<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>e-IR &#187; Climate Politics: IR and the Environment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.e-ir.info/?feed=rss2&#038;cat=562" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.e-ir.info</link>
	<description>students of international relations</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:07:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>The story of cap and trade</title>
		<link>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2837</link>
		<comments>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2837#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:37:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rodger A Payne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate Politics: IR and the Environment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2837</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The ongoing negotiations in Copenhagen, which are slated to end Friday, are apparently at a &#8220;critical juncture&#8221; according to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The United States inched closer to the views of its European allies today by agreeing that it is &#8220;prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year to address the climate change needs of developing countries.&#8221;
Whether the money would be used for reparations or adaptation, this is a positive development. After reading pessimistic reports all week, I&#8217;ll take what good news I can get. 
If the negotiators reach a deal, it will likely allow for (or even encourage) a global &#8220;cap and trade&#8221; system. The bill passed earlier in the year by the House of Representatives includes a U.S. cap and trade system and any forthcoming Senate bill is likely to include this plan too.
Want to&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.e-ir.info/?feed=rss2&amp;p=2837</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Danish Text</title>
		<link>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2784</link>
		<comments>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2784#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:13:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rodger A Payne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate Politics: IR and the Environment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2784</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Should environmentalists and other progressives get worked up over the recently leaked &#8220;Danish text&#8221;? Todays Guardian summarized the key concerns raised by this alleged draft agreement among the rich states:
• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;&#8230;
• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.
The Danish text would also abandon Kyoto and transfer most climate-related development assistance to the World Bank. 
In many ways Kyoto is already dead. US Climate Envoy Todd Stern basically acknowledged as much earlier this year. The US never joined, even the EU nations have not met their emission reduction targets, and the reductions were far too modest to make much of a difference in the long run. 
Eventually, environmentalists might even come to&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.e-ir.info/?feed=rss2&amp;p=2784</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Climate &#8220;Reparations&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2760</link>
		<comments>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2760#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:40:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rodger A Payne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate Politics: IR and the Environment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2760</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the critical issues facing Copenhagen negotiators is the amount of money (and technology) that will be transferred from wealthy states (who are responsible for the lion&#8217;s share of past and current greenhouse gas emissions) to developing countries so that the latter won&#8217;t burn fossil fuels and thereby create future emissions that could effectively cancel out any reductions achieved by rich states. 
The same problem was faced (successfully) in the 1980s during the bargaining related to the Montreal Protocol, which essentially phased out CFC production in relatively short order. The Multilateral Fund has transferred billions of dollars over the years.
However, in the case of climate change compensation, developing state requests and affluent state offers are separated by a vast gap. Bolivian President Evo Morales has called for affluent states to transfer 1% of their GDP to developing states for what some activists call &#8220;climate reparations.&#8221; That would amount&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.e-ir.info/?feed=rss2&amp;p=2760</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brazil</title>
		<link>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2719</link>
		<comments>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2719#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:26:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rodger A Payne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate Politics: IR and the Environment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2719</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Will a new climate agreement require developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (ghgs)? Will developing states agree to make reductions? In this post, let&#8217;s consider the prospects for Brazil agreeing to such reductions. 
First however, keep in mind the history. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, noted the special circumstances faced by relatively poor countries: 
[Convention parties note] that the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries, that per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low and that the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs
As a consequence of these special circumstances, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (which entered into force in 2005), made no requirements that developing states reduce emissions. 
The United States Senate unanimously passed the&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.e-ir.info/?feed=rss2&amp;p=2719</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Interim Deal?</title>
		<link>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2710</link>
		<comments>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2710#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:34:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rodger A Payne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate Politics: IR and the Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate treaty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copenhagen]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2710</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Copenhagen climate summit is now less than one month away and observers are not optimistic that states will agree to a deal cementing either specific greenhouse gas emission reductions or increased environmental assistance to the developing world so they can meet the standards without threatening growth vital to fighting poverty. 
Last month, Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen, who will be hosting the conference, outlined an interim agreement that states could embrace to prevent the Copenhagen conference from ending in failure. Today, the Washington Post provides the sketchy details: 
&#8220;political commitments&#8221; from key nations outlining their targets to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions as well as the amount of money richer countries will spend to help developing nations adapt to global warming and curb their own emissions. Such an approach could provide the incentive for major developing economies such as China and India &#8212; both of whose leaders&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.e-ir.info/?feed=rss2&amp;p=2710</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hidden costs of the status quo</title>
		<link>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2656</link>
		<comments>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2656#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:56:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rodger A Payne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate Politics: IR and the Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[air pollution costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negative externalities]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2656</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In late October, the United States National Academy of Sciences released an interesting on-line &#8220;prepublication&#8221; edition of a report called Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use. The October 19 New York Times reported the key finding on the costs of air pollution from burning fossil fuels: 
Burning fossil fuels costs the United States about $120 billion a year in health costs, mostly because of thousands of premature deaths from air pollution, the National Academy of Sciences reported in a study issued Monday.
