وبلاگ خانه تبدیل شباهنگ مرکز تخصصی تبدیل صدا و تصویر
This paper examines the status and prospects of climate-related efforts in a number of established multilateral regimes – including IMO, ICAO, the Montreal Protocol and CLRTAP. In particular, it focuses on options for using these negotiating forums to limit emissions. In this context, this paper does not address other important issues, including (1) work related to adaptation; (2) the multiplicity of activities of sub-state actors, private groups and public-private partnerships to combat climate change; (3) the broader political debate on the issue of climate change in for a such as the UN Security Council, the G-20, the Major Economies Forum (MEF) and the UN Human Rights Council; and (4) the possibility of addressing climate change through arbitration or other forms of dispute settlement. Not only do I find the concept of “multilateralism” unclear, but my experience also leads me to believe that there is nothing magical or superior about a multilateral approach in itself. Such an approach could have its advantages and serve, for example: the list is long. Not all institutions will make climate change their top priority, and we have other goals as well. Some may say that these institutions are already tackling climate change through special commissions, studies and communiqués. But these measures are not enough. Climate change isn`t just another topic for a long report collecting virtual dust in the cloud.
This is an urgent challenge whose effects we are feeling – a challenge that requires deep cross-border cooperation. Simply put, these institutions would function differently if climate change were their top priority. I believe that the 2015 Paris Agreement is a good basis for international action and cooperation on climate change. This CFR calendar has followed the UN climate negotiations since 1992. For these reasons, I think it makes sense to bypass labels and focus instead on pragmatic problem solving, that is, identifying the specific problems that need to be addressed and the possible solutions that need to be considered. Below, I look at the problems and possible approaches to solving them in the context of the international climate regime. In addition, for the sake of simplicity, the main agreements have been grouped below according to the structure of the site plan according to the general environmental themes. Montreal Protocol, 1987.
Although the Montreal Protocol [PDF] was not designed to combat climate change, it was a historic environmental agreement that has become a model for future diplomacy on the issue. All countries in the world eventually ratified the treaty, which required them to stop producing substances that damage the ozone layer, such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The Protocol has succeeded in eliminating almost 99 per cent of these ozone-depleting substances. In 2016, the parties agreed on the Kigali Amendment to also reduce their production of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), powerful greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. This ambitious agenda can be facilitated if the goals of fighting climate change and restoring American leadership are pursued together. In terms of climate change, the world will welcome America again, but with some skepticism, especially as countries see an opportunity to play a leading role in the development of the energy technologies of the future, and countries doubt that Biden can do as much on climate in Congress as he wants. As for multilateralism, the return will also be welcome, but with some hesitation as countries recalibrate their relations with the United States, seek to understand what commitments Washington is still willing and able to make, and try to manage the growing discord between the United States and China. It`s no wonder it took years of trial and error to develop the regime. Among other things, contracting parties had to strike the right balance between rigour and participation.
Kyoto moved towards austerity, but sacrificed participation; it included legally binding and internationally negotiated emission reductions, but which did not apply to developing countries (even those whose emissions were rising rapidly), and the United States never joined them. On the other hand, the Copenhagen Accord (complemented by the Cancún Accords) gained broad participation, including the United States and China, but was absolutely non-binding and lacked rigour in terms of rules and guidelines. Against all odds, the Paris Agreement has ensured formal and substantial rigour as well as global participation. So far, climate change has been widely addressed alongside foreign policy rather than as part of it. In the United States, even under the climate-friendly Obama administration, and with international climate negotiations anchored in the State Department rather than any other agency, climate issues were not included in the department`s day-to-day operations. Among other reasons to continue climate efforts in other multilateral forums: Yes, there is a broad consensus in the scientific community, although some deny that climate change is a problem, including politicians in the United States. When negotiating teams come together for international climate negotiations, there is “less skepticism about science and more disagreement about how to set priorities,” says David Victor, a professor of international relations at the University of California, San Diego. The basic science is: Subject: Climate changeSigned: 1992; Entry into force for the United States: 1994Secretix: Exit from the Executive Secretariat of the UNFCCCProgramme responsible for the EPA: Office of Air and RadiationDescription: Establishes a general framework for intergovernmental efforts to address the challenge of climate change.
The goal is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that prevents dangerous anthropogenic interventions in the climate system. Learn more about the UNFCCC. Kyoto Protocol, 2005. . .
