Paris Agreement 2015

Physics defines heat as; Thermal energy transferred from a hotter system to a cooler system that is in contact, the heat energy unit is Joules (J), In general, three different modes of heat transfer are recognized: Conduction, convection, and radiation. The theory of the greenhouse effect erases the infrared radiation and the heat transfer by contact of the gas molecules in the atmosphere (14°C), and teaches us that the greenhouse gases (0.04% of the atmosphere), They receive a radiation heat transfer from the surface of the earth whose average temperature is 2.82°C, and these gases re-radiate it in all directions. We see many errors in the theory of the greenhouse effect; 1. When radiation heat transfer occurs is produced by changes in the electronic configurations of constituent atoms or molecules and transported by electromagnetic waves or photons. 2. It tells us that the surface of the Earth does not transfer its heat to the Atmosphere by conduction, when it is in contact with its surface, but by radiation. 3. It tells us that the Sun emitting infrared radiation at all known wavelengths does not emit infrared radiation at the wavelength emitted by the earth's surface. 4. It does not take into account all molecules in the atmosphere that also emit their temperature as infrared radiation. 5. It only takes into account 0.04% of the molecules in the atmospheric system, as a new way of transferring heat, not by its own infrared radiation, but as a way to radiate the heat radiated by the earth's atoms. 6. It teaches us that the earth's surface with an average temperature of 2.82°C can transfer irradiated heat to the greenhouse gases of the atmospheric system, with an average temperature of 14°C.

In 2015, the Paris Climate Change Agreement was adopted, and in the ensuing years, countries, along with researchers, civil society and industry have been debating how to implement concrete action to address the climate challenge. The link between climate change and human security was first recognised in the early 2000s. This paper examines how climate change has exacerbated uncertainty and instability in vulnerable populations in different regions. It achieves this by looking at diverse national and local experiences through multiple policy lenses, namely, the proliferation of extreme weather events, coastal erosion and sea level rise, internal displacement, cross border migration, and climate change as a threat multiplier. It looks at specific cases in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Pacific Islands and the Levant to understand how human (in)security is being affected by climate change. It also addresses the future of global climate policy by assessing the current state of climate policies in light of the Paris Agreement. Global action on climate change is urgent. While many developed countries like to avoid notions of climate justice and differentiated responsibilities, the reality for the most vulnerable countries is that supranational policy is crucial if they are to tackle the climate challenge at home. This paper emphasises the importance of having meaningful and focused national climate adaptation and mitigation policies in place in order to address both the avoidable and unavoidable impacts of climate change on the economy, the culture and ultimately the security of a country.

This study finds that as climate change plays an increasingly important role in discussions of security, comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to climate-induced security threats and geopolitical (in)stability both nationally and around the world. The Paris Agreement was a good first step in driving countries to commit to curbing emissions and drafting climate adaptation action plans. We now need the global climate regime – including countries, industry, and researchers – to step up to the plate and implement effective policies if we are to limit the serious impacts of climate change. The findings in this paper aims to contribute
to the global debate around security and climate change.

Los problemas relacionados con el cambio climático, el medio ambiente y las catástrofes provocan situaciones de crisis que podrían considerarse como una amenaza para el ser humano. Por esta razón, el Derecho internacional debe enfrentar estas situaciones. El Bioderecho representa un nuevo enfoque de estudio que se centra en la protección de los seres humanos y sus derechos, junto con el desarrollo normativo
del Derecho internacional de las catástrofes. Este documento es un estudio actualizado sobre los estándares legales de las catástrofes desde el punto de vista del Bioderecho internacional. Para ello, analizamos uno de los instrumentos internacionales más recientes
en esta esfera, el Acuerdo de París. Esta investigación se centrará en cómo el Derecho internacional —y particularmente el Acuerdo de París— enfrenta el desafío de la reducción y mitigación del riesgo de catástrofes relacionados con el clima (prevención de catástrofes).

(in Greek)
In their efforts to combat the major problems which are affecting the international community, the United Nations established the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs include a wide scope of actions which aim at promoting both the international collaborations as well as the cooperation of public and private sectors in order to improve the quality of life of all people. Apart from the presentation of the SDGs and the methods of their implementation, in the present article we discuss the contribution of the United Nations to the effort to bind together development and environmental protection (in particular by tackling climate change), as the latter is now considered a step of great importance in improving human life on the planet.

