马德里气候大会盘点及全球气候治理展望

《联合国气候变化框架公约》（简称《公约》）第25次缔约方会议取得了一定进展,但未能就各方最为关注的《巴黎协定》第六条市场机制实施细则达成一致。会议成果平淡主要有4个原因:第一,过度强调提高各方减排目标力度而未能聚焦《巴黎协定》第六条相关谈判;第二,主席国和部分缔约方急切将各方尚未形成政治共识的提高承诺力度问题引入谈判进程,破坏了谈判氛围;第三,各个议题推进不平衡;第四,发达国家企图逃避责任,促使发展中国家更加团结并形成对立。展望2020年的全球气候多边进程形势,《巴黎协定》第六条相关谈判将继续作为重点,提高力度也将成为讨论主题,但片面强调1.5℃目标可能引发重谈《巴黎协定》风险,同时发达国家背弃《公约》、转嫁责任意图明显。全球气候治理应聚焦落实承诺的力度,并平行推进《公约》及其《巴黎协定》的实施。     

“后巴黎”时代气候适应国际合作进展与展望

纵深并拓宽气候适应国际合作,是《巴黎协定》增强适应行动的主要内容,是“后巴黎”时代延续全面适应行动的重要组成部分。在系统地调研和梳理主要国家/集团适应气候变化国际合作机制以及全球气候适应国际合作重点领域的基础上,分析中国近年来开展的政府间交流机制,双、多边合作机制,国际组织合作以及与发展中国家开展的南南合作等适应气候变化合作重点工作,总结出资金缺乏、合作渠道多元化不足、国际合作模式亟待深化以及“后疫情”时代经济绿色复苏的挑战是中国开展适应气候变化国际合作面临的主要问题。“后巴黎”时代,中国作为全球生态文明建设的重要参与者、贡献者、引领者,深化气候适应国际合作将落脚于深度参与全球气候适应治理机制的建设、深化与全球适应中心的合作、探索气候适应国际合作重点领域和重点工作以及进一步开拓跨国对标城市间的适应气候变化国际合作。     

美国退出《巴黎协定》的原因、影响及中国的对策

综合应用定性与定量分析方法,分析美国宣布退出《巴黎协定》的原因,评估美国退出《巴黎协定》对《巴黎协定》履约前景的影响并提出中国的应对策略。美国宣布退出《巴黎协定》是全球气候治理的重大事件,将对《巴黎协定》的履约产生多重影响,包括将对《巴黎协定》的普遍性构成严重伤害,动摇以《巴黎协定》为核心的国际气候治理体制的基础;将导致《巴黎协定》履约中的领导力赤字问题显著恶化;可能引发不良示范效应,降低国际气候合作信心;将会对其他地区碳排放空间形成不可忽视的挤压,进而推高其他地区碳减排成本;美国大幅削减国际气候援助资金将削弱发展中国家减缓和适应气候变化的能力;美国延迟采取气候行动可能导致全球减排错失最佳时间窗口;美国大幅削减气候变化基础研究经费将对未来全球气候科学研究产生不利影响,进而影响《巴黎协定》履约谈判的权威性等,最后显著加大实现温控目标的难度,甚至导致目标无法实现。就全球气候治理的全局而言,全球气候治理的框架不会坍塌,但确实会受到动摇;全球气候治理的进程不会逆转,但确实会迟滞。美国宣布退出《巴黎协定》使中国面临多重挑战,其中之一是中国面临急剧上升的期望中国承担全球气候治理领导的国际压力。为此,中国对内应实现国家自主贡献的上限目标,对外应积极重建全球气候治理集体领导体制,即用C5取代G2,同时继续努力改变美国对气候变化的消极立场。     

从巴黎到卡托维兹：全球气候治理中的统一和分裂

《巴黎协定》达成之后的实施细则谈判从一开始就面临各种挑战。尽管如此,卡托维兹气候大会基本完成了实施细则的磋商,通过统一规则的制定夯实了基于规则的气候治理框架,为“自下而上”的松散协定注入了更多规则绑定强制性色彩,提升了协定的法律地位。会议也见证了气候世界的分裂,包括主要缔约方立场的退化、谈判集团的分化重组、利益集团的博弈、对科学报告的分歧等,从而使关于力度的磋商没有实质进展。从巴黎到卡托维兹的谈判路程表明治理全球化、治理效率以及国家主权之间暂时存在“不可能三角”。未来的谈判应促进从规则到行动的转变。     

