Advertisement

Aligning National Interests and Global Climate Justice: The Role of Human Rights in Enhancing the Ambition of Nationally Determined Contributions to Combat Climate Change

  • Yannick GlemarecEmail author
Original Paper
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

The Paris Agreement on climate change revolves around nationally determined contributions (NDC) and acknowledges that the ambition of the global climate response will be determined by Parties’ understanding of their national interests. Initiatives currently envisaged in NDCs are insufficient to avoid disastrous climate change. Debates about the impact of climate action on economic development and national interests have abated the climate ambition of some governments. Conflicting modeling approaches have contributed to these debates. To scale up global climate efforts, it will be essential to convince Parties that the short-term benefits of robust national climate action outweigh its immediate costs. Innovation is driving progress to address climate change and can deliver substantial development co-benefits, particularly by reducing costs of renewable energy technologies and enabling new business models. However, innovation can take many years to reach deployment stage, can create unforeseen problems of its own, and does not benefit all equally. Climate justice links human rights, development and climate regimes. A climate justice perspective provides a normative, analytical and procedural framework to identify barriers to innovation diffusion, optimize development co-benefits of climate action and help build public support for the adoption of more ambitious NDC pledges.

Keywords

Climate change Development co-benefits Innovation Human rights 

References

  1. Aykut, S., and A. Dahan. 2015. Gouverner le climat? 20 ans de négociations internationales, Sciences Po Les Presses.Google Scholar
  2. Badger, E. 2018. Pave Over the Subway? Cities Face Tough Bets on Driverless Cars, New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/20/upshot/driverless-cars-vs-transit-spending-cities.html.
  3. Bardouille, P., and D. Muench. 2014. How a New Breed of Distributed Energy Services Companies Can Reach 500 mm Energy-Poor Customers Within a Decade—A Commercial Solution to the energy Access Challenge. USA.Google Scholar
  4. Bayat-Renoux, F. 2018. Digital Technologies for Mobilizing Sustainable Finance, Sustainable Digital Finance Alliance, Geneva.Google Scholar
  5. Beitz, C. 2009. The Idea of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bender, M. 2013. Paleoclimate-Princeton Primers in Climate, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Buchner, B., et al. 2017. Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2017, Climate Policy Initiative.Google Scholar
  8. Burke, M., S. Hsiang, and E. Miguel. 2015. Global Non-linear Effect of Temperature on Economic Production. Nature 157: 1–3.Google Scholar
  9. Burns. W. 2016. The Paris Agreement and Climate Geoengineering Governance: The Need for a Human Rights-Based Component, GIGI Papers 111, Waterloo, Canada.Google Scholar
  10. Desjardins, J. 2016. All of the World’s Stock Exchanges by Size, Visual Capitalist. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-stock-exchanges-by-size/.
  11. FAO. 2011. The State of Food and Agriculture. Rome: Women and Agriculture-Closing the Gender Gap for Development.Google Scholar
  12. Ferone, G. 2008. 2030-Le Krach Ecologique, Grasset.Google Scholar
  13. Friend of the Earth Europe. 2014. Who Will Benefit the Most Who Benefits from Genetically Modified Crops? http://www.foeeurope.org/who-benefits-gm-crops-industry-myths-240414.
  14. Geisler, C., and B. Currens. 2017. Impediments to Inland Resettlement Under Conditions of Accelerated Sea Level Rise. Land Use Policy 66: 322–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. GIZ. 2016. Sectoral Implementation of Nationally Determined Contributions, Germany.Google Scholar
  16. Glemarec, Y. 2011. Catalyzing Climate Finance. New York: UNDP.Google Scholar
  17. Glemarec, Y. 2017. Addressing the Gender Differentiated Investment Risks to Climate Smart Agriculture. Springfield: AIMS Agriculture and Food.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glemarec, Y., S. Qayum, and M. Olshankaya. 2016. Optimizing Development Co-benefits Between Gender Equality and Climate Action. New York: UN Women.Google Scholar
  19. Global Impact Investing Network. 2018. Annual Impact Investment Survey 2018. https://thegiin.org/research/publication/annualsurvey2018.
  20. Haas, E. 1961. International Integration: The European and the Universal Process. International Organizations 15 (3): 366–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hagen-Zanker, J., and A. McCord. 2011. The Feasibility of Financing Sectoral Development Targets, ODI Briefing, 55, March. http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/6325.pdf.
  22. Hansen, J., et al. 2016. Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms: Evidence from Paleoclimate Data, Climate Modeling, and Modern Observations that 2 °C Global Warming Could Be Dangerous. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 16: 3761–3812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hawken. 2017. Drawdown-the Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming, Penguin, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Heffner, G., and N. Campell. 2011. Evaluating the Co-benefits of Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programmes. Paris: IEA.Google Scholar
  25. Hogl, M. 2018. Enabling Factors for Cooperation in the Climate Negotiations. A Comparative Analysis of Copenhagen 2009 and Paris 2015, DIE, Bonn.Google Scholar
  26. Hsiang, S., and A. Jina. 2014. The Causal Effect of Environmental Catastrophe on Long-Run Economic Growth: Evidence From 6,700 Cyclones, NBER Working Paper No. 20352.Google Scholar
  27. IEA-IRENA. 2017. Perspectives for the Energy Transition-Investment Needs for a Low-Carbon Energy System, 8, Paris.Google Scholar
  28. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, 232. Geneva: WHO/UNEP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 13, 1339. Geneva: WHO/UNEP.Google Scholar
  30. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014a. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Geneva: WHO/UNEP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014b. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, ES, 15. Geneva: WHO/UNEP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. International Data Corporation. 2014. The Digital Universe of Opportunities: Rich Data and the Increasing Value of the Internet of Things, Framingham, USA.Google Scholar
  33. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). 2015. Global Energy Transformation—A RoadMap to 2050, Abu Dhabi.Google Scholar
  34. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). 2017. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2017, Abu Dhabi.Google Scholar
  35. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2018. Global Warming of 1.5 C. Geneva: WHO/UNEP.Google Scholar
  36. Jovanovic, B., and P. Rousseau. 2005. Handbook of Economic Growth, Chapter 18 General Purpose Technologies Chapter 18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s1574-0684(05)01018-x.
  37. Kaniewski, D., E. Van Campo, J. Guiot, S. Le Burel, T. Otto, and C. Baeteman. 2013. Environmental Roots of the Late Bronze Age Crisis. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kilic, T., P. Winters, and C. Carletto. 2015. Gender and Agricultural in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agric Eco 46: 281–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Klinsky, S., et al. 2016. Why Equity is Fundamental in Climate Change Policy Research. Global Environment Change 44: 170–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Knox, J.H. 2016. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Issue of Human Rights Obligations Relating to the Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean and Sustainable Environment. United Nations Human Rights Council (A/HRC/31/52).Google Scholar
  41. Kopp, R., R. Shwom, G. Wagner, and J. Yuan. 2016. Tipping Elements and Climate-Economic Shocks: Pathways Toward Integrated Assessment. Earth’s Future.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2016ef000362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Le Page, M. 2018. The Second Great Food War, Newscientist, UK.Google Scholar
  43. Lilliestam, J., A. Battaglini, C. Finlay, D. Fürstenwerth, A. Patt, G. Schellekens, and P. Schmidt. 2012. An Alternative to a Global Climate Deal is Unfolding Before Our Eyes. Climate and Development 4: 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mary Robinson Foundation-Climate Justice. 2015. Rights for Action-Putting People at the Center of Action on Climate Change.Google Scholar
  45. Meadows, D.H., D.L. Meadows, J. Randers, I.I.I. Behrens, and W. William. 1972. The Limits to Growth; A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind (PDF). New York: Universe Books.Google Scholar
  46. Meadows, D.H., J. Randers, and D.L. Meadows. 2004. The Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. White River Junction VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  47. Neumann, B., A. Vafeidis, J. Zimmermann, and R. Nicholls. 2015. Future Coastal Population Growth and Exposure to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding—A Global Assessment. PLoS ONE 10: e0118571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nordhaus, W. 1977. Economic Growth and Climate: The Carbon Dioxide Problem. American Economic Review 67: 341–346.Google Scholar
  49. Nordhaus, W., and P. Sztorc. 2013. DICE 2013R: Introduction and User’s Manual. dicemodel.net.Google Scholar
  50. Northrop, E., H. Biru, S. Lima, M. Bouye, and R. Song. 2016. Examining the Alignment Between the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions and Sustainable Development Goals. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  51. OHCHR. 2015. Submission of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.Google Scholar