An overview of regulations relating to emissions with relevance for countries with as little attention as little attention to climate change regulation as used to be typical for Russia until now. For instance variants of the event triggering the border tax and it’s amount are discussed as well as the effect of corporate carbon reduction programs, and conclusions are drawn for companies.

The Paris Agreement has been hailed as a significant, but not sufficient, step on the path to halting anthropogenic climate change. Rather than allocating emissions based on a top-down limit, the Paris Agreement depends on bottom-up ‘Nationally Determined Contributions’. The success of the agreement has to a significant degree depended on the increasing acceptance by governments and even businesses of the idea that climate change mitigation and economic growth can converge. Much of the optimism regarding the outcome of the Paris Agreement, even in the face of the threat of US withdrawal, is based on the belief that technology and economics will bring about decarbonization of economies. This chapter examines the possible conflict between the climate change order of the Paris Agreement and an economic order that increasingly focuses on national interests which are often given priority over an open global economy. The EU, China and the US have varying and conflicting commitments to these orders.

The Paris Agreement that was signed by 195 countries on December 2015 is considered both a success and a failure to the climate change politics.  It was another failure to the comprehensive integrated regime approach, but a success to the new dominant approaches “regime complex”.  There is a shift of approach of climate politics, from a comprehensive integrated regime to the ‘regime complex’ approach.    The same approach is also taken by the United Nations’ Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs).  The initiative is ‘a microcosm of a larger crisis in contemporary governance’.  The UNGPs is not part of a comprehensive and integrated global regime, but they demonstrate that it is possible to achieve a level of convergence of norms, policies, and practices.  Both, the Paris Agreement and the UNGPs on Business and Human Rights, are examples of the polycentric governance.  They can be used as ‘tools’ for the affected people, to give a voice and demand the States and Businesses.  These tools could create ‘double’ pressure to demand people’s rights over environmental degradations that were caused by business operations and the government’s inabilities to prevent such violations.  The paper suggests that there should be an increase of climate action together with human rights movements, especially in Asia.  The new ASEAN Economic Community might lead to the increase of economic growth, however it might also increase adverse impacts in the environment and human rights, if the process does not concern to prevent such issues.  More pressure should be given to the government and businesses, in order to accelerate the pledges that were widely presented at the Paris Agreement.  Afterall, climate change issues is our human rights issues.

Changing the Face of the Earth and its Waters
Shé Mackenzie Hawke
Mediterranean Institute for Environmental Studies (MIOS) Science and Research Centre, Koper,
(ZRS) Slovenia; she.m.hawke@zrs-kp.si
My presentation Funded by SCORE -European Commission https://score-eu-project.eu
This presentation examines the interactions between all life, water and the complex adaptive system that is planet Earth. I will address the idea that the human species must now cross-examine itself and its recklessness since the onset of the Great Acceleration of the Anthropocene (1-2) in the 1950s. Disrupting our comfort zones, obsessions, bias and unnecessary consumerism, is an ethical imperative now. It necessarily calls on economics, technology and science, philosophy and cultural studies, public policy and everyday people as expert witnesses, to come together to resolve the complex climate issues that threaten planetary care. For a ‘Green Deal’ to be possible, we must produce innovative yet realistic futures. An inter-disciplinary stock-take of both past and present practices is required. Against the back drop of the recent Slovenian Water Act Referendum (11 July 2021), I will discuss why business proposals for Slovenian dams continue to threaten our wellspring, despite the European Commission’s Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 (Section 2.2.7) committing to ‘restore 25,000 kilometres of water to a free flowing state’ (https://ec.europa.eu/info/index_en ). Why would we now work against the flow?
As an example, I will in particular present realisable, state-of-the-art sustainability measures that reduce and re-use household water. MIOS was recently funded by the European Commission Horizon 2020 (LC-CLA-13-2020-2: Smart Control of the Climate Resilience of European Coastal Cities) inter-disciplinary project, to develop a water redistribution system (©SHINK2C) for bathrooms, to offset: water wastage, and the need for dams and de-salinisation. This research will enable Slovenia to merge innovative science and technology, with citizen science and uphold the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and act inclusively towards climate change mitigation that involves the public and youth as citizen scientists.
We cannot exoticize climate change as some external ‘other’ any longer. We are climate change – part of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS), (3) of life, for which we have been given the capacity to govern. Life is contingent on understanding our connections between the ground we stand on, the air we breathe and the water that falls free from the tap. This paper applies CAS, as part of a co-created and connected way towards climate change resilience using the example of rivers and their inter relationships with human culture (4-5).
(1) Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J., & McNeill, J. R. (2007). The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 36(8), 614-621. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[614:TAAHNO]2.0.CO;2
(2) Steffen, W., Crutzen, P., Grinevald, J., & McNeill, J. (2011) The Anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspectives Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A.369842867 http://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0327
(3) Prigogine, I., and Stengers, I. (1984), Order Out of Chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature, Bantam Books: New York
(4) Hawke, S. & Palsson, G. (2017). Water Futures, Biosociality, and Otherwise Agency. ANUAC 6 (1), 233-52.
(5) Spannring, R. & Hawke, S. (2021). Anthropocene challenges for youth research: understanding agency and change through complex, adaptive systems. Journal of Youth Studies https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2021.1929886

