The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, allows signatory member countries to come up with their plan to control emissions to achieve the targeted global temperature increase of fewer than two degrees. The treaty requires countries to formulate plans that are suited to their development strategies and conservation goals to curb the effects of global warming. The plans are then reported to United Nations Committee on a regular basis. The bottom line of the formulated plans should be that they improve the previous plans that had been formulated by the country. Additionally, the implementation of the plan should have specific timelines that are enforced by the nation. The in-class agreement focuses on Russia’s plans to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases without regulations from the US and its allies. Hence, the adoption of policies needs an internal plan as opposed to coercion by other countries. These two agreements represent a change in the approach to curbing global warming using a method that differs from that of previous treaties which are less successful.
The Paris Agreement and the in-class negotiation are both centered on the voluntary nature of the climate change mitigation plans created by individual countries. Unlike previous treaties like the Kyoto Protocol which emphasized enforced plans that had penalties if not implemented, the Paris agreement deviates from this line of thought by allowing member countries to come up with their ambitious plans and outline ways to implement them. The Paris Agreement recognizes the different development plans for the countries and thus will enable members to draft their plans according to their preferences. Consequently, the Agreement does not interfere with the country’s development agenda. Additionally, the resources required for the implementation of climate change plans are a challenge to many member states. Thus, allowing them to formulate their plans about the availability of funds for implementation contributes to its success.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Voluntarily agreeing to meet the conditions of the treaty further underlines the inclusive nature of the Paris Agreement. The terms of the agreement bring on board countries with different ideas on how the menace of climate change needs to be dealt with in both the short and long term. Inclusivity is vital in achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement since the overall target of fewer than two degrees of global temperature rise is the total of individual efforts of signatory states. Previous treaties which provided goals for the countries didn't factor in the need for inclusivity in their plans. As a result, countries viewed the treaties as dictatorial hence their failures. Similarly, the in-class negotiation discusses the downsides of imposing unfavorable climate change policies on Russia. While the USA is among the leading producers of greenhouse gases, its a continued effort to pressure Russia to adopt specific climate change policies is shocking. The US lacks the moral authority to dictate to Russia on matters of climate change. The voluntary approach to implementing climate change policies like the one adopted by the Paris Agreement is therefore likely to bring success as opposed to the previous treaties which were less accommodating. The Paris Agreement adopted a bottom-up approach for countries to mitigate the effects of climate change. In a shift from the previous approach of plans being formulated by international bodies like the UN and then countries being required to implement the policies, under the Paris Agreement nations have the freedom to contribute to reducing the effects of climate change through nationally agreed contributions. Although the paradigm shift occurred in 2009, the Paris agreement significantly utilizes this newly adopted approach. The bottom-up approach is well suited for the campaign against climate change since the methods are not too rigid such that is becoming non-accommodative for countries deemed to be producing more greenhouse gases or too lenient such that it’s ineffective in their objective. Furthermore, the bottom-up approach is sustainable for longer periods. It's not affected by shifts in ideologies for the member states of their leadership. Additionally, the in-class agreement adopts the bottom-up approach. Russia’s idea of implementing climate change policies without influence from the US and its allies is consistent with the approach adopted by the Paris Agreement. The US view of itself as a super-sovereign nation goes against Russia’s idea of climate change being mitigated through a bottom-up approach. Russia’s commitment to reducing the emission of greenhouse gases and conserving its natural resources while at the same time sustaining its economic development is in line with the requirements of the Paris Agreement. Legally binding treaties with dire consequences like the Kyoto Protocol and those accompanied by preconditions like The Cancun Agreements contributed to the failures of the first treaties. These previous treaties had limitations regarding the consequences for failing to implement the policies within the specified timeframes, hence their unpopularity. The Paris Agreement overcomes these challenges by eliminating the preconditions and consequences for failing to implement certain policies. Since the countries formulate their policies, it becomes easier for the individual countries to implement them. Further, the burden of consequences led some countries to withdraw from these treaties, notably, the US withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. The in-class agreement also eliminates the legally binding nature of previously failed treaties. Russia mitigates climate change by using strategies that are friendly to its economic development. Thus, the legal issues of the previous treaties are eliminated by the two agreements. Both the Paris Agreement and the in-class agreement introduce a new perspective on the methods countries use to mitigate the effects of climate change. The adoption of a more inclusive process is likely to bring more success to the efforts to curb climate change. Thus, the in-class agreement proves more transformative than the Paris Agreement since its specific to Russia. The Paris Agreement fails to specify the actions that countries should take to control the effects of climate change, and instead relies on nationally-determined contributions (NDC). Weak contribution thus becomes ineffective in the long run. The in-class agreement overcomes this issue by providing specific actions that will be taken, for example limiting emissions of greenhouse gases to 70% of the levels of the 1990s. The transformative nature of the in-class agreement is also evident in the assertion that sanctions by the US are hurting the renewable energy sector in Russia. Thus, the protocol addresses the problems that may hinder its implementation, unlike the Paris Protocol which ignores these factors. Russia’s plan to protect its natural resources is also clearly laid out. In conclusion, the Paris Agreement presents a shift from earlier treaties which were ineffective. The bottom-up approach is specifically plausible since it addresses the problem of forceful policies which contributed to earlier failures. Voluntary policies that are contained in the individual country plans also prove easier to implement as opposed to policies imposed on signatory countries. Furthermore, previous treaties which had consequences if countries failed to implement the agreements were unsuccessful. Thus, the Paris and in-class agreements eliminate these problems. Comparatively, the in-class agreement is more transformative than the Paris Agreement since it specifies the actions that Russia will take in its climate change mitigation efforts.
Bibliography
Bodansky, Daniel. "The Paris Climate Change Agreement: A New Hope?" American Journal of International Law 110, no. 2 (2016): 288-319.
Class Agreement. 2018. Russia: In-Class Negotiation Exercise. (accessed March 14, 2018).
Plumer, Brad. 2015. Past climate treaties failed. So the Paris deal will try something radically different. (accessed March 14, 2018). https://www.vox.com/2015/12/14/10105422/paris-climate-deal-history.
United Nations. 2015. "Adoption of the Paris Agreement." Framework Convention on Climate Change. (accessed March 14, 2018).
United Nations, 2015, "Adoption of the Paris