“新疆低碳能源发展战略研究”项目介绍

正一、立项背景气候变化导致的气温增高、海平面上升、极端天气与气候事件频发,对自然生态系统和人类生存环境产生了严重影响。在2015年12月12日巴黎气候变化大会上,全球《联合国气候变化框架公约》近200个缔约方一致同意通过《巴黎协定》,是继1997年制定的《京都议定书》之后全球气候治理领域又一实质性文件,为2020年后全球应对气候变化行动作出安排。     

巴黎协定——全球气候治理的新起点

巴黎气候变化大会完成了历时4年的德班平台谈判进程,达成了以《巴黎协定》（简称《协定》）为核心的一系列决定。《协定》确立了一种全缔约方参与,以“自主贡献+审评”为中心,全面涉及减缓、适应及其支持的全球应对气候变化新模式。这一模式在继承《公约》原则的基础上,明确了发达国家和发展中国家各自的责任,通过国家自主贡献的方式充分动员所有缔约方采取应对气候变化行动,促进可持续发展。《协定》还鼓励除缔约方外的其他主体积极参与应对气候变化进程,鼓励市场和非市场机制的加入,动员资金流向绿色低碳领域。在制度安排上,《协定》体现了激励、透明、非对抗、非惩罚性的特点。《协定》的达成标志着全球气候治理进入了新的发展阶段,传递出全球推动实现绿色低碳、气候适应型和可持续发展的强有力信号。然而由于《协定》全面平衡了各方的利益,在未来的遵约细节和实施落实方面将会有更多的难题,如果处理不当,将可能会损害发展中国家的利益,尤其是发展中大国。     

应对气候变化进程中纳入性别考虑的进展与启示

女性在应对气候变化中处于不利地位,也是应对气候变化中不可忽视的力量。国际社会已逐渐认识到在应对气候变化进程中纳入性别考虑的重要意义,性别议题在气候谈判中的主流化趋势明显,《联合国气候变化框架公约》执行层面纳入性别考虑取得了长足的进展,以全球环境基金、绿色气候基金为代表的《联合国气候变化框架公约》资金机制已将性别政策纳入机构政策体系,并积极在项目层面推动性别政策的实施。虽然国际气候变化领域的性别主流化工作取得了较大进展,但仍存在女性参与气候变化决策的程度不足、减缓领域纳入性别考虑的程度不足等问题。目前中国气候变化领域对性别的关注不足,建议加强气候变化领域的性别问题研究,为履约工作提供支撑;在应对气候变化相关的政策体系中纳入性别考虑,加强与性别领域的沟通协作;加强气候变化相关机构性别主流化能力建设,明确职责安排;加强气候变化领域国内项目、“一带一路”项目和“南南合作”项目的性别主流化;切实加强中国女性应对气候变化能力,提高女性对气候行动的参与度。     

《巴黎协定》与特朗普政府的履约前景

《巴黎协定》生效标志着全球气候治理进程从达约阶段转向履约阶段。但是,履约阶段并不意味着全球气候风险得到控制,反而面临新的挑战。本文从《巴黎协定》入手,分析了《巴黎协定》自身存在的不足,重点考察了美国的履约意愿,分析了特朗普政府退出《巴黎协定》及其影响,探讨了未来美国的气候立场。研究发现,《巴黎协定》在减排力度、气候资金及遵约条款三方面存在先天不足,导致《巴黎协定》有效性仍取决于缔约方的履约意愿和履约能力。当前美国国内政局演变导致美国联邦政府气候政策出现倒退,有可能对《巴黎协定》缔约方的履约意愿和履约能力产生不良影响。但是,这种不良影响仅仅是短暂的。美国在国际格局中的地位变化以及美国业已成形的低碳转型,共同决定了特朗普气候政策并不会从根本上动摇《巴黎协定》。长期来看,美国对全球领导力的诉求、国内应对气候变化的内在动力以及来自外部的道义压力这三大因素势将促使美国在未来重新回归《巴黎协定》。     

中国气候变化南南合作对《巴黎协定》后适应谈判的影响

适应气候变化是发展中国家的重要谈判议题。《联合国气候变化框架公约》2015年达成《巴黎协定》后如何落实适应议题实施细则成为关注焦点。发达国家以温室气体排放总量大为理由,施压中国等发展中大国出资全球适应气候变化行动;发展中国家内部对适应气候变化受害方和出资方的划分存在较大分歧,造成适应议题下发展中国家集团难以形成合力,《巴黎协定》实施细则谈判进展缓慢。中国气候变化南南合作作为中国与其他发展中国家之间重要的气候变化领域合作形式,能否通过寻找发展中国家契合点,依据合理机制,对适应谈判发挥一定作用,须及早进行利弊分析及顶层设计。文章通过分析美欧日对外援助的机制、梳理非洲小岛国等主要发展中国家集团在应对气候变化不利影响方面的需求、总结以往中国适应项目对外援助情况的基础上,提出了今后中国气候变化南南合作与适应谈判中需要注意的问题,包括区分适应援助和减缓援助、避免中国气候变化南南合作的属性被误读等问题,为争取广阔外交利益、合理构建南南合作机制提供政策建议。     

