Number of results to display per page
Search Results
402. The Need for Governance of Climate Geoengineering
- Author:
- Janos Pasztor
- Publication Date:
- 12-2017
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Abstract:
- Sooner rather than later, policymakers around the world will need to confront an uncomfortable reality: that despite the best efforts of national governments and thousands of mayors and other civic leaders, we can no longer contain global average temperatures to below 1.5–2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels through mitigation of carbon emissions alone. It is widely acknowledged that even if the world stopped all emissions today, there would still be a rise in global temperatures to a level that would stay for hundreds of years (the lifetime of the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere) before temperatures began to drop, thus constituting a temperature “overshoot.” For many experts the question is no longer whether the world can keep the temperature rise below the goals stipulated in the Paris Agreement, but by how much will the world miss that target and how long will the overshoot last. For many experts the question is no longer whether the world can keep the temperature rise below the goals stipulated in the Paris Agreement, but by how much will the world miss that target and how long will the overshoot last. The acknowledgement of this temperature overshoot—alongside a growing appreciation of its devastating impact on people’s lives, the global economy, and the environment—may mark a new inflection point in our efforts to manage the risks of climate change.1 When you add to this the U.S. president’s announcement in June 2017 that the nation would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, it comes as no surprise that a growing number of scientists are thinking about additional approaches to managing the risks of an overshoot. Perhaps most dramatically, we have seen a resurgent interest in a field that once resided at the fringes of science or on the pages of sci-fi novels, but which is now being taken quite seriously in academic circles: geoengineering. As this interest develops, it is becoming more likely that a group of countries or cities or even one or more wealthy individuals might decide to deploy geoengineering technologies during the coming decades. We need to be ready for any such eventuality; and being ready means considering a host of pressing questions. How would we govern such actors? Who assesses the balance of risks and rewards when deploying geoengineering technologies? What safeguards and what compensation mechanisms need to be built in? If we start deliberately altering global temperatures, who controls the global thermostat? It was to address these questions that the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative was born: to bring the profoundly complex issues of geoengineering governance and ethics to a much wider audience.2 We are potentially at the dawn of an age of geoengineering. It is time for policymakers to start discussing whether geoengineering is to go forward and, if so, how.
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Environment, Governance, and Geoengineering
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
403. Global justice and environmental governance: an analysis of the Paris Agreement
- Author:
- Marcelo Santos
- Publication Date:
- 12-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Journal:
- Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional (RBPI)
- Institution:
- Instituto Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais (IBRI)
- Abstract:
- Based on the major normative political theory contributions on global climate justice, the present paper analyzes the new international agreement on climate change, adopted at COP 21 in Paris (2015). Therefore, a literary review of the extensive normative theoretical discussion about global climate justice is made, with special attention to the two approaches that have permeated multilateral political negotiations - historical responsibility and equal per capita emissions. From this normative discussion, this paper recalls the global climate change negotiation process, focusing on the Kyoto Protocol. Next, the analysis emphasizes on the Paris Agreement in an effort to evaluate the normative questions on justice and equity within the environmental governance regime. Finally, the set of conclusions indicates that, although the flexibility of the Agreement has encompassed some dimensions of responsibility, necessity and ability to bear the costs, the most complex dimensions of justice and equity has not been completely solved, which may hinder the operation of environmental governance in a near future.
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Governance, Justice, and Paris Agreement
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
404. “We Did Not Have Tornadoes or Typhoons”
- Author:
- A. Kokorin
- Publication Date:
- 01-2017
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy and International Relations
- Institution:
- East View Information Services
- Abstract:
- This intervew discusses an increase in natural disasters.
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Environment, Natural Disasters, and Paris Agreement
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
405. Disrupted: The Feminist Foreign Policy Issue
- Author:
- Marissa Conway
- Publication Date:
- 12-2017
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy
- Abstract:
- It seems wonderfully fitting that we're celebrating the Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy's one year anniversary with the launch of Disrupted, focusing this issue on none other than feminist foreign policy itself. At CFFP, our endgame is the adoption of feminist foreign policy worldwide as we believe it to be one of the best solutions to combat the elitest, inequitable, and harmful foreign policies we see all too often. The aim of this journal is to highlight both established and emerging voices, and to seek to understand how the everyday actions of people - actions which might seem simply social or even private - are decidedly politically charged, and vice versa. We challenge assumptions about the unquestioned objectivity of policy - assumptions which miscalculate power structures and tend to leave an analysis of international politics lacking. We attempt to understand how the identities of both subjugated and the elite interact to reify systemic bias, and perhaps most importantly, we do not presume the authority to speak on behalf of anyone else. Ultimately, we see a feminist analysis of foreign policy not only as compelling, but as indispensable to achieve a more equal world. Thank you so much for supporting this publication. CFFP is a grassroots, volunteer run organization and we're proud to lead the way in making foreign policy more feminist, more transparent, and more intersectional. With your support we're amplifying a different and more nuanced conversation that can better inform policy decisions and begin to alleviate inequality at both a global and local level.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Climate Change, War, Feminism, and Young Adults
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
406. Innovations in Global Governance
- Author:
- Miles Kahler and Deborah Avant
- Publication Date:
- 09-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Abstract:
- Over the last three decades, a diverse collection of actors—private corporations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and subnational (state, provincial, and urban) governments—has developed and promoted a global agenda of collective action. From advancing human rights to combating climate change, these actors have become new governors in world politics. More recently, a second movement—a loose array of populist and nationalist groups and governments—has questioned the forward momentum of institutionalized global cooperation. Brexit, followed by the Donald J. Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Agreement on climate change, as well as proposed cuts in U.S. contributions to the United Nations and development assistance, suggest a weakening—if not undermining—of the network of treaties, institutions, and relationships constructed over the last seventy years. Each of these movements aims to transform a global order based on intergovernmental agreements and institutions. The first movement has already done so by increasing participation in global governance of new actors who are pursuing cooperative outcomes in collaboration with and independently of national governments and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs). Their involvement both complements and complicates the traditional international order. The second movement, in contrast, asserts national interest and sovereignty against the constraints of global governance. Although the conflict between these two movements remains unresolved, they will likely shape the future global order.