On May 26, 2021, The Hague District Court (commerce division, first instance) ordered Royal Dutch Shell (hereinafter RDS, the multinational giant oil & gas company) to reduce the total emission of CO2 of the entire Shell Group by 45 per cent, compared to the levels of 2019 (much more than planned). The reason is that, even if RDS’ current amount of emissions is not contrary to existing regulations and thus is not unlawful per se, its current corporation policy and future climate targets violate the private law obligation by which everyone must act in compliance with the “due standard of care”, as to not cause unjust harm to others (see Art. 162, §2, Book 6, Dutch Civil Code). The judicial order is expressively qualified as “immediately enforceable” and RDS has already announced that it will appeal it.

Technology can be of both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ in nature. While both kinds of technologies are applicable for climate change mitigation technologies, the latter kind is more appropriate for climate change adaptation. This is because unlike mitigation technologies, most of the adaptation methods involve some form of technology  that broadly cannot be considered as mere product or equipment. Instead, these technologies are broadly considered as various forms of ‘knowledge’ or ‘know-how’. While the mostly ‘product’ or ‘tool’ based ‘hard’ kinds of mitigation technologies are protected by intellectual property rights (IPRs) and brings financial benefit to the IPRs holders, typically ‘knowledge’ or ‘information’ based ‘soft’ kinds of adaptation technologies are vastly considered as ‘public good’, which are not protected by IPRs, nor bring any financial profit for the knowledge generators or the original knowledge holders. This paper assesses whether these soft kind of ‘knowledge’ or ‘know-how’ climate change adaptation technologies can be brought under modern IPRs system as such considered as commercially valuable. The study suggests some modification of existing system, where necessary. Finally, the study suggests introducing a ‘sui generis’ protection for community knowledge or traditional knowledge adaptation technologies.

This chapter considers climate-induced migration and displacement following climate disasters. It focuses on disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation; relocation and resettlement in the event of displacement; and financing, compensation and risk transfer. It
also highlights three major new initiatives which are likely to better protect the rights of climate displaced persons including: the new synergies between the Paris Agreement, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, and the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals; the 2016 Task Force on Displacement under Warsaw International
Mechanism on Loss and Damage; and the proposed 2018 UN Global compact for safe and orderly and regular migration.

Climate change poses an existential threat to Small Island Developing States (SIDS). They have played a leading role in raising awareness of climate change on the international stage and advocating for strong climate action, notably through the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). Despite their heterogeneity, they succeeded in building a common diplomatic discourse and influencing strategy, and mobilized political leaders as well as talented negotiators and advisors. Small Island States were a crucial group in the negotiating period up to, during the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21), and for the entry into force of the Paris Agreement. SIDS succeeded to secure their special circumstances as vulnerable countries, demonstrated leadership in raising ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to help secure an ambitious long-term temperature goal of limiting global warming to below 1.5 °C, and advanced the complex debate on loss and damage. Small Island States face major challenges to advance their leadership on climate change moving forward: securing immediate actions for those particularly vulnerable countries and increasing their influence within and outside the climate change negotiations. For Small Island states, the 1.5 °C goal should be considered " the visible part of the iceberg " for their diplomacy in a post-Paris context.

