developing countries.
Some have criticized that these goals are too ambitious, too aspirational in nature, and do not have an effective implementation system for nations who selectively choose goals or do not follow any at all. To these criticisms, the ambitious nature of the SDGs is expanding on the successes of the Millennium Development Goals. The MDGs were broad, such as Goal 1 of Eradicating Extreme Poverty and Hunger or Goal 4 of Reducing Child Mortality, successful implementation of the MDGs have slashed extreme poverty in developing nations from 49% to 14% and reduced childhood mortality by over half. The SDGs take the shortcomings of the MDGs (such as ambiguity) and provide additional detail as guidance for the international bodies, individual states, and the international community as a whole to emulate.
Finally, in regards to implementation, follow up, and review on the progress of the SDGs, Goal 17 outlines in good detail an institutional framework for sustainable development in finance, capacity-building, multi-stakeholder partnerships, technical cooperation, technology, trade, and national sustainable development strategies. In short, for an agenda deemed to be universal in nature, their implementation, follow-up, and review processes are relatively comprehensive, perhaps drawing upon and expanding lessons learned from the MDG process.
The SDGs are a collective global effort for improving lives and preserving the environment over a fifteen year time span, in order to protect our future generations. Following the MDGs, this is a new chapter in development which brings in nearly every player in society to implement this transformative agenda.
For a supplemental document to the SDGs, please refer to Transforming Our Word: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, available at
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.
China Takes the Lead Over U.S. in Global Clean Energy Initiatives
by Sarah Pugh
Earlier this year, the U.S. and China reached a joint agreement on climate change, both promising around $3 billion to finance climate mitigation efforts. The two countries are among the largest energy users and account for 40% of the world’s carbon pollution. COP21—the global climate change conference in Paris—is now less than a month away, and China has shown incredible leadership on the clean energy front.
China has been under significant social and economic pressure to embrace clean energy resources, as air pollution and rising water levels have impacted the country. They have effectively started to move away from coal, and are instead embracing solar and wind energy solutions. Just this week China disclosed figures regarding the country’s coal use and carbon pollution, taking an important step towards transparency. The UN Climate Chief criticized members of the U.S. Republican party who oppose many of President Obama’s climate mitigation policies and claim that the U.S. economy will suffer if the U.S. turns to clean energy sources. China has experienced significant competitive advantage from their clean energy efforts.
Mitigating climate change and utilizing clean energy resources has become central to China’s economic growth strategy. Because of China’s position as a large industrializing country, it is expected that the country’s clean energy policies will serve as an example for other industrializing countries partaking in this month’s Paris conference.
A Rose by Any Other Name? The United States’ Complicated Relationship with International Human Rights and Implications for Paris – Part One: Human Rights and the U.S.
By Caitlin Cutchin
This article is the first in a two-part series on incorporating human rights language into the upcoming international climate agreement to be negotiated at COP21.
The United States should embrace human rights language in Paris this December as it works with other nations to craft a legally binding, universal agreement on climate. Not only will this indicate solidarity with other nations hoping for a robust and productive climate agreement outcome, but it will also demonstrate a continued commitment to climate mitigation and adaptation. This two-part series seeks to demonstrate the importance of gaining U.S. support for the inclusion of human rights in the upcoming climate negotiations. The human rights language being contemplated in Paris is a reiteration of other internationally recognized human rights standards that the U.S. has already agreed to support and honor. Here, it is simply a matter of applying a set of familiar principles to a new context.
So far, there are already 15 nations that have indicated support for the incorporation of human rights language. While U.S. lawmakers are, perhaps rightfully, concerned about the prospect of delegating certain legislative and adjudicatory authorities to entities outside the scope of the constitution, the advent of globalization has brought an inescapable need to build and maintain governing frameworks that extend beyond the borders of individual countries. This is particularly evident in the case of global climate change, which indiscriminately affects and, in turn, marginalizes persons of all nations.
Indisputably, the United States has a tenuous and complicated track record when it comes to adopting and implementing internationally recognized human rights standards. This reputation stems, in part, from the organizational structure of the U.S. Constitution and its requirements for the legislative process. It is not uncommon for key decision makers to shy away from universal human rights language during international negotiations both as a result of historically unilateral approaches to foreign policy, as well as out of concern for other important policy objectives—both domestic and foreign.
