news
International Climate Change Regime
16 April 2019

The Evolution of the International Climate Change Regime

The international climate change regime has a long history, and it is likely that its evolution will continue, despite such recent setbacks as the decision by President Donald Trump to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement of 2015. A volume edited by Urs Luterbacher and Detlef Sprinz offers an original contribution to the study of the international political context of climate change over the last three decades, with fresh analyses of the current international climate change regime that consider both the challenges of maintaining current structures and the possibilities for creating new forms of international cooperation. Interview with Professor Luterbacher on Global Climate Policy: Actors, Concepts, and Enduring Challenges (MIT Press, 2018).

Why did you choose to approach climate change through the concept of international regime? Why not use the more fashionable concept of governance? 

These two notions are closely linked. As a regime provides for the set of norms and institutions that are put into place at the international level, governance will matter within this framework. So, for instance, the institutional framework put together by the major powers after World War II, the UN, but also the Bretton Woods system and the world trade framework functioned quite effectively under a governance system characterised by the American leadership. Unfortunately, something similar did not work with the climate system, as the United States never entirely assumed this leadership role in it, which it could have been done with the help of the European Union. This led to the failure of the Kyoto Protocol and then what in my view constituted the flawed Paris Agreement. This agreement was and is very vulnerable to the vagaries of domestic politics since it does not include binding obligations. Any domestic coalition can thus threaten its goals and purpose without being exposed to political costs.

Is this evolution only due to the American lack of commitment?

No, certainly not. But the refusal of the Americans to assume a leadership role in the climate change regime has weakened it from the start. President Obama tried to change this but he faced, like President Clinton before him, the hostility of the Senate whose approval is necessary in order to ratify international treaties. As a result, the Paris Agreement was entirely based on an executive order by the President, which meant that the accord contained no binding obligations. Since the whole construction relied on an executive order by one president, another president could revoke it. This is precisely what happened. This lack of action by one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases is deplorable. President Trump has not only proceeded to revoke all domestic climate measures initiated by Obama, but has openly encouraged the use of carbon intensive fossil fuels such as coal and removed protections against methane emissions resulting from mining activities such as fracking to produce natural gas.

What are the weaknesses of this regime? 

The weaknesses of the regime are of two kinds, which are closely related. On the one hand, the Belgian economist Henry Tulkens has shown, based on work by the French economist Malinvaud, that the institutional framework introduced by the Paris Agreement corresponds to the constitution of an international public good based entirely upon voluntary contributions. Such a construction is quite inefficient in the sense that any other form of a more constraining international cooperation guarantees more efforts by individual countries. On the other hand, since contributions are entirely voluntary, their amounts are very sensitive to domestic political constraints. The “yellow vest” movement in France and abandonment of the carbon tax is an illustration of this problem. In Asia, governments are very sensitive to the aspirations of their populations for better living standards. This means more demand for cheap energy, which entails more use of still relatively abundant coal and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

Can you shed light on a strong idea that emerges from this book in relation to the creation of new forms of international cooperation?

The book emphasises the possible role of “climate clubs”, i.e. coalitions of the willing at the international but also at the domestic and transnational levels. These clubs could then develop new ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, for instance by conserving energy and fostering new energy technologies. They could also name and shame big emitters or major coal exporters such as Australia, denounce and pressure the financial industry not to invest in fossil fuels and attempt to isolate countries trying to take advantage of the abandonment of fossil fuels by using them to gain economic advantages.

Is there a guarantee that the world at large will be able to avoid the worst climatic impacts in the coming decades?

No, there is no such guarantee at the moment, unfortunately. One can see that greenhouse gas emissions keep climbing worldwide (+1.7% in 2018). As noticed in a recent report by the International Energy Agency, most of this increase occurs in parts of Asia (India, China) and the United States whereas European and Japanese emissions are declining. One can only hope that the likely severe climatic events that will occur over the next decade will finally spur the big emitters into action, in addition to the pressures from the climate clubs mentioned above.

* * *

Full citation of the volume:
Luterbacher, Urs, and Detlef F. Sprinz, eds. Global Climate Policy: Actors, Concepts, and Enduring Challenges. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2018.

Includes the following chapters:
“Our Approach”, by Urs Luterbacher, 1–12
“Computational Models, Global Climate Change, and Policy”, by Urs Luterbacher and Thierry Bréchet, 125–48
“Environmental Protection, Differentiated Responsibility, and World Trade: Making Room for Climate Action”, by Urs Luterbacher, Carla Norrlof and Jorge E. Viñuales, 149–70

* * *

Interview by Marc Galvin and editing by Nathalie Tanner, Research Office.
Illustration: Glacier melting in Argentina. © Urs Luterbacher.