This article discusses why cities are essential for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement. After an introduction to the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement, the article analyses the role of cities in the context of these two key agendas. Moreover, the article highlights the New Urban Agenda agreed upon at Habitat III, the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development, which took place in 2016 and represents a key step towards implementing the 2030 Agenda. Finally, the article presents some of the key steps ahead and provides concluding comments.

This Article examines the role of international law in the innovation and transfer of green technologies in the context of South-South cooperation. It argues that collaboration merely between developed and developing countries is insufficient and that cooperation among advanced developing and developing countries is essential. To ensure wide innovation and transfer of green technologies, international laws dealing with climate change and international trade related issues must play major roles. As such, this Article demonstrates how these branches of international law can facilitate South-South cooperation in the innovation and transfer of green technologies and proposes methods for creating a favorable environment for innovation and transfer in light of the global climate regimes and trade-related legal frameworks.

Renewable sources of energy exist naturally without depletion since they replenish themselves naturally. Some of the renewable sources of energy include geothermal energy, solar energy, hydropower, bioenergy, wave and tide energy, and wind energy. Unfortunately, the world is experiencing uncontrollable population growth which subsequently leads to continual and excessive consumption of renewable sources of energy. As a result, trade and investment have also developed globally with individuals and states attempting to meet their basic and economic needs. In the long run the excessive use of the energy has resulted to several challenges including depletion of fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental issues.

What is the Paris Agreement and how does it account for refugees of climate change-induced migration? What contingencies does this document hold for climate refugees? The short answer is, nothing. The Paris Agreement does nothing for climate refugees, it barely acknowledges their existence.

At present there are 18 emission trading schemes (ETS) operating in the world. At the COP21 in Paris a clear path for climate and energy policies has been outlined over the coming decades: states have committed themselves to reach zero net emissions by the second half of this century and to maintain the average global temperature rise well below 2 °C, with an additional effort to stay within 1.5 °C. 191 countries, whose emissions cover 98.9% of global greenhouse gas emissions, have already submitted their INDCs/NDCs. The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, it presents a review of the existing ETS and the incumbent ones, like the Chinese national scheme. The ETS currently existing are summarized in a table and than described. Moreover, an overview of the countries which are planning to start new cap-and-trade systems is provided, as well as a table showing which countries included a reference to an ETS in their INDC/NDC. Second, it offers a comprehensive overview about what the countries included in their NDCs about national ETS and international carbon markets. In fact, many developing countries are now considering to access carbon finance to fulfil part of their commitments. But in order for them to receive this kind of finance, and therefore to be able to achieve their climate targets, there has to be a demand for credits. For this reason, understanding whether there will be this match between demand and offer for carbon credits will lead to more efficient choices in policy making, for both sides of the market and thus contribute to the achievement of the Paris Agreement.

The purpose of this paper is to propose mechanisms to improve the alignment of international climate finance with national priorities for the implementation of the Paris Agreement Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), by mapping practice and identifying barriers to the alignment of finance by Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) – which include Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) and
Bilateral Development Banks (BDBs) – to NDCs and possible solutions to overcome these barriers.

The findings of this study show that NDCs are not inherently designed as portfolios of bankable investment projects. The paper also explores the needs to create standard mechanisms for tracking NDC progress and innovative solutions to address them. Mainstreaming NDC-aligned finance into global financial systems can align to both countries’ priorities and the Paris Agreement goals. As a result, when financial systems align to the Paris Agreement, they can inherently also align to the 2030 Agenda, and promote sustainable development. A certain degree of systemic change across stakeholder approaches would be needed however for these solutions to become prevalent.

‘Sustainability’ and the ‘eradication of poverty’ have taken center stage in supranational financial frameworks meant notably to help the economies of Asia, Latin America and Africa.

This is certainly a welcome evolution, but it should not supersede or overshadow the paramount need for growth-oriented policies in both Northern Hemisphere and developing nations : such a policy realignment will only be made possible by massive public investment in modern infrastructure assets at federal, state and municipal level, and citizen-investors (pension fund trustees) exercising more forcefully their governance role across the boards of companies large and small.

