Could ‘peer pressure’ replace a global climate deal?
The international climate talks can at times resemble an unruly playground – lots of tears, shouting, and not an awful lot of order.
It’s enough to make the casual observer wonder whether the annual UN meetings are really working. But is there an alternative?
An interesting answer emerged at a meeting of experts this morning: peer pressure. Participants at the Carbon Connect event said governments were much more likely to implement climate change policies if they see their allies might leave them behind.
Landmark laws
Each year, countries meet under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to set the direction of global climate policy. In recent years, only incremental progress has been made, leading some to question whether governments are still committed to constraining emissions and combating climate change.
But such analysis overlooks progress being made in countries’ own halls of power, said Sam Fankhauser, co-director of LSE’s Grantham Institute.
Speaking at the event, he highlighted a Globe International and Grantham Institute study which shows 32 major economies are implementing climate legislation, with increasing numbers of developing economies – including China – also formulating laws to address emissions.
Of particular importance are so-called landmark laws, like the UK’s Climate Change Act. Such laws commit governments to reducing emissions over several generations, with clear timetables and plans for action. In essence, the laws ensure countries pursue low carbon policies regardless of which party is in power.
That’s important because if the laws force current and future governments to take climate change action, they are more likely to try and persuade their allies to do likewise, said Fankhauser.
Peer pressure
A clause in the international deal agreed at the latest round of UNFCCC talks in Warsaw last week potentially makes national legislation even more important.
Under the Warsaw agreement, governments will submit national plans for cutting emissions by March 2015. That’s a significant change in approach. Previously, governments had to hit targets set by the Kyoto Protocol decided at the UNFCCC meeting in 1997.
The country-led approach was encouraged by negotiators from the United States, who argued that it was a more realistic way to reduce global emissions. But some delegates were concerned that allowing countries to set their own targets could mean governments reduce their level of ambition, as Japan did last week.
That’s where national legislation comes in. Countries with landmark climate laws are unable to scale back their climate commitments. And with more landmark laws popping up across the world, governments are likely to start pressuring their neighbours to match to their level of ambition, Fankhauser said.
So even without a global deal, international action to cut emissions and address climate change could happen – that’s the power of peer pressure.
Signals
But if some governments are already acting on their own – and they can persuade their pals to get on board, too – is there any need for an international deal?
Yes, said Tom Burke, chairman of environmental thinktank E3G. He said it was a “false choice” between national legislation and a global agreement, as governments’ plans rely on cash from global investors looking for a sign that low carbon investments are necessary – and an international deal would be that green light.
So while national governments can try and cajole each other into action – potentially with some success – a deal in 2015 could still be necessary to make low carbon plans work. And that means returning to the pushing and shoving of the UNFCCC playground in Peru next year.