KYOTO PROTOCOL AND POST-KYOTO OPTIONS
April 2009
"Global Environment and Trade Policy"
Discussion Paper
By Jeffrey Frankel, James W. Harpel Professor of Capital Formation and Growth
Global environmental goals and trade goals can be reconciled. Globalization and multilateral institutions can facilitate environmental protection rather than obstruct it, if they are harnessed in the right way. Perhaps most urgent is that negotiators working on a sequel to the Kyoto Protocol agree on guidelines to govern precisely how individual countries can and cannot use trade measures in pursuit of carbon mitigation.
Rob Stowe
Spring 2009
"Climate Team Suggests Post-Kyoto Ideas"
Newsletter Article, Belfer Center Newsletter
By Sasha Talcott, Director of Communications and Outreach
A new report from the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements outlined several promising ideas for successors to the Kyoto Protocol ... guidance on the most intractable challenges facing global climate negotiators, including participation by developing countries, how to reduce deforestation, and how to prevent a "collision" between climate policy and international trade law
AP Images
March 3, 2009
Ambassador Paula Dobriansky Named Senior Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center
Press Release
By Sasha Talcott, Director of Communications and Outreach and Sharon Wilke, Associate Director of Communications
Ambassador Paula Dobriansky, former under secretary of state for democracy and global affairs under President George W. Bush, will join Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs as a senior fellow, Belfer Center director Graham Allison announced today.
February 4, 2009
"European Proposal For a Global Pact on Climate Change"
Policy Brief
By Sasha Talcott, Director of Communications and Outreach
The January 23, 2009, release of the European Union (EU)'s proposal for a global pact on climate change marks a major step on the road to the 15th Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen. The European blueprint raises several interesting issues for further discussion and consideration.
The Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements, as a matter of course, does not endorse individual countries' negotiating positions. Nevertheless, the European climate platform discusses several issues that will be important moving forward. The Harvard Project's 26 research teams have examined these issues closely.
January 27, 2009
International Climate Policy for a Post-Kyoto World: Understanding Sectoral Approaches
Presentation
By Jonas Meckling, Research Fellow, Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements and Gu Yoon Chung
In this presentation, Meckling and Chung identify types of sectoral approaches and their analysis of the politics behind key proposals.
January 14, 2009
"Sectoral Approaches to International Climate Policy: A Typology and Political Analysis"
Discussion Paper
By Jonas Meckling, Research Fellow, Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements and Gu Yoon Chung
This paper presents a study of sectoral approaches to climate change that have been gaining currency in the international debate as a possible remedy to the shortfalls of the Kyoto Protocol.
Photo by Robert C. Stowe
January 7, 2009
Harvard Project Leadership Presents Key Lessons at Poznan Conference of the Parties
News
By Sasha Talcott, Director of Communications and Outreach
The Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements leadership team traveled to Poznan, Poland, in December 2008 to present findings of their new Interim Report, which outlines several promising ideas for successors to the Kyoto Protocol.
December 2008
"Towards a Global Compact for Managing Climate Change"
Discussion Paper
Despite an enormous amount of work done to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change and the need for quick corrective action, there is little progress toward a global compact for managing climate change. In fact, there are some basic differences of perspectives on climate change policies between developed and developing countries which may bedevil future global agreements on climate change for quite some time. Among the reasons for these differences are the issues of historical responsibility for carbon emission by the developed countries, the need for lifestyle changes in both the developed and developing countries, suspicion in the developing countries about the motives of developed countries and too much focus of current discussions on the very long-term and global effects of climate change.
December 2008
"A Sectoral Approach as an Option for a Post-Kyoto Framework"
Discussion Paper
By Akihiro Sawa
This paper seeks to explore the potential of sectoral approaches as a post-Kyoto framework.
The shared understanding of sectoral approaches in the academic community can be outlined as follows:
- Sectoral approaches can potentially engage developing countries in mitigation actions, which would be an accomplishment unachieved by the Kyoto Protocol, and determine politically acceptable national targets anddomestic allowance allocations based on the analysis of reduction potentials from technological perspectives.
- Sectoral approaches are inherently at a disadvantage compared to the Kyoto-type top-down approach with flexibility mechanisms in terms of cost effectiveness and environmental effectiveness.
- Sectoral approach-based negotiations will be substantially complex, encompassing data collection issues and multiple sector-specific negotiation processes. Therefore, they are not cost-effective enough to constitute an international framework and can only be complementary or additional to the Protocol.
Given these drawbacks, this paper will propose the Policy-Based Sectoral Approach, under which sectoral approaches would be employed to establish national emission targets and governments would internationally pledge the implementation of policies and measures to achieve the targets.
December 2008
"Climate Accession Deals: New Strategies for Taming Growth of Greenhouse Gases in Developing Countries"
Discussion Paper
"Effective strategies for managing the dangers of global climate change are proving very difficult to design and implement. They require governments to undertake a portfolio of efforts that are politically challenging because they require large expenditures today for uncertain benefits that accrue far into the future. That portfolio includes tasks such as putting a price on carbon, fixing the tendency for firms to under-invest in the public good of new technologies and knowledge that will be needed for achieving cost-effective and deep cuts in emissions; and preparing for a changing climate through investments in adaptation and climate engineering. Many of those efforts require international coordination that has proven especially difficult to mobilize and sustain because international institutions are usually weak and thus unable to force collective action...."