The Paris Climate Agreement, reached in December 2015, is designed to drive greater climate action, while allowing countries to choose their own targets and mitigation measures. This diversity and scale-up in ambition will increase interactions between climate measures and trade. This paper analyses countries’ nationally-determined climate contributions (NDCs) from a trade perspective. It assesses which countries address key trade elements, and explores options for trade frameworks to support climate efforts and ways to minimise potential conflicts between the trade and climate regimes. While trade-related elements feature prominently in countries’ climate contributions, there is tremendous untapped potential to use trade for driving climate action. The paper proposes ways for future NDCs to positively incorporate more trade elements and create a mutually reinforcing relationship between the climate and trade regimes.

The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (Convention) central principle of equity and ambition. However, the current negotiations toward a new climate agreement to be made in Paris in December 2015 risk redefining common but differentiated responsibilities as subjective, by allowing States to self-differentiate their mitigation commitments.

Climate change is a global ecological crisis that demands a global diplomatic response. The Convention sets a framework for that response, but it has not yet adopted an agreement with universal effect.

Debates about common but differentiated responsibilities have recurred since the Convention’s drafting. The Kyoto Protocol implemented a binary differentiation between developed Annex I Parties and developing Non-Annex I Parties. Through the Bali Action Plan, the Parties sought a more universal treaty that differentiated between Parties according to the annexes. In Copenhagen in 2009, these negotiations failed.

As a result, the Parties to the Convention launched a new track of
negotiations in Durban in 2011, aiming to adopt a new agreement under the Convention, applicable to all Parties. Controversially, the mandate agreed in Durban did not refer to either common but differentiated responsibilities or the annexes. The new agreement is due to be agreed in Paris in December 2015.

In the negotiations since Durban, States have endeavoured to reconcile the mandated universality of the new agreement with common but differentiated responsibilities. These negotiations have confirmed that the Parties to the new agreement will indeed be differentiated, but have inched towards a model of self-differentiation.

The draft text of the new agreement contains several overlapping models for differentiation, including: retaining the existing annexes; creating new annexes; adopting a global emissions budget and equity reference framework; allowing Parties to self-differentiate subject to a formal equity review process; and allowing Parties to self-differentiate without a formal review.

The Paris conference is highly likely to incorporate one of the two self-differentiation models into the new agreement. If it does not include an objective equity review process, it will redefine common but  differentiated responsibilities to be nationally determined, and so subjective.

This will both reinforce and reflect existing inequities between States.

Abstract
We now live in the geological epoch called the Anthropocene (Crutzen & Stoermer, 2000; Steffen et al., 2011; Zalasiewicz et al., 2008; Steffen et al., 2016; Morton, 2016; Sørlin, 2017; Ellis, 2018). In this age, Anthropos, through human activities, technologies and alterations of the global environment have begun to affect the whole life-critical zone of the Earth more than ever before, and more than anything else (Lin, 2010; Latour, 2017). The consequences are many: “the great acceleration” of technology, industry, agriculture, and an over-use of natural resources (McNeill & Engelke, 2016), mass extinctions (see for example Chap.  2), global warming (Oreskes & Conway, 2011), collapse of eco-systems (Steffen et al., 2006), and the spread of pandemics and multi-resistant bacteria. All this promises an ever more impoverished earth if we continue along the prevailing trajectory. Innovative, integrated, achievable, and inclusive pedagogical intervention into climate change and Anthropocene damage, form the two-pronged yet intertwined focus of this collection.

Forests have recently begun to play an increasingly important role in the fight
against climate change. While initially this was not the case, the evolution
of international negotiations in this area has highlighted the important role
played by forests in relation to climate change, through tools and mechanisms
such as Sustainable Forest Management, reforestation, conservation,
reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the contribution
of forests to adaptation to climate change. These aspects have been
relevant in the climate negotiations, and they have also had a development
in Colombia; however, it is required a review and update of the regulatory
framework in the matter, to recognize and strengthen the role of forests in
climate change, in order to respond to the Paris Agreement.