Though there has been a significant move towards multilateralism in recent years, vestiges of the U.S.’ isolationism remain well-entrenched in the current political landscape and continue to present significant challenges for proponents for international human rights standards. Among other examples, this is certainly evident in the U.S.’ approach to international labor laws and its reluctance to officially adopt certain ILO standards related to child labor and labor unions (though, this discussion is probably best saved for another forum).
Before delving into the details of COP21 and the need for a human rights approach, it is first helpful to understand the basic mechanics behind international legal frameworks. Within international law, treaties between countries can either be self-executing or non-self-executing. In countries with self-executing treaties, the documents become the law of the land as soon as the treaty is signed. In the United States, where treaties are considered to be non-self-executing, a treaty will only become the law of the land if it receives approval from Congress, thus, undergoing the legislative process proscribed by the Constitution. This means that treaties espousing human rights language must not only survive the gauntlet of international negotiations, but must also withstand the scrutiny of the U.S. lawmakers—an especially difficult task these days.
Historically, U.S. policymakers have been reticent to endorse and adopt international human rights language that they feel undermines other critical policy areas, often pointing to U.S. constitution as an important source of protections for its citizens. While there is some movement to integrate international principles of human rights into U.S. constitutional rhetoric and jurisprudence, there is still much work to be done.
Unquestionably, the U.S. should embrace human rights language in the upcoming climate agreement. Despite its “climate change packaging,” the proposed human rights framework for COP21 embodies a policy and value structure the U.S. has already endorsed in various different forms since the early 1990s. The only difference is that now, these values are being applied to a global climate change agreement.
States Push Back Against the Clean Power Plan: the split in US domestic ideals and their effect on the COP21
By Kimberly Reynolds
The United States set a promising path to their commitment to reducing global emissions, and thus a promising participation in a successful climate agreement for Paris in December, with the release of the final rule of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan on August 3, 2015. With electricity accounting for one third of US carbon emissions, this plan has been recognized by many as a historic step in reducing carbon emissions in the United States. Its goal is to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs) by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, with plans beginning in 2020. However, since the Final Rule was announced, it has seen a push back on its new regulations for existing EGUs under section 111(d) and new EGUs under Section 111(b).
On August 15, 2015, a coalition of states pushed back on the 111(d) ruling of the Clean Power Plan. The 111(d) ruling is the first to address regulating existing sources. The 15 states, filed an Emergency Petition for Extraordinary Writ. This writ argued that the EPA could not regulate and existing source under 111(d) if it was already regulated under Section 112. They also claim that the EPA cannot regulate emissions outside the fence line.
On November 3, 2015, a similar coalition of states, now consisting of 26 states, also pushed back against the section 111(b) ruling on new units. The states argue that the costs of implementing the Plan outweigh the benefits, and that the EPA lacks the administrative authority to regulate such units. Furthermore, they represent nearly 80 percent of the emission reductions required under the plan. However, this morning, November 6, 2015, 16 states filed a request to intervene as respondents in support of the final rule. These states only make up 12 percent of the emission reductions required.
While these pushbacks were expected, they are telling of the political environment that the United States is still confronting with regards to climate change efforts. Although nearly half the states and roughly 62 percent of the American people agree that the Plan should be implemented, the opposition represents the largest ever resistance to an EPA rule. With Paris fast approaching, and with the United States wanting to be a leader on climate action, the domestic courts reaction to these filings will demonstrate the reality of climate support in the United States. This political environment not only gives a glimpse of what the United States is dealing with as Paris approaches, yet also what countries may face domestically following a binding treaty in Paris.
The Arctic Council’s Role in Promoting Climate Change Mitigation
By Caitlin Cutchin
While any mention of the Arctic conjures images of a desolate, lawless “wild west,” would it surprise you to know that there is actually an international body specifically dedicated to its governance? The Arctic Council was formed in 1996, pursuant to the Ottawa Declaration, to promote cooperation, coordination, and interaction among the eight Arctic Member States. In particular, its aim is to emphasize sustainable development and environmental protection policies through a variety of working groups and task forces. Notably, it also includes representatives of each Arctic Indigenous community as Permanent Participants—a unique model of cooperation between national governments and Indigenous Peoples.
On October 23, 2015, Senior Arctic Officials convened in Anchorage, Alaska for the Council’s first plenary meeting since the United States took chairmanship at the beginning of 2015. One of the meeting’s highlights was its headway on its efforts to mitigate the impact of black carbon and methane. As Chair, the United States seeks to promote an agenda that includes the reduction of black carbon and methane emissions. In its framework for action, every Arctic state and Permanent Participant acknowledges the fragility of the Arctic environment and its increased vulnerability to climate warming and notes the significant impact of black carbon and methane emitted within and beyond the borders of Arctic states.
The Arctic States, led by the United States, have agreed that reductions in both black carbon and methane lead to near-term climate, health and economic benefits in the Arctic. Ultimately, this contributes to global efforts to limit the increase in global average temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
Binding Commitments: Implementation on the State Wide Level
By Kelly Carlson
The United States has been adamantly reluctant to make binding emissions target commitments during previous climate change negotiations, and most indicative of this opposition is its reluctance to sign onto the Kyoto Protocol. With 192 signatories, the United States is not among them; mostly due to the fact that the Kyoto Protocol centers around the signatories making binding commitments to reduce emissions, using self-imposed pledges. In the past, the United States has instead opted to pay other countries to reduce their emissions, such as when it implemented the Debt-for-Nature Swap program, forgiving USD$26 Million of Costa Rican debt in exchange for Costa Rica’s efforts to abate pollution and conserve tropical forest regions. While this strategy is not wholly ineffective because it presumably helps reduce pollution in the aggregate, the United States is taking a clear and somewhat unpopular political stance in doing so when it pays to pollute.
However, it appears that the United States might be turning the corner on this stance in the context of the upcoming Paris UNFCCC negotiations. On November 11, 2014, President Obama vowed alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping to reduce emissions to 26 – 28% by 2025 and 20% by 2030, respectively. Though declarations like the U.S. – Chinese agreement probably indicate that the U.S. is still taking a contingent binding commitment approach—meaning it will only agree to emissions targets if certain other major economies simultaneously and proportionately agree to emissions targets—these conversations start to paint a promising picture. Perhaps the U.S. UNFCCC negotiators will finally agree to meet emissions targets in furtherance of the two degree reduction target.
If the U.S. does agree to a binding target, the focus then turns to how such a policy would be implemented at the state level. The obvious implementation mechanism would be the Clean Air Act (CAA), which sets the national air quality standards, but authorizes the states to determine how they meet the standards. Alternatively, the government may very well intend on only using the newly promulgated Clean Power Plan rule to meet any commitments it makes at climate change negotiations.
With either strategy, the federal government will undoubtedly leave the decision on how to implement the regulations to the states. State implementation of prospective binding emissions targets for greenhouse gases remains interesting to think about because various states have already initiated strategies to combat climate change issues. These strategies, now laws in some states, have been making headway in meeting climate change mitigation goals. However effective and admirable programs like Greenhouse Gas Reporting, Climate Action Plans, and Economy-Wide Greenhouse Gas Reductions are, they will have to be streamlined and oriented to whatever federal laws are implemented.
Also, similar to the CAA amendment which contains a clause specific to California because it had already implemented similar legislation predating the federal regulations, the federal binding emissions target will probably contain similar opt out provisions for the states that already have pertinent programs in place: Hawaii, New Jersey, Minnesota, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Maine, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Washington. For the states that do not have pertinent programs in place, they will likely have to meet a subset of the emissions target using certain criteria in meeting those targets. The sub-targets will likely be broken down by industry instead of state so as to avoid ancillary issues like industry deliberately relocating operations across state lines to fall under a more favorable state’s purview. Though this means that some states will be impacted more so than others due to industry concentration, it seems like this would be the most fair way to regulate and aligned with how EPA regulations are typically promulgated.
States will then have to meet the designated emissions targets by regulating the industries operating within their borders, and as always, they will have the option to promulgate more stringent — but not less stringent — regulations, within the confines of the EPA/federally promulgated rule.
Sustainable Development Law & Policy 