Continued US membership in the Paris Agreement on climate would be symbolic and have no effect on... more Continued US membership in the Paris Agreement on climate would be symbolic and have no effect on US emissions. Instead, it would reveal the weaknesses of the agreement, prevent new opportunities from emerging, and gift greater leverage to a recalcitrant administration.
What can be done if a future US President withdraws from the Paris Climate Agreement? This is a c... more What can be done if a future US President withdraws from the Paris Climate Agreement? This is a critical question for an agreement which relies on universal participation for legitimacy. The US can and likely will ratify the Paris Agreement via a presidential-executive agreement. However, this could be easily reversed by a future President or an antagonistic Congress. A non-party US operating outside of the Paris climate architecture is a real threat, especially given Republican opposition to international climate policy. This article explores both what tools are available for addressing a non-party US in any climate agreement and what the Paris Agreement in particular can do. The Paris Agreement is extremely vulnerable to the withdrawal of the US, or any other major party. It possesses no non-party measures, although it can be amended to help avoid this Achilles heel. Through amendments to Article 6 a market link between subnational states in a renegade US and international carbon markets could be created. Ideally, a more semi-global approach with punitive carbon border tax adjustments could be taken to help US-proof an alternative climate agreement. The Paris Agreement will be fatally susceptible to a US dropout unless amendments to the treaty are made. Relying on the good will of a single president is shortsighted. Longer-term climate gov-ernance needs to take seriously the threat of non-parties, particularly if they are superpowers. Policy relevance This article explores how to craft an effective climate treaty without US ratification, including through reforms to the Paris Agreement. While the US is likely to be able to be able legally adopt the Paris Agreement through a presidential-executive agreement there is a distinct possibility of the US withdrawing and repealing such an agreement due to a change in president. This article suggests that the Paris Agreement is vulnerable to such an occurrence and thus the insights of this research are both timely and relevant to delegations and others involved with the UNFCCC. It will be of use to domestic US actors, as well as international negotiators and scholars in dealing with a non-party US and non-parties in general.
The issue of US ratification of international environmental treaties is a recurring obstacle for ... more The issue of US ratification of international environmental treaties is a recurring obstacle for environmental multilateralism, including the climate regime. Despite the perceived importance of the role of the US to the success of any future international climate agreement, there has been little direct coverage in terms of how an effective agreement can specifically address US legal participation. This paper explores potential ways of allowing for US legal participation in an effective climate treaty. Possible routes forward include the use of domestic legislation such as section 115 (S115) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the use of sole-executive agreements, instead of Senate ratification. Legal participation from the US through sole-executive agreements is possible if the international architecture is designed to allow for their use. Architectural elements such as varying legality and participation across an agreement (variable geometry) could allow for the use of sole-executive agreements. Two broader models for a 2015 agreement with legal participation through sole-executive agreements are constructed based upon these options: a modified pledge and review system and a form of variable geometry composed of number of opt-out, voting based protocols on specific issues accompanied with bilateral agreements on mitigation commitments with other major emitters through the use of S115 and sole-executive agreements under the Montreal Protocol and Chicago Convention (Critical Mass Governance). While there is no single solution, Critical Mass Governance appears to provide the optimum combination of tools to effectively allow for US legal participation whilst ensuring an effective treaty.
In this report we have taken stock of GHG reduction policies in Australian states, territories an... more In this report we have taken stock of GHG reduction policies in Australian states, territories and capital cities, as well as selected sub-national jurisdictions overseas, and compared them to targets, policies and measures in the Australian Capital Territory. Policies across the world and within Australia are taking place in very different local circumstances. The ACT is among a leading group of sub‑national jurisdictions nationally and internationally in terms of its emissions targets and its renewable energy targets and policies. The target for zero emissions by 2060 and reduction targets for 2020 and 2050, in a clear legislated legal form and coupled with a strategy for regularly reviewing and achieving the goal, are best practice. In some areas of relevance other jurisdictions – in particular international ones – can provide leading examples from which the ACT could benefit on the road to achieving its ambitious GHG emission targets. Learning from other jurisdictions could be timely, especially with regard to active transport policies, the size and coverage of public transport, and powering both public and private transport by electricity, which in the near future of the ACT will be low in emissions. Such transformation also improves local air pollution, public health, traffic congestion and the liveability and attractiveness of cities.
Continued US membership in the Paris Agreement on climate would be symbolic and have no effect on... more Continued US membership in the Paris Agreement on climate would be symbolic and have no effect on US emissions. Instead, it would reveal the weaknesses of the agreement, prevent new opportunities from emerging, and gift greater leverage to a recalcitrant administration.
What can be done if a future US President withdraws from the Paris Climate Agreement? This is a c... more What can be done if a future US President withdraws from the Paris Climate Agreement? This is a critical question for an agreement which relies on universal participation for legitimacy. The US can and likely will ratify the Paris Agreement via a presidential-executive agreement. However, this could be easily reversed by a future President or an antagonistic Congress. A non-party US operating outside of the Paris climate architecture is a real threat, especially given Republican opposition to international climate policy. This article explores both what tools are available for addressing a non-party US in any climate agreement and what the Paris Agreement in particular can do. The Paris Agreement is extremely vulnerable to the withdrawal of the US, or any other major party. It possesses no non-party measures, although it can be amended to help avoid this Achilles heel. Through amendments to Article 6 a market link between subnational states in a renegade US and international carbon markets could be created. Ideally, a more semi-global approach with punitive carbon border tax adjustments could be taken to help US-proof an alternative climate agreement. The Paris Agreement will be fatally susceptible to a US dropout unless amendments to the treaty are made. Relying on the good will of a single president is shortsighted. Longer-term climate gov-ernance needs to take seriously the threat of non-parties, particularly if they are superpowers. Policy relevance This article explores how to craft an effective climate treaty without US ratification, including through reforms to the Paris Agreement. While the US is likely to be able to be able legally adopt the Paris Agreement through a presidential-executive agreement there is a distinct possibility of the US withdrawing and repealing such an agreement due to a change in president. This article suggests that the Paris Agreement is vulnerable to such an occurrence and thus the insights of this research are both timely and relevant to delegations and others involved with the UNFCCC. It will be of use to domestic US actors, as well as international negotiators and scholars in dealing with a non-party US and non-parties in general.
The issue of US ratification of international environmental treaties is a recurring obstacle for ... more The issue of US ratification of international environmental treaties is a recurring obstacle for environmental multilateralism, including the climate regime. Despite the perceived importance of the role of the US to the success of any future international climate agreement, there has been little direct coverage in terms of how an effective agreement can specifically address US legal participation. This paper explores potential ways of allowing for US legal participation in an effective climate treaty. Possible routes forward include the use of domestic legislation such as section 115 (S115) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the use of sole-executive agreements, instead of Senate ratification. Legal participation from the US through sole-executive agreements is possible if the international architecture is designed to allow for their use. Architectural elements such as varying legality and participation across an agreement (variable geometry) could allow for the use of sole-executive agreements. Two broader models for a 2015 agreement with legal participation through sole-executive agreements are constructed based upon these options: a modified pledge and review system and a form of variable geometry composed of number of opt-out, voting based protocols on specific issues accompanied with bilateral agreements on mitigation commitments with other major emitters through the use of S115 and sole-executive agreements under the Montreal Protocol and Chicago Convention (Critical Mass Governance). While there is no single solution, Critical Mass Governance appears to provide the optimum combination of tools to effectively allow for US legal participation whilst ensuring an effective treaty.
In this report we have taken stock of GHG reduction policies in Australian states, territories an... more In this report we have taken stock of GHG reduction policies in Australian states, territories and capital cities, as well as selected sub-national jurisdictions overseas, and compared them to targets, policies and measures in the Australian Capital Territory. Policies across the world and within Australia are taking place in very different local circumstances. The ACT is among a leading group of sub‑national jurisdictions nationally and internationally in terms of its emissions targets and its renewable energy targets and policies. The target for zero emissions by 2060 and reduction targets for 2020 and 2050, in a clear legislated legal form and coupled with a strategy for regularly reviewing and achieving the goal, are best practice. In some areas of relevance other jurisdictions – in particular international ones – can provide leading examples from which the ACT could benefit on the road to achieving its ambitious GHG emission targets. Learning from other jurisdictions could be timely, especially with regard to active transport policies, the size and coverage of public transport, and powering both public and private transport by electricity, which in the near future of the ACT will be low in emissions. Such transformation also improves local air pollution, public health, traffic congestion and the liveability and attractiveness of cities.
Uploads
Papers by Luke Kemp
as well as selected sub-national jurisdictions overseas, and compared them to targets, policies and measures
in the Australian Capital Territory.
Policies across the world and within Australia are taking place in very different local circumstances. The ACT is among a leading group of sub‑national jurisdictions nationally and internationally in terms of its emissions targets and its renewable energy targets and policies. The target for zero emissions by 2060 and reduction targets for 2020 and 2050, in a clear legislated legal form and coupled with a strategy for regularly reviewing and achieving the goal, are best practice. In some areas of relevance other jurisdictions – in particular international ones – can provide leading examples
from which the ACT could benefit on the road to achieving its ambitious GHG emission targets. Learning from other jurisdictions could be timely, especially with regard to active
transport policies, the size and coverage of public transport, and powering both public and private transport by
electricity, which in the near future of the ACT will be low in emissions. Such transformation also improves local
air pollution, public health, traffic congestion and the liveability and attractiveness of cities.
Book Reviews by Luke Kemp
as well as selected sub-national jurisdictions overseas, and compared them to targets, policies and measures
in the Australian Capital Territory.
Policies across the world and within Australia are taking place in very different local circumstances. The ACT is among a leading group of sub‑national jurisdictions nationally and internationally in terms of its emissions targets and its renewable energy targets and policies. The target for zero emissions by 2060 and reduction targets for 2020 and 2050, in a clear legislated legal form and coupled with a strategy for regularly reviewing and achieving the goal, are best practice. In some areas of relevance other jurisdictions – in particular international ones – can provide leading examples
from which the ACT could benefit on the road to achieving its ambitious GHG emission targets. Learning from other jurisdictions could be timely, especially with regard to active
transport policies, the size and coverage of public transport, and powering both public and private transport by
electricity, which in the near future of the ACT will be low in emissions. Such transformation also improves local
air pollution, public health, traffic congestion and the liveability and attractiveness of cities.