  52. O’Connor, D., and H. Biru. 2017. Tackling Climate Change is Part of Many Countries’ Sustainable Development Plans. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/07/tackling-climate-change-part-many-countries-sustainable-development-plans.
  53. OXFAM. 2018. Climate Finance Shadow Report 2018-Assessing Progress Towards the $100 Billion Commitment, UK.Google Scholar
  54. Paterson, L. 2018. It’s Ok that the Public Rejected GM Food—After All, We Did Ask, Newscientist, UK.Google Scholar
  55. Patterson, J.J., et al. 2018. Political Feasibility of 1.5 °C Societal Transformations: the Role of Social Justice. Environmental Sustainability 31: 1–9.Google Scholar
  56. Pielke, R., and D. Sarewitz. 2014. Climate Policy Robs the World’s Poor of Their Hopes. Financial Times. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fe4fc7ec-9ee2-11e3-8663-00144feab7de.html#axzz3BtPCUQr7.
  57. Pindyck, R. 2013. Climate Change: What do the Models Tell Us? Journal of Economic Literature 51 (3): 860–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pogge, T. 2002. World Poverty and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  59. Pottier, A. 2016. Comment les économistes réchauffent la planète, 50. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  60. Pottier, A., A. Mejean, O. Godard, and J-C. Hourcade. 2017. A Survey of Global Climate Justice: From Negotiation Stances to Moral Stakes and Back. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 11: 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. REN 21. 2016. Renewables 2016 global status report.Google Scholar
  62. Rousseau, J.J. 1762. On the Social Contract; or, Principles of Political Rights, France.Google Scholar
  63. Shahan, Z. 2018. Solar Panel Prices Continue Falling Quicker than Expected. https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/11/solar-panel-prices-continue-falling-quicker-expected-cleantechnica-exclusive/.
  64. Sherwood, S., and M. Huber. 2010. An Adaptability Limit to Climate Change Due to Heat Stress. PNAS, USA.Google Scholar
  65. Sinai, A. 2013. Penser la décroissance, Sciences Po, Les Presses.Google Scholar
  66. Stern, N. 2013. The Structure of Economic Modeling of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change: Grafting Gross Underestimation of Risk onto Already Narrow Science Models. Journal of Economic Literature 51 (3): 838–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stone, M. 2016. The Real Problem with Fusion Energy. https://gizmodo.com/the-real-problem-with-fusion-energy-1777994830.
  68. Suddick, E., et al. 2013. The Role of Nitrogen in Climate Change and the Impacts of Nitrogen-Climate Interactions in the US. Biochemistry 114: 1–10.Google Scholar
  69. The Copenhagen Consensus Reports. 2004, 2008, 2012. Outcome Documents and Results; Denmark.Google Scholar
  70. Torstad, V. 2016. What’s Fair-and Why? An Empirical Analysis of Distributive Fairness in the Climate Negotiations, CICERO, Oslo.Google Scholar
  71. UNDP/ETH Zurich. 2018. Derisking Renewable Energy Investment: Off-Grid Electrification, USA.Google Scholar
  72. UNEP, Frankfurt School—UNEP Collaborating Centre and Bloomberg New Energy Finance. 2018. The Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2018 report, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
  73. UNEP. 2015. Climate Change and Human Rights, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
  74. UNEP. 2017. The Emissions Gap Report 2017, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
  75. UNFCCC. 2009. Copenhagen Accord, Copenhagen Conference, COP 15, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  76. UNFCCC. 2015. Paris Agreement.Google Scholar
  77. UNFCCC. 2018. CDM Sustainable Development Co-benefits Description Reports. http://cdmcobenefits.unfccc.int/Pages/SD-Reports.aspx.
  78. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 1992. FCCC/INFORMAL/84, GE.05-62220 (E) 200705.Google Scholar
  79. United Nations. 2013. A Million Voices: The World We Want a Sustainable Future with Dignity for All, New York. http://data.myworld2015.org/.
  80. US Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. 2010. Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  81. Vivid Economics. 2013. Energy Efficiency and Economic Growth—Report Prepared for The Climate Institute.Google Scholar
  82. Waissbein, O., Y. Glemarec, H. Bayraktar, and T. Schmidt. 2013. Derisking Renewable Energy Investment. New York: UNDP.Google Scholar
  83. Waldhoff, S., D. Anthoff, S. Rose, and R.S.J. Tol. 2014. The Marginal Damage Costs of Different Greenhouse Gases: An Application of FUND. Economics: The Open-Access, Open Assessment E-Journal 8 (2014-31): 1–33.Google Scholar
  84. World Bank. 2011. World Development Report 2011-Conflict, Security and Development, 6. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  85. Yang, Z., Kong, X., Sun, J. and Y. Zhang. 2018. Switching to Green Lifestyles: Behavior Change of Ant Forest Users, Environmental Research and Public Health.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Fudan University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UN WomenNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations