Transcript: climate, Change video 1, Global efforts to address

climate change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up in 1988 to review

scientific evidence on global warming. Their latest assessment shows that
climate change is a reality and that humans are the cause through greenhouse
gas emissions. Despite nearly three decades of government led negotiations,
our global emissions have not yet peaked. Since the IPCC first assessment in
1990, annual emissions have increased by 50 percent worldwide, and are at the
highest level in the atmosphere in at least the last 800,000 years. In this
segment, we investigate why state head negotiations have been largely
ineffective in reducing emissions to date. We look at the nature of the problem,
the effectiveness of these solutions, and a few innovations. To understand
the challenge that policymakers face in tackling climate change, we need to
examine the problem itself. Our atmosphere, the air we breathe is a global
commons. We all have access to it and no one owns it. Let's think for a moment
about the tragedy of the commons. In 1833, William Lloyd observed that common
land in villages became depleted or destroyed. The reason was that each
individual had a personal incentive to graze their cattle and sheep on land
they did not own. And no one was responsible for maintaining that land. In
the long term, due to soil erosion the whole village was worse off. The
individual incentives of farmers differed from the collective incentives of
the community. In the case of our atmosphere, industry has an individual
incentive to emit greenhouse gases in order to produce our everyday goods and
services. Just as a farmer would not maintain common land, industry tends not
to internalize the negative costs to society of climate change. The need for
government intervention stems from this market failure and its associated
negative consequences on the environment. There are complicating factors too.
The most abundant greenhouse gas carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for
a long time. So, new greenhouse gas emissions are additional. The source of
emissions is also diverse generated from industries, communities and
individuals requiring change on all levels. Now that we understand the
challenge of the global commons, let's turn our attention to efforts aimed
at reducing emissions. In the early 1990s after the IPCC's first assessment
report, a hierarchical state centric system was proposed for governing
emissions. We set up a series of multilateral environment agreements starting
with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. Of
all these agreements, a Kyoto Protocol was the most effective at achieving
legally binding emissions cuts. However, Kyoto faced some serious challenges.
The protocol only imposed binding emissions targets on developed countries.
In 1990, developed countries were responsible for two thirds of emissions were
then responsible for less than half today. So, the Kyoto Protocol covered an
increasingly small piece of our global emissions pie. The largest emitter,
the United States didn't ratify the treaty and colors are pulled out. So, the
protocol was challenged by limited participation. Ultimately, the targets set
under the Kyoto Protocol in the first commitment phase between 2008 and 2012
were achieved at relatively low cost, because of the global economic crisis.
Kyoto two the most recent version of the protocol, covers less than 15 percent
of global emissions after Japan and Russia refused to sign. On the bright side,
the protocol has inspired some voluntary action. For instance, even though
the United States didn't ratify it, Seattle cuts its emissions in line with
the protocol and is now aiming for carbon neutrality by 2050. Seattle's response
is at the heart of an alternative solution, which involves creating coalitions
of the willing to cut emissions. The climate accord signed in Paris in 2015
was successful because each country volunteered their contributions to reduce
greenhouse gases, forming coalitions of the willing. Reflecting on these two
approaches, the primary challenge with a top down Kyoto Protocol was getting
full participation. You can have an ambitious global agreement, but if you
don't have full participation, you won't have the impact that you seek. The
challenge to the bottom up approach used in Paris is reaching the ambition
level required. The pledges of countries are not sufficient to reduce warming
to two degrees. Although, negotiators hope to ratchet up these commitments
through reviews every five years. The first of which is set for 2018. In both
cases will need full compliance with pledges made. The voluntary pledges made
in Paris are too easy to renege on as we've seen in the case of the USA under
President Trump. Even in the case of Kyoto, the treaty wasn't enforceable
although it is legally binding. So, there's no mechanism for penalizing
countries in the case of non-compliance besides through public naming and
shaming. This is different to the World Trade Organization, which has an inbuilt
dispute settlement mechanism. Ultimately, delivering on the climate agenda
will require a balance between participation, ambition and compliance.