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Human Rights, Governance, and NGOs
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
407. Labor Rights & Climate Change
- Author:
- Melissa Rary
- Publication Date:
- 05-2017
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center on Human Rights Education, University of Denver
- Abstract:
- As COHRE wraps up the academic year in the coming weeks, the Center’s focus on labor rights is coming to an end, despite the vast range of important topics left to be discussed. We cannot touch on every aspect of labor rights, though it is important that the international community remain vigilant in advocating for increased respect of labor rights, particularly as we enter into an uncertain age of technological advancement and a changing climate. With this blog, I aim to shed some light on labor issues in relation to climate change, a topic often left out of academic discourse. Population increase and decreasing availability of shared resources including water and land are exacerbated by the indisputable climactic changes the earth is facing. Climate change will also affect respect for labor rights in significant ways, and if the international community is aware of these vulnerabilities, adaptation and mitigation mechanisms can be more effective in addressing the issues.
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Environment, Human Rights, and Labor Rights
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
408. Bird Flu — It’s What’s for Dinner: What Human Population Growth and Climate Change Mean for the Future of Avian Influenza Outbreaks
- Author:
- Nahid Bhadelia
- Publication Date:
- 07-2017
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Fletcher Security Review
- Institution:
- The Fletcher School, Tufts University
- Abstract:
- China is currently experiencing its fifth epidemic of “bird flu,” or avian influenza H7N9, since 2013 when it was first noted to cause human infections. The virus, which is mainly transmitted from poultry to humans, is also prone to limited human-to-human transmission. To date, there have been 1,258 human cases, with one-third of those cases (460) occurring during this year’s epidemic alone.[1] There are many “subtypes” of avian influenza circulating in birds around the world and most of these viruses cause limited or no human infections. However, two avian influenzas subtypes causing high human mortality have jumped from birds to humans in the last decade, H5N1 and then H7N9. The significant potential of this class of viruses to cause a human pandemic is a global public health concern, particularly because the conditions leading to the rise of these infections are becoming more favorable — for the viruses.
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Environment, Health, and Infectious Diseases
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, and Global Focus
409. Recurring Storms Food Insecurity, Political Instability, and Conflict
- Author:
- Emmy Simmons
- Publication Date:
- 01-2017
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
- Abstract:
- Renewed and expanded international collaboration to anticipate and prepare for recurring storms of food insecurity is essential. Afghanistan, Nigeria, and Syria are examples that vividly underscore the explosiveness of situations in which people find themselves unable to get the food they want and need. The experiences of post-conflict countries highlight some critical issues that need to be prioritized in order to regain sustainable food security. Averting future storms will require the recognition that food security challenges will extend long beyond 2030, political leadership must be visibly committed to these issues, and actions to reduce fragmentation of effort will be critical.
- Topic:
- Climate Change, Environment, Food Security, and Political stability
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
410. Trump’s Paris Exit A blow to climate politics, but a boon to regional climate policy?
- Author:
- Milan Elkerbout
- Publication Date:
- 06-2017
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)
- Abstract:
- The withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement represents a setback for global climate action. But the damage will be felt more in political and diplomatic terms than in terms of climate policy or reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which depend at least in the near term on domestic climate policies. The election of Donald Trump and the strong Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress that accompanied his election immediately dispelled any hope that the US would implement or maintain ambitious climate policies. Indeed, in the first months of his Presidency, Trump signed an executive order to review (and thus likely roll back) President Obama’s landmark climate policy – the Clean Power Plan. The latter initiative aimed to reduce power-sector emissions by 32% by 2030 through federal legislation. Other US climate policies, such as vehicle standards and methane regulations, are also destined for the axe. Taken collectively, these measures will make it very difficult for the country to meet its Paris pledge of reducing GHG emissions by 26-28% by 2025 compared to 2005, even if another personality occupies the White House by 2021. 1 Improving fundamentals for renewable energy may still allow the US to reach its 2020 target of a 17% reduction in emissions compared to 2005. But the difference between this target and the formal pledge made by the US in Paris is roughly equal to the annual emissions of the entire transport sector in the EU.
- Topic:
- Climate Change, International Affairs, and Climate Finance
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus