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。     

全球气候治理对中国中长期发展的影响分析及未来建议

全球气候变暖毋庸质疑。政府间气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)第五次评估报告(AR5)再次证实,全球气候持续变暖,由此引发风险越来越明确,而人类活动对全球气候变化影响的证据也越来越确凿。如何应对气候变化带来的不利影响是全人类共同的任务。中国作为人类命运共同体的一员,一直非常重视气候变化。2007年,国务院成立国家应对气候变化及节能减排工作领导小组,作为国家应对气候变化和节能减排工作的议事协调机构。自此,国家应对气候变化领导小组统一领导、国家发展和改革委员会归口管理、有关部门和地方分工负责、智库机构有力支撑、全社会广泛参与的应对气候变化管理体制和工作机制已经初步形成,并逐步将应对气候变化工作放入中国中长期发展战略中。随着对全球气候变化认知的深入,气候变化对中国中长期发展及战略部署的影响也越来越大,应对气候变化工作也将成为中国中长期发展必须考虑的一部分。应对气候变化是生态文明建设的重要一环,力推绿色低碳安全发展应是未来发展的必然之路。同时,对外需积极参与全球气候治理,对内更需加强科普宣传,提高全民意识。     

隐形碳关税:概念辨析与国际治理

碳关税是各国高度关注的贸易问题,因涉及各国经贸利益,南北国家在碳关税问题上分歧很大。任何有关碳关税的政策措施,都会引起发展中国家的强烈反对。因此,部分发达国家试图另辟蹊径,在国际贸易中通过增加生产标准、碳标签等技术要求,以比较隐蔽的方式实现执行碳关税的目的。文中将这些隐蔽的但能起到碳关税执行效果的政策措施归纳为隐形碳关税,并定义隐形碳关税是指那些虽然没有在边境环节征收碳关税,但与征收碳关税起到相同贸易壁垒作用的,对发展中国家出口产品和服务构成限制的政策和措施。隐形碳关税比较典型的表现形式包括生产标准、碳标签等措施。这些措施本身是政策中性的,并不构成隐形碳关税,但如果叠加了转移应对气候变化成本、限制发展中国家产业发展等目的,这些措施的性质便不再中性,而成为现实中的贸易壁垒。隐形碳关税的治理应该是国际气候治理进程的一个部分,《联合国气候变化框架公约》则应是隐形碳关税治理的主要国际平台。无论是在气候公约内还是气候公约外的治理机制,隐形碳关税的国际治理都应遵循气候公约的相关原则,尤其是共同但有区别责任原则,区别对待发达和发展中国家的责任和义务,充分发挥生产标准、碳标签等措施的积极环境效用,同时约束其不当使用,建立公平、互信、务实的国际合作模式,实现气候治理与经济发展的协同。     

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。     

对气候变化国际治理的系统思考——新书评介：《国际气候制度与中国》

气候变化不仅客观存在而且发展趋势令人堪忧,对自然生态系统和全球社会经济发展构成了严重的威胁。如何应对气候变化并促进全球可持续发展,已成为国际社会关注的焦点。罗伯特·基欧汉和约瑟夫·奈曾经在《权力与相互依赖》中谈到国际关系时断言:“我们生活在一个相     

国际气候合作的现实与前景

回顾了当前气候变化领域内几种主要的国际气候合作形成及其发展,从合作方式、内容和原则3个方面深入分析了这些国际气候合作的基本特点。由于各国思维方式的差异性,决定了当前的国际气候合作是一种共识与分歧并存的合作。这种对话机制不啻为一条打破僵局的现实出路,但是,如果想开创成员国间努力寻求的辉煌未来,需要各方消除"责任与效果"方面的分歧,进一步加强合作的制度化建设。     

绿色气候基金在全球气候治理体系中的作用和展望

作为《联合国气候变化框架公约》(简称公约）和《巴黎协定》资金机制最大运营实体,绿色气候基金(GCF)不仅是发达国家兑现1000亿美元长期资金承诺的重要平台,亦是公约和《巴黎协定》目标达成的关键因素。文中系统总结了GCF在推进气候变化国际合作进程、为发展中国家应对气候变化提供资金支持、推动私营部门参与应对气候变化行动等方面的积极作用。提出在当前多边合作面临挑战的复杂背景下,GCF亦面临美国退群、缺乏有效决策机制、项目质量及秘书处能力有待提高等系列问题。文章认为,一个持续有效运营的GCF是国际社会落实《巴黎协定》实施细则的重要保障,各方应尽快凝聚政治共识,推动GCF在全球气候治理体系中继续发挥积极作用。首先,应通过引入投票权决策机制、完善政策缺口、创新业务模式等措施提升基金治理和运营效率;其次,通过尽快完成正式增资进程、拓宽资金渠道、加强剩余资金管理等方式确保充足及可持续的资金来源;最后,还应通过强化与现有气候基金的协调互补、加大与多边发展银行的合作等途径与各方资金形成合力,推动资金流向低碳和气候韧性发展领域。文章还提出,中国应在有效发挥发达国家和发展中国家桥梁作用的基础上,引导GCF投票权改革以消除政治因素对GCF长远发展的负面影响,同时通过积极争取获得下届董事席位,推进与GCF全方位合作、参与GCF正式增资进程等举措,服务生态文明建设及全球应对气候变化目标。     

COP28全球盘点成果解读及全球气候治理形势展望

《联合国气候变化框架公约》第28次缔约方会议（COP28）完成了《巴黎协定》下首次全球盘点,就多项议题达成一揽子名为“阿联酋共识”的成果。全球盘点成果的达成在机制上维护了《巴黎协定》的有效性,成果文件凸显了全球以1.5℃为温控目标强化减排行动力度的紧迫性,构建了全球适应目标框架,建立了损失与损害基金,高度关注气候资金支持缺口问题,并澄清了气候资金的概念关系。中国在元首外交、气候治理理念、谈判磋商方案等方面为全球盘点成果的达成作出了重要贡献。展望首次全球盘点后的全球气候多边形势,全球气候治理格局的多渠道化、多领域化、目标细化趋势显现,地缘政治加剧绿色贸易壁垒,发展中国家立场日渐碎片化,各国将在《巴黎协定》下以“自主贡献+”的模式开展气候行动,并不断按照新的要求更新和提高自主贡献。建议中国强化统筹国际国内两个大局,顺应全球绿色发展大势,积极完成各项履约任务并强化气候变化相关研究支撑和能力建设,提前统筹谋划COP29工作方案。     

中国参与构建2012年后国际气候制度的战略思考

 2009年将是构建2012年后应对气候变化国际制度的关键时期,而除了温室气体的减排目标和责任分摊之外,减缓和适应气候变化以及相应的技术和资金支持都将会是最为关键的影响要素。在对国际气候制度的关键影响要素进行梳理并对其进程进行分析的基础上,结合不断变化的国际国内政治、经济、环境和社会形势,对中国在2012年后国际气候谈判以及中长期应对气候变化的策略进行了探讨。     

“经济大国能源与气候论坛”进展及前景展望

"经济大国能源与气候论坛"在推动全球主要国家就应对气候变化主要议题达成一致方面取得了进展,已初步显示出其作为联合国气候谈判晴雨表的特征。该论坛的实质是主要发达国家为转移减排责任和压力,降低减排成本,绑架主要发展中国家在全球应对气候变化领域实施的集体强权政治。论坛的核心目标在于推动全球量化减排,目的是借全球量化减排,营造低碳和气候友好技术的广大市场,使得具有技术优势的这些经济大国拥有新的主导全球经济的力量。我国应坚持"共同但有区别的责任"原则,联合与会发展中国家强调气候变化的历史责任,反对为全球温室气体排放设限等不公平提议,团结广大发展中国家,同时抓住论坛力推低碳经济和低碳技术发展的机遇,使我国站在全球新一轮技术革命的前沿。     

Resilience through interlinkage: the green climate fund and climate finance governance

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is a significant and potentially innovative addition to UNFCCC frameworks for mobilizing increased finance for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Yet the GCF faces challenges of operationalization not only as a relatively new international fund but also as a result of US President Trump’s announcement that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Consequently the GCF faces a major reduction in actual funding contributions and also governance challenges at the levels of its Board and the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP), to which it is ultimately accountable. This article analyzes these challenges with reference to the GCF’s internal regulations and its agreements with third parties to demonstrate how exploiting design features of the GCF could strengthen its resilience in the face of such challenges. These features include linkages with UNFCCC constituted bodies, particularly the Technology Mechanism, and enhanced engagement with non-Party stakeholders, especially through its Private Sector Facility. The article posits that deepening GCF interlinkages would increase both the coherence of climate finance governance and the GCF’s ability to contribute to ambitious climate action in uncertain times.

Key policy insights

• The Trump Administration’s purported withdrawal from the Paris Agreement creates challenges for the GCF operating model in three key domains: capitalization, governance and guidance.

• Two emerging innovations could prove crucial in GCF resilience to fulfil its role in Paris Agreement implementation: (1) interlinkages with other UNFCCC bodies, especially the Technology Mechanism; and (2) engagement with non-Party stakeholders, especially private sector actors such as large US investors and financiers.

• There is also an emerging soft role for the GCF as interlocutor between policy-makers and non-Party actors to help bridge the communication divide that often plagues cross-sectoral interactions.

• This role could develop through: (a) the GCF tripartite interface between the Private Sector Facility, Accredited Entities and National Designated Authorities; and (b) strengthened collaborations between the UNFCCC Technical and Financial Mechanisms.

     

Climate change and the transition to neoliberal environmental governance

What are the guiding principles of contemporary international governance of climate change and to what extent do they represent neoliberal forms? We document five main political and institutional shifts within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and outline core governance practices for each phase. In discussing the current phase since the Paris Agreement, we offer to the emerging literature on international neoliberal environmental governance an analytical framework by which the extent of international neoliberal governance can be assessed. We conceptualize international neoliberal environmentalism as characterized by four main processes: the prominence of libertarian ideals of justice, in which justice is defined as the rational pursuit of sovereign self-interest between unequal parties; marketization, in which market mechanisms, private sector engagement and purportedly ‘objective’ considerations are viewed as the most effective and efficient forms of governance; governance by disclosure, in which the primary obstacles to sustainability are understood as ‘imperfect information’ and onerous regulatory structures that inhibit innovation; and exclusivity, in which multilateral decision-making is shifted from consensus to minilateralism. Against this framework, we argue that the contemporary UNFCCC regime has institutionalized neoliberal reforms in climate governance, although not without resistance, in a configuration which is starkly different than that of earlier eras. We conclude by describing four crucial gaps left by this transition, which include the ability of the regime to drive adequate ambition, and gaps in transparency, equity and representation.     

Great-power politics,order transition,and climate governance: insights from international relations theory

The complex politics of climate change cannot be properly understood without reference to deeper geopolitical trends in the wider international system. Chief among these is the growing resurgence of ‘great-power politics’ between China and the US, along with failures of socialization and enmeshment into global governance structures in relation to these two powers. Traditional theoretical frameworks have failed to adequately account for these developments. Nonetheless, this current great-power contestation is at the core of an order transition that has prevented the large-scale institutional redesign required to remove deadlocks in existing global governance structures, including climate governance. Examples from the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference provide ample evidence for these claims. The slow progress of the climate change negotiations are due not just to the politics of the issue itself, but to the absence of a new political bargain on material power structures, normative beliefs, and the management of the order amongst the great powers. Without such a grand political bargain, which could be promoted through a forum of major economies whose wide-ranging remit would go beyond single issues, the climate change regime is only ever likely to progress in a piecemeal fashion.

Policy relevance

Despite the achievements of the 2012 Doha Climate Change Conference, the climate negotiations are not on course to limit warming to 2 °C, and thereby avoid ‘dangerous’ climate change. Several factors have been invoked to account for such slow progress: notably, the nature of the climate change problem itself, the institutional structure of the climate regime, and lack of political will among key players. An alternative explanation is proposed such that the failure to seriously address climate change – as well as other global problems – reflects a resurgent meta-struggle between the ‘great powers’ of China and the US over the nature of the global order. Without such a broader understanding of the deeper dynamics underlying the stalemates of the climate change negotiations, there is little chance of turning those negotiations around.     

将适应气候变化纳入国土空间规划：进展、困境与思路

空间规划是适应气候变化的重要政策工具之一,将适应气候变化目标纳入空间规划已经成为国际主流政策。中国适应气候变化的空间规划仍面临诸多问题和挑战,包括气候适应目标和理念薄弱、气候变化风险评估与空间规划尺度不匹配、适应和减缓策略的协同机制欠缺、技术标准和法律法规不完善等。文章结合国家适应气候变化战略和国土空间规划体系重构的目标要求,研究提出适应气候变化导向的国土空间规划框架体系和技术思路,以及将适应气候变化纳入空间规划编制审批、技术标准、实施监督以及法规政策等各个环节的思路与建议,以期通过空间规划的编制与监督实施促进适应气候变化目标的实现。     

Breaking the impasse: towards a new regime for international climate governance

The reality of the current international order makes it imperative that a just and effective climate regime should balance the historical responsibility of developed countries with the increasing absolute emissions from many developing nations. The key pillars are briefly proposed for a new international climate architecture that envisions replacing the current annex system with two new annexes: Annex α, for countries with high current emissions and historically high emissions, and Annex β, for countries with high current emissions and historically low emissions. Countries in both annexes would implement legally binding targets under this framework. Additionally, this proposal includes alterations and revisions to funding and technology transfer mechanisms to correct for weaknesses and inequities under the current Kyoto architecture. The proposed framework stems from a belief that a top-down, international approach to climate policy remains the most effective for ensuring environmental integrity. Given the slow rate of institutional learning, the reform and improvement of the current system is held as a more efficient course of action than abandoning the progress already achieved. It is argued that the proposed framework could effectively accommodate key equity, environmental integrity, and political feasibility concerns.     

Muddling through with climate change targets: a multi-level governance perspective on the transport sector

The UK Climate Change Act 2008 commits to a reduction of 80% in national GHG emissions by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. This article explores what happens next where these top-level aspirations are expected to be turned into radical action. It does so through examination of the transport sector, which is a highly complex, fragmented, and multi-level delivery environment. The research draws on cases studies of four major cities with different governance structures within the two distinct, yet connected, national contexts of England and Scotland. It integrates a range of theoretical legacies, namely ‘muddling through’, multi-level governance, and positional analysis, to look across governmental layers and out to non-governmental actors at all levels. Underneath the 80% target, the framework for action remains unclear. Lower-tiered authorities report difficulties in acting in a more comprehensive or rapid manner than upper tiers of government, largely because of the potential costs involved and a significant resource dependency on national governments. Ambition is also tempered by conflicts with economic growth objectives and the difficulties in aligning the objectives of the myriad of public and private organizations that need to take action.     

Accelerating the sustainability transition: Exploring synergies between adaptation and mitigation in British Columbian communities

While the focus of government climate change policy in many regions is on mitigation, research shows that integrated approaches, focusing equally on mitigation and adaptation, seen in the context of more general sustainability goals, may ultimately yield more productive outcomes. Since 2008, the province of British Columbia has mandated that local governments be carbon neutral in their own operations and has used a suite of policies, outreach and incentive tools to enable them to do so. The Meeting the Climate Change Challenge project explored eleven leading communities in B.C. to empirically examine how climate change policies and innovations are being framed and considered at the local scale.In this paper, we examine the synergies and trade-offs between adaptation, mitigation, and sustainability. Our findings suggest that, among leading communities, pursuing an integrated sustainability strategy (rather than a narrow focus on climate change) has the potential to yield benefits for both adaptation and mitigation in the majority of cases. The findings suggest that communities leading on climate innovation in the province have moved beyond a siloed approach in considering mitigation and adaptation. These findings have implications on integrated decision making at the municipal scale and multi-level governance, identifying both the challenges and the benefits inherent in pursuing multiple priorities simultaneously.