The damages are caused almost equally by coal and oil, according to the study, which was ordered by Congress. The study set out to measure the costs not incorporated into the price of a kilowatt-hour or a gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel. 
The study did NOT attempt to estimate costs of any damage cost by global warming, &#8220;nor did the study measure&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.e-ir.info/?feed=rss2&amp;p=2656</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Copenhagen: Will a deal emerge?</title>
		<link>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2561</link>
		<comments>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2561#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:57:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rodger A Payne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate Politics: IR and the Environment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2561</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This past week, the news related to the ongoing climate negotiations was quite confusing. On Monday the 19th of October, the BBC reported optimistically: 
&#8220;It&#8217;s an uphill battle, but I just feel today it&#8217;s more do-able than (I did) yesterday,&#8221; Mr Miliband [UK climate secretary] told journalists in a briefing directly after the MEF meeting closed on Monday evening in London.
&#8220;There was a universal view that we need to get an agreement in Copenhagen &#8211; not an agreement at any price, but that we&#8217;ve come a long way and we intend to translate that into an agreement by the end of the year.&#8221; 
The very next day, October 20, The New York Times reported the opposite: 
With the clock running out and deep differences unresolved, it now appears that there is little chance that international climate change negotiations in Copenhagen in December will produce a comprehensive and binding new&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.e-ir.info/?feed=rss2&amp;p=2561</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ICE</title>
		<link>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2504</link>
		<comments>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2504#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:17:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rodger A Payne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate Politics: IR and the Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Convention on Biological Diversity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copenhagen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[geoengineering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[icc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICE]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2504</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Do you remember when I mentioned &#8220;Greenfinger&#8221; on this blog a couple of months ago? Greenfinger would be a rich master environmental criminal &#8212; perhaps pursuing climate geoengineering without international approval.
In the October Atlantic Monthly, representatives of the ICE Coalition wrote to the editors to offer a legal solution to the potential Greenfinger problem:
 One important response would be to create a judicial framework for international environmental treaties, which could set standards for national, corporate, and individual activities causing environmental damage or creating hazards and could, when necessary, impose sanctions. Call it an International Court for the Environment. Research into the potential structure and functions of such a court has already begun, and a steering committee ready to launch a worldwide campaign for its adoption has been created; it’s called, appropriately enough, the ICE Coalition.
In anticipation of, or in response to, a potential “Greenfinger” acting unilaterally, such a&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.e-ir.info/?feed=rss2&amp;p=2504</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Washington&#8217;s 2-level-game</title>
		<link>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2466</link>
		<comments>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2466#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 02:41:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rodger A Payne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate Politics: IR and the Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copenhagen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negotiations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[two-level games]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2466</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This past weekend, Carol Browner, Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy proclaimed that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate bill (which passed the House this summer) is not going to become law prior to the upcoming climate negotiations. The NYT : 
&#8220;Obviously, we&#8217;d like to be through the process,&#8221; Carol Browner said during an event in Washington hosted by The Atlantic magazine. &#8220;But that&#8217;s not going to happen. I think we&#8217;d all agree the likelihood that you&#8217;d have a bill signed by the president on comprehensive energy by the time we go in December is not likely.&#8221;
Effectively, this gives the Obama administration some additional flexibility in the Copenhagen negotiations &#8212; the U.S. could theoretically offer to accept deeper reductions in greenhouse gas emissions if it is not locked into congressionally-mandated numbers: 
Waxman-Markey would mandate a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.e-ir.info/?feed=rss2&amp;p=2466</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dirty energy subsidies</title>
		<link>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2398</link>
		<comments>http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2398#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:23:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rodger A Payne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate Politics: IR and the Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[G20]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[subsidies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UNEP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2398</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last August, the UN Environmental Programme reported that &#8220;around $300 billion or 0.7 per cent of global GDP is being spent on energy subsidies annually.&#8221; These subsidies are particularly important because most are devoted to fossil fuels. They artificially reduce the price of those fuels, thereby increasing consumption and dramatically influencing greenhouse gas emissions. The UNEP press release from 2008 continued: 
The lion&#8217;s share is being used to artificially lower or reduce the real price of fuels like oil, coal and gas or electricity generated from such fossil fuels.
Cancelling these subsidies might reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as six per cent a year while contributing 0.1 per cent to global GDP.
This week, leaders of the G20 states agreed to phase out subsidies on fossil fuels, though they did not announce an agreed timetable and they included the prospects of exemptions to aid their poorest citizens with&#8230;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.e-ir.info/?feed=rss2&amp;p=2398</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