《巴黎协定》实施细则适应议题焦点解析及后续中国应对措施

适应是《联合国气候变化框架公约》及其《巴黎协定》下的重要谈判内容。2018年12月举行的第24次缔约方大会（COP24）就适应议题后续实施方案达成了共识,为全球气候治理带来新的机遇和挑战。中国在未来全球气候治理中,如何借助新成果推动国内适应工作稳步发展,积极发挥中国作用,是新形势下亟需考虑的重要问题。基于此,本文梳理了适应议题的焦点问题、各集团和缔约方的立场观点,展望了2019—2025年适应相关议题主要工作安排,并对此提出了中国未来适应领域完成相关工作需要考虑的应对措施建议,包括：(1)深入分析国际信息报告体系与国内信息的联系,梳理国内适应工作亮点,为构建高质量报告奠定基础;(2)构建跨部门跨地区协作机制,加强信息搜集与完善,有效提高数据和信息统计功能;(3)强化气候变化适应技术、规范、标准等科学研究的作用,为制定政策规定时纳入相应技术要求、提高政策规定等需求提供科学性和可操作性的服务。     

What future for the voluntary carbon offset market after Paris? An explorative study based on the Discursive Agency Approach

The Paris Agreement heralds a new era in international climate governance. Yet, the Agreement's implementation rulebook is still under negotiation. During this transition, from the Kyoto Protocol to the new regime under the Paris Agreement, many non-state actors are facing a high level of uncertainty. In particular, actors in the voluntary carbon market are struggling to define their new role. The business model of producing carbon credits in developing countries and selling them elsewhere is threatened. Although its financial significance and achieved emission reductions are limited, the voluntary market's role as an incubator for innovation has made it a prominent representative of non-state mitigation mechanisms. Therefore, we ask: What effects will the regime change to the Paris Agreement have on the voluntary carbon offset market (VCM) and how does it react to these effects?

This study analyses perceptions of, and reactions to, the new regulatory environment within the VCM. We apply the Discursive Agency Approach to scrutinize the institutions, discourses and influential agents involved in the VCM, and the strategic practices they apply to manage the transition towards the Paris regime. We find two dominant coping strategies: to align the voluntary offsetting mechanism with the Paris Agreement, and to re-invent its overall purpose as a tool to deliver sustainable development rather than solely emission reductions. Based on these results, we outline ‘thought spaces’ for a future VCM: (1) voluntary and non-party offsetting beyond nationally determined contributions (NDCs), (2) results-based financing for emission reductions and sustainable development, and (3) private climate action under international oversight.

Key policy insights

• The Paris Agreement threatens the VCM's business model, prompting market agents to frame and legitimize their work in new ways.

• The voluntary market's viability depends on the future accounting rules for emission reductions under Paris Agreement Article 6. Discursive struggles surround the risks of double counting and NDC ambitions.

• Based on an understanding of the past, we can draw lessons from agents’ attempts to re-legitimize their role under the new Paris Agreement; their future visions will shape the debates about this nascent regime.

     

A discursive cartography of nationally determined contributions to the Paris climate agreement

The 2015 Paris Agreement was adopted in a geopolitical context that is very different from the post-Cold War era when the Climate Convention was negotiated. This new global climate deal responds to a more fragmented and multipolar world signified by the rise of major economies in the South. This paper examines the geopolitical landscape in which the Paris Agreement is enacted and implemented. We conduct a discursive analysis of the Nationally Determined Contributions submitted by parties to the Paris Agreement. We ask what policy discourses emerge in these national climate plans, which states cluster around them and how they compare to UNFCCC annex, geographical location, income group, and negotiation coalitions. Our findings suggest that liberal environmentalism retains a strong hold over the political imagination in the post-Paris landscape. However, we see points of diffraction and tensions that might give rise to conflict. While liberal environmentalism is only challenged in Nationally Determined Contributions from the global South, we conclude that conventional geopolitical patterns only partly explain the formation of discourse coalitions. In the Paris Agreement’s implementation stage discursive struggles are likely to become increasingly prominent. Discourse analysis facilitates understanding of disagreements on the Paris rulebook and the global stocktake.     

