What Happened (and Why): An Assessment of the Cancun Agreements

[kristopher]

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/analysis/stavins/?p=876

What Happened (and Why): An Assessment of the Cancun Agreements

December 13th, 2010
By Robert Stavins

The international climate negotiations in Cancun, Mexico, have concluded, and despite the gloom-and-doom predictions that dominated the weeks and months leading up to Cancun, the Sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP-16) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) must be judged a success. It represents a set of modest steps forward. Nothing more should be expected from this process.

As I said in my November 19th essay – Defining Success for Climate Negotiations in Cancun – the key challenge was to continue the process of constructing a sound foundation for meaningful, long-term global action (not necessarily some notion of immediate, highly-visible triumph). This was accomplished in Cancun.

The Cancun Agreements – as the two key documents (“Outcome of the AWG-LCA” and “Outcome of the AWG-KP”) are called – do just what was needed, namely build on the structure of the Copenhagen Accord with a balanced package that takes meaningful steps toward implementing the key elements of the Accord. The delegates in Cancun succeeded in writing and adopting an agreement that assembles pledges of greenhouse gas (GHG) cuts by all of the world’s major economies, launches a fund to help the most vulnerable countries, and avoids some political landmines that could have blown up the talks, namely decisions on the (highly uncertain) future of the Kyoto Protocol.

I begin by assessing the key elements of the Cancun Agreements. Then I examine whether the incremental steps forward represented by the Agreements should really be characterized as a success. And finally I ask why the negotiations in Cancun led to the outcome they did....

Full text: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/analysis/stavins/?p=876

*Robert N. Stavins is the Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government, Director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, and Chairman of the Environment and Natural Resources Faculty Group.

[pscot]

1. And hast thou slain the Jabberwok?

Come to my arms my beamish boy
Calooh callay
Oh frabjous day
He chortled in his joy

[GliderGuider]

2. Proving once again that you just can't lose if you set the bar low enough.

:banghead:

[NickB79]

4. +1. NT

[kristopher]

5. Yet another paper you didn't read?

[NickB79]

6. No, I did read it

And what I saw was a lot of back-slapping and congratulations for agreements to reduce CO2 that were completely non-binding and toothless. No hard targets, no means of enforcing even their vague ideals of where we should be 10 years from now on carbon reduction, nothing of substance. And no consensus on extending Kyoto either.

Basically, they agreed that they should meet again to agree with one another next year on more empty promises. Just as they have been doing for years now, and all the while the permafrost thaws, the oceans acidify, the reefs die, crops fail, and CO2 levels just keep rising.

If that's your definition of success, I feel sorry for you, I truly do.

[kristopher]

7. That isn't what the author wrote.

If you can't read for comprehension better than that there is probably little point in responding to you, but...

Let's approach it this way; if you were trying to craft an international response to climate change what would you do?

Assume that you are empowered by a title, but constrained by the same forces as all other parties, so, what is the approach you are going to employ to achieve something you would consider to be "of substance"?

Are you happy with the outcomes of Kyoto? Do you really think it has proven itself to be a framework that can get us where we need to go?

Why, specifically, do you reject the idea that success can be at least as well measured through the totality of "incremental steps" as by large framework agreements?

What is the source of your understanding of how policy-making in an international venue is conducted? Have you delved into the dynamics that are dictated by the premise of 200 hundred independent, co-equal countries joining together in cooperative agreements that are entirely voluntary?

It doesn't matter whether you like that reality or not, it prevails; so when you share your method of negotiating the global climate action plan, be sure you're detailed and specific about dealing with all the obstacles No Tea Party style magic hand-waves allowed.

[NickB79]

8. This thread explains my thoughts better than I could write myself

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x268314

[kristopher]

9. That thread explains nothing.

All it does is continue the meaningless, disconnected-from-reality attack on the process.

The specifics of my questions to you were there because they mean something. Perhaps you could have the courtesy to address them?

[NNadir]

11. Um...um...um...you post yet another cut and paste excerpt with no analysis, and...

...you want to lecture on reading comprehension skills.


To make matters worse, you once again kick up you're electronic diarrhea because um, people get tired of um, diarrhea.

Jeeze...

[kristopher]

3. Kick.

[txlibdem]

10. Desperate times call for desperate measures - and we aren't even admitting times are desperate

We need sweeping changes throughout the societies of every nation, projects on the scale and scope of the moon landing. Tinkering around on the edges here and there aren't going to save us from devastating --and hugely expensive-- consequences from global climate change. This requires a complete rethinking of how we do everything. Capitalism does not have the capability to do that because of its primary focus of ensuring continued profit to the moneyed interests. So, logically, we must end Capitalism in all parts of the world before we will have even a percentage chance of avoiding catastrophe.

[joshcryer]

13. This guy is a naive market-oriented hand-waver. I read quite a few of his articles, and it all...

...leads back to "the markets will fix things, don't worry." It's a perfect kristopher analysis.

[txlibdem]

14. An acolyte of the Trickle Down Religion -- Just like our President

Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, each time expecting a different result.

Just a couple of years after the markets CAUSED all of the current problems... now the markets are going to CURE all those problems?!?

Oh, my, look at that! The BS meter just pegged!

[kristopher]

16. That isn't what the paper said at all.

Yours is a false characterization from someone that doesn't have a clue about how to do anything expect bitch.

[joshcryer]

17. Oh yeah? I falsely characterized his hand waving? I call bullshit.

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/analysis/stavins/?tag=market-based-environmental-policies

Cancun is a fucking success, my fucking ass. What a joke of epic proportions. Anyone who says this is a liar.

[txlibdem]

19. Is the totality of your world view contained in that paper?

That answers a lot.

My statement is true and you know it. Trickle Down has been proven a failure time and time again. Yet, here is our handsome smiling President leading its parade yet again!

"Trickle Down's gonna work THIS TIME guys. No, really! Come on, who's with me?!?"

[kristopher]

20. In other words you didn't read the paper.

You either didn't read it or are too uninformed of basic policy to make an intelligent comment. It's abundantly clear from your remarks that you don't know the difference between any "kind" of economics and your elbow.

If you can't read for comprehension better than that there is probably little point in responding to you, but...

Let's approach it this way; if you were trying to craft an international response to climate change what would you do?

Assume that you are empowered by a title, but constrained by the same forces as all other parties, so, what is the approach you are going to employ to achieve something you would consider to be "of substance"?

Are you happy with the outcomes of Kyoto? Do you really think it has proven itself to be a framework that can get us where we need to go?

Why, specifically, do you reject the idea that success can be at least as well measured through the totality of "incremental steps" as by large framework agreements?

What is the source of your understanding of how policy-making in an international venue is conducted? Have you delved into the dynamics that are dictated by the premise of 200 hundred independent, co-equal countries joining together in cooperative agreements that are entirely voluntary?

It doesn't matter whether you like that reality or not, it prevails; so when you share your method of negotiating the global climate action plan, be sure you're detailed and specific about dealing with all the obstacles No Tea Party style magic hand-waves allowed.

[txlibdem]

22. There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy

That much is clear.

[kristopher]

26. All I'm looking for is adult discussion.

All you offer is bar-stool snark and teaparty level solutions.

[joshcryer]

24. Cancun killed whatever little Kyoto did, and the OP thinks that's success.

[kristopher]

27. I asked what you would do; so far all that amounts to is, "nothing".

WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU ARE LEADING A DELEGATION IN REALITY?

You have 200 countries to convince - please, share your solution, oh great and mighty sage.

[txlibdem]

29. We're the friggin USA, "Reduce your CO2 emissions -- or we'll INVADE YOU"

We've invaded countries for far less. Anyone remember Grenada?

We are The Police Men Of The World: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle... OR ELSE!

[pscot]

25. That thing's busted

It's been redlined since 1980.

[kristopher]

15. Your criticisms are on a par with tea party logic.

What specifically would YOU do if you were a delegate? It is easy as hell to throw stones and trot out a bunch of pablum and buzz-words, but it is a hell of a lot different when you are tasked to craft WORKABLE SOLUTIONS and get them implemented.

So come on and share your knowledge of how these poor deluded capitalists are going about it the wrong way.

[joshcryer]

18. *I* would protest. I'd make a big deal out of it. I'd say "no, you're not devaluing Kyoto."

"No, you're not adding even more loopholes."

"No, you're not cutting your financial committments."

"No, the World Bank is not going to be responsible for the Green Climate Fund."

"No, market mechanisms aren't going to, by themselves, resolve the situation."

"No, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation is not acceptable."

It'd at least make the third page of some newspaper somewhere.

[kristopher]

21. So you embrace the "spoiled 12 year old" style of diplomacy.

I'm sure that will accomplish as much for the planet as it did for the US when the GOP used it this past 2 years.

[joshcryer]

23. No, I support activism, like James Hansen.

But, like James Hansen, I know it doesn't do much because the world is run by people like you.

[kristopher]

28. The world is run by people of all kinds...

You aren't a dictator and neither is anyone else, so what the eff do you you propose to DO to bring about an agreement to deal with climate change?

What course of action would you propose as a backstop?

How do you change the behavior of 6.5 billion people?

[GliderGuider]

30. "How do you change the behavior of 6.5 billion people?"

You’ve put your finger on the crux of the matter. 6.5 (actually about 6.8) billion people are a largely intractable mass of contradictory needs, desires, opinions and behaviours. What comes out of such a mass, on the global scale, is by definition emergent behaviour that has more to do with brain structure than reason. The older parts of the triune brain rule the day, and reason plays precious little role.

What we may be able to do is a certain amount of directed herding using the limbic system. Unfortunately, as we have seen in the last 50 years, anyone who appeals directly to the reptilian brain by using fear-based appeals to security and status will win the day. I don’t have any good ideas of how to change species-level behaviour to address a long-term, abstract threat using that approach. The reptilian brain is all about short-term survival and fight/flight/freeze responses. That’s why “Terra, terra, terra” and appeals to patriotism are so preternaturally effective as mass manipulation tools, and why the rational influence of the neo-cortex is so little in evidence during these global debates.

Faced with this biological intransigence, I do not believe that there is anything we can do that will be very helpful on a large scale. This is why I have pulled my horizons in to the level of individuals and small groups – the level where reason and abstract risk perception still operate. Mitigation and adaptation cal still work at these small scales, but it’s time to give up any expectation of a good outcome on a large scale. We should keep trying, since we never know what miracles might occur, but realism requires us to accept that on the planetary scale we’re probably at an impasse.

ETA: the adoption of CFL bulbs is an example of limbic-mediated herding behaviour. The problem with any such behaviour is that it's vulnerable to perceived survival threats. For instance, if people are told their electricity bills will go up (survival threat), they will choose cheaper coal power over more expensive wind power, even thought they know about global warming.

[GliderGuider]

31. Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about

Environmentalists plan to redirect strategies

As 2010 comes to a close, U.S. environmentalists are engaged in their most profound bout of soul-searching in more than a decade. Their top policy priority - imposing a nationwide cap on carbon emissions - has foundered in the face of competing concerns about jobs.

"Certainly I think we have figured out we need to find a way to really listen harder and connect with people all over America, especially in rural America," said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. "I don't think we've done a particularly good job of that."

350.org founder Bill McKibben, who has been trying to foster a global grass-roots movement, wrote in an e-mail he sees it as the only way to overcome traditional opponents who are far better positioned in Washington: "Since we're never going to compete with Exxon in money," he wrote, "we better find another currency, and to me bodies, spirit, creativity are probably our best bet."

Many both inside and outside the environmental movement say it needs to overhaul its traditional policy prescriptions, as well as the way it frames what's at stake.

To me this speaks directly to the difficulty any idealistic behaviour-modification movement faces when it runs into the reality of how people actually behave. The realization everyone seems to be coming to is, "The top-down approach isn't working. We have to approach people as individuals for any change to happen." The problem is that this leaves us with 6.8 billion minds to change, one at a time.

[joshcryer]

12. "The Copenhagen Accord ... could well turn out to be a sound foundation." Not credible.