The Paris Agreement seeks to address the problem of climate change, a pressingly urgent issue, and one that is extraordinarily difficult to tackle. A primary mitigation mechanism is the requirement that member countries report their nationally determined contributions ("NDCs") goals and provide metrics for measuring progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is a "bottom-up" mechanism that does not bind parties to particular emissions targets, but acts to shift party behavior by making progress transparent. To predict the potential effectiveness of this mechanism, this Comment investigates the effectiveness of a similar mechanism contained in Agenda 21, a plan of action for sustainable development adopted in 1992.

Numerous recent studies project that 'climate engineering' technologies might need to play a major role in the future. Such technologies may carry major risks for developing countries that are often especially vulnerable to, and lack adaptive capacity to deal with, the impacts of such new technologies. In this situation, one would expect that developing countries-especially the least developed countries that are most vulnerable-should play a central role in the emerging discourse on climate engineering. And yet, as this article shows in detail, the discussion about whether and how to engage with these technologies is shaped by experts from just a small set of countries in the Global North. Knowledge production around climate engineering remains heavily dominated by the major research institutions in North America and Europe. Drawing on information from 70 climate engineering events between 2009 and 2017 along with extensive document analysis, the article maps a lack of involvement of developing countries and highlights the degree to which their concerns remain insufficiently represented in politically significant scientific assessment reports. The article concludes by sketching options that developing countries may have to influence the agenda on climate engineering, reflecting on earlier attempts to increase control over novel technologies and influence global agenda setting.

Environmental governance can be defined as interventions aimed at producing incentives to conserve the environment, improve knowledge, institutions, decision making and behaviours related to ecological balance. Trinidad and Tobago has committed to a decentralised environmental governance strategy through principles of the 2005 National Environmental Policy and the operationalization of the Green Fund in 2008 to provide financial resources to eligible organisations to achieve policy goals related to the protection and conservation of the environment. From 2008 to 2016 the Green Fund has provided funding for 21 of 116 proposals received with a success rate of 10 projects certified from 83 proposals for civil society organisations.

This paper examines literature related to the role of civil society in environmental governance, best practices in engaging civil society and the effective delivery of environmental funding. The purpose of this study is to question the factors which currently inhibit civil society participation and lay the foundation for effective Green Fund access among intended beneficiaries in the context of achieving sustainable development and national environmental policy goals.

Given the lack of general awareness of the Green Fund, key actors representing civil society organisations, tertiary and state institutions engaged in accessing or administering the Green Fund were interviewed. Feedback from knowledgeable participants seen in Chapter 4 represent the most comprehensive body of information on the factors inhibiting civil society participation in the Green Fund and outline the thoughts on how the Green Fund can be optimally utilised.

This paper concludes that funding for environmental protection and conservation must consider the strengths and weaknesses of important environmental governance actors and allocate resources to achieve collective success by ensuring diverse sectors have the capacity to fulfil their mandates. Recommendations for improving civil society participation in the Green Fund are also provided.

Keywords: Ibrahim Sekou Abdullah, Green Fund, Civil Society, Environmental Governance, Participation, Sustainable Development

This paper presents an overview of the advantages and disadvantages of using non-compliance procedures versus adjudication pursuant to compulsory dispute settlement clauses under multilateral environmental agreements.

Advice on the choice of mechanism is presented to States based on five factors: jurisdictional basis, ease of access, expertise and independence of the board, the range of measures available and the degree of enforcement possible.

The combination of political and climate crises in early 2017 create the conditions for the ultimate perfect storm. The dramatic collapse of polar ice-sheets, coupled with climatic and weather conditions increasingly hostile to human life and livelihoods, appear to demand an immediate
international response at precisely the moment when coordinated political action appears unattainable.
Governments have agreed to limit warming to 1.5C or ‘well below’ 2C, but the world remains on course for disaster. There is currently no plan or framework for closing the gap between action and goal. More specifically there is no common framework to support either the equitable division of the remaining carbon budget or the quantification of rights to finance (upon which any equitable division of the carbon budget must depend).
In Part 2 of this paper we describe the legal avenues to implementation of the Blueprint framework described in Part 1 of this article.