COP26: Progress,Challenges, and Outlook

The 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was held in Glasgow a year later than scheduled, with expected outcomes achieved under a post-pandemic background. Based on the Issue-Actor-Mechanism Framework, this paper systematically evaluates the outcomes achieved at COP26 and analyzes the tendency of post-COP26 climate negotiations. Overall, with the concerted efforts of all parties, COP26 has achieved a balanced and inclusive package of outcomes and concluded six years of negotiations on the Paris Rulebook. It is fair to say that COP26 is another milestone in climate governance following the implementation of the Paris Agreement. Meanwhile, the Glasgow Climate Pact has cemented the consensus on a global commitment to accelerating climate action over the next decade and reached a breakthrough consensus on reducing coal, controlling methane, and halting deforestation. In the post-COP26 era, we still need to take concrete actions to implement the outcomes of the Paris Agreement and the Glasgow Climate Pact, innovate ways to speed up CO₂ emissions reduction, and continue to strive for breakthroughs in important issues such as finance, technology, adaptation, and collaboration. In addition to avoiding the escalation of international conflicts, we need to collectively and properly handle the relationship between energy security, carbon reduction, and development and facilitate the efforts of countries to achieve their Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including climate-related goals. China will continue to maintain the existing multilateral mechanisms and processes for climate governance, unremittingly take concrete actions to address climate change, promote a domestic comprehensive green transition and global cooperation on carbon neutrality, and contribute constructively to global climate governance.     

Learning from CDM SD tool experience for Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement

The Paris Agreement (PA) emphasizes the intrinsic relationship between climate change and sustainable development (SD) and welcomes the 2030 agenda for the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Yet, there is a lack of assessment approaches to ensure that climate and development goals are achieved in an integrated fashion and trade-offs avoided. Article 6.4 of the PA introduces a new Sustainable Mitigation Mechanism (SMM) with the dual aim to contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and foster SD. The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has a similar objective and in 2014, the CDM SD tool was launched by the Executive Board of the CDM to highlight the SD benefits of CDM activities. This article analyses the usefulness of the CDM SD tool for stakeholders and compares the SD tool’s SD reporting requirements against other flexible mechanisms and multilateral standards to provide recommendations for improvement. A key conclusion is that the Paris Agreement’s SMM has a stronger political mandate than the CDM to measure that SD impacts are ‘real, measurable and long-term’. Recommendations for an improved CDM SD tool are a relevant starting point to develop rules, modalities, and procedures for SD assessment in Article 6.4 as well as for other cooperative mitigation approaches.

POLICY RELEVANCE

Research findings are relevant for developing the rulebook of modalities and procedures for Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement, which introduces a new mechanism for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and sustainable development. Lessons learnt from the CDM SD tool and recommendations for enhanced SD assessment are discussed in context of Article 6 cooperative approaches, and make a timely contribution to inform negotiations on the rulebook agreed by the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement.     

美国宣布退出《巴黎协定》后全球气候减缓、资金和治理差距分析

2017年6月1日,美国总统特朗普正式宣布退出《巴黎协定》,有关美国退协原因、后续影响和应对策略的研究成为国际社会关注的焦点。本文基于自主构建的美国政策评估模型,综合定性定量分析,系统评估了美国宣布退出《巴黎协定》可能造成的全球气候变化减缓、资金和治理"三大赤字",并据此提出中国的应对策略和建议。研究表明,考虑美国退协对后续政策的影响,美国2030年的排放将有可能达57.9（56.0~59.8）亿t CO₂-eq,仅相当于在2005年的水平上下降12.1%（9.1%~15.0%）,相对自主贡献目标情景将上升16.4（12.5~20.1）亿t CO₂-eq,额外增加8.8%~13.4%的全球减排赤字。美国拒绝继续履行资金支持义务还将使得本不充裕的气候资金机制更加雪上加霜,绿色气候基金（GCF）的筹资缺口将增加20亿美元,而长期气候资金（LTF）的缺口每年将增加50亿美元左右。这就要求欧盟和日本对GCF的捐助至少上升40%,同时欧盟及其成员国的长期资金支持至少上浮25.2%才能填补上述资金赤字。美国是全球气候博弈的重要一方,且美国退协的影响已蔓延至全球治理的主要议事平台,期望中欧、基础四国+等模式短期内迅速填补美国退出后全球气候治理的治理赤字是不现实的,政治推动乏力的情况可能会在今后一段时期内始终存在。虽然国际社会对中国领导全球气候治理充满期待,但中国应有清醒认识,全面评估"接盘"美国领导力的成本、效益和可行性,并秉持"国家利益"优先的原则,谋定而后动。同时,中国应聚焦国内工作,凝聚应对气候变化的战略共识,做好长期战略谋划,并积极推动国际社会从合作中寻找出路应对"三大赤字"难题。