This paper focuses on the analysis of the multilateral regime of climate change from the perspective of the regimental complex. It examines the role of the BASIC countries in the signing of the new climate agreement in Paris and its relationship with traditional powers like the United States and the European Union. The role of the BASIC countries has been crucial to close a new deal, and in exchange for that power, the group has accepted two conditions: a bottom-up agreement and nationally determined contributions as a vehicle for climate action. Similarly, the diffusion of power in the international system means that although the triangle formed by the BASIC-EU-US has been critical to achieving a new climate agreement, other actors also played an important role in the negotiation process of COP 21.

In December 2015, the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Paris Agreement. It establishes a general framework for a universal, long-term climate regime under the UNFCCC. Following its entry into force, the Agreement will be formally binding on its Parties. This paper focuses on developing country Parties’ commitments on all of the substantive areas of the Agreement (mitigation, etc.), distinguishing those that are mandatory from those that are voluntary.

Climate change is now affecting every country on every continent. It is disrupting national economies and affecting lives, costing people, communities and countries dearly today and even more tomorrow. People are experiencing the significant impacts of climate change, which include changing weather patterns, rising sea level, and more extreme weather events.

Dear Friends/Co-sailors,

I am happy to share with you that I have taken up this 'honorary' position of Country Manager for India of the Climate Scorecard Project. 

As part of this global citizen initiative, that aims at aiding the Paris Accord, we produce a report each month focusing on one specific area.  The current issue, that also has my first contribution as Country Manager, focuses on success stories from 22 nations.  Please have a look and I am hopeful you will find the stories useful.

Thanks and regards,

Ranjan

Liberalization of the European internal market for energy by means of unbundling and third party access alone is not enough to make renewable energy on a par with fossil fuels. To increase the production of renewable energy in its Member States, the EU has in place a set of legal instruments to promote the scale up of renewable energy production through i.e. setting binding targets for renewables and providing a legal framework for support schemes. However, while arguably consistent with EU disciplines pertaining to State aid, EU support schemes can easily fall foul of WTO subsidy disciplines. This article argues that EU and WTO law are disconnected paradigms in this respect: EU legislation by its design at-tempts to legitimize support schemes for renewable energy, not necessarily taking into account their consistency with the WTO ASCM. WTO law, on the other hand, currently provides too little space for subsidies that further legitimate policy goals, such as environmental protection and climate change mitigation.

This paper uses Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) as submitted by India to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as a research tool to assess the success of India’s path towards renewable energy. It maps the blueprint India has been following to achieve its NDCs and traces the shortcomings and challenges for the same. This analysis has then been compared with Japan’s evolution of Energy Policy, with specific emphasis on post Fukushima disaster energy transition, and in lieu of Japan’s own NDCs. By using a comparative analysis framework, it has been shown how and in which broad policy areas there emerges a mutual scope for cooperation between the two countries, which are not only on the same path of diversifying their energy mix but are also looking at the role of green leadership in future in the Asian region as well as globally.

Adopté le 12 décembre 2015 lors de la COP21 et entré en vigueur le 4 novembre 2016 – moins d’un an après son adoption, ce qui est inédit au plan international – l’accord de Paris a permis de restaurer la confiance en la convention climat, vue désormais comme un forum dynamique du multilatéralisme après avoir longtemps été critiquée pour la lenteur de ses négociations.

Le 21e siècle aurait-il débuté le 12 décembre 2015 ? Comment la diplomatie française a-t-elle réussi le premier pacte universel sur le climat, le « plus important accord international du 21e siècle », là où d’autres avant avaient échoué ?

Cette étude propose le point de vue du négociateur et revient sur la formation d’une équipe tendant au succès et sur l’articulation du technique et du politique avant d’examiner la préparation de la COP21 et son déroulement.

L’équipe en « mode commando », en « mode gestion de crise », a su inspirer la confiance des acteurs des négociations en se fondant sur des principes de transparence, d’écoute et d’« inclusivité ».

Cette étude se focalise ensuite sur le processus de négociation en montrant comment l’équipe de négociations, que l’on a appelée « l’équipe de France du climat », a élaboré une stratégie résidant sur la poursuite d’un équilibre ambitieux et sur des concessions de la part de tous, plutôt qu’un accord sur le plus petit dénominateur commun.

Climate change is one of the most wicked problems we have to deal with in the 21st century. No need to say, it is a problem of politics. The paper will first outline, taking a historical perspective, the institutional developments global climate change governance has been experiencing within the last two decades, with a particular focus on the contrast between Kyoto Protocol (KP) and Paris Agreement (PA) and their distinctive mode of governance. It is going to argue that the PA created an atmosphere not only for the flourishing of transnational and national actors but also for the popping up the Green New Deals all across the world.
The conflictual relationship between different national legal orders is likely to turn to a more coordinated one thanks to the fertile mode of governance established with the PA. In its final part, the article will analyze this turn to cooperative relationship, upon having shown the deficiencies of GAL and mere political approaches, through the lenses of inter- legality.

This paper draws on normative principles embedded within the international climate regime in order to sketch an institutional reform that would help to bridge the growing gap between existing climate policies and the demands of climate justice. The paper explains why developed countries’ nationally determined contributions are currently insufficient and unfair, and then develops a normative framework based on the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” that would make future national contributions more ambitious and more just. The point is to include an equity calculator to countries’ nationally determined contributions and to explain why this proposal is institutionally feasible.

Cet article s’inspire des principes normatifs ancrés dans le régime climatique onusien pour proposer un dispositif institutionnel permettant de réduire l’écart grandissant entre les politiques climatiques internationales et les exigences de la justice climatique. Il explique pour quelles raisons les engagements nationaux des pays développés sont insuffisants et inéquitables à ce jour. Il développe ensuite, à partir de la norme dite « des responsabilités communes mais différenciées et des capacités respectives », un cadre normatif pour rendre les engagements futurs plus ambitieux et plus justes. L’objectif est d’intégrer un calculateur d’équité aux contributions nationalement déterminées des pays et d’expliquer pourquoi cette proposition est politiquement faisable.

https://www.cairn.info/revue-negociations-2017-1.htm

The rapid change in the planetary climate became one of the most relevant challenges for the 21st century.2 Increasing temperature levels are affecting almost all spheres of life and endangering
political, economic, social and civil security. In the unstable realities, without proper management, cooperation and implementation of effective solution climate change provokes increased economic
struggles, international and local political pressure (threatening peace and security) and puts human rights at a higher risk of violation.3 Urgent actions for climate change adaptation and associated risks
mitigation has been declared as the 13th Sustainable Development Goal Agenda for 2030 by the UN General Assembly Resolution.4 At the same time, international law has failed to an effective attribution of responsibility of the states to take action for the sake of adaptation by the Kyoto Protocol. In 2015, during the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Paris 196 countries signed the Paris Agreement (PA) for keeping the planetary temperature degrees not higher than 2 degrees Celsius.5 The treaty came into force a year later, but has captured attention of researchers due to uneven legal nature and enforceability with regards to the effectiveness of the adoption. This paper describes the elements of concern, issues the presupposition of the PA and argues the aspects of the latest within the system of international climate change law, studies the correlation between the legal mechanisms and efficacy of the PA, compares and challenges the concepts developed within the document in the context of international climate law. Through the analysis of the concepts developed or neglected within the UN Climate Change Framework, the paper discusses the material and procedural state obligations, their practical effects on the situation. Relying on the Republic of Kazakhstan example, paper issues the practical domestic attribution to the state responsibility within the Agreement and compares the existing approaches to the management of climate change in international law.  Paper proves the problematic aspects of climate change  regulation and for maintaining peace and security, it also offers to provide complex urgent solution put into action, challenging the international law.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is a significant and potentially innovative addition to UNFCCC frameworks for mobilizing increased finance for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Yet the GCF faces challenges of operationalization not only as a relatively new international fund but also as a result of US President Trump’s announcement that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Consequently the GCF faces a major reduction in actual funding contributions and also governance challenges at the levels of its Board and the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP), to which it is ultimately accountable. This article analyzes these challenges with reference to the GCF’s internal regulations and its agreements with third parties to demonstrate how exploiting design features of the GCF could strengthen its resilience in the face of such challenges. These features include linkages with UNFCCC constituted bodies, particularly the Technology Mechanism, and enhanced engagement with non-Party stakeholders, especially through its Private Sector Facility. The article posits that deepening GCF interlinkages would increase both the coherence of climate finance governance and the GCF’s ability to contribute to ambitious climate action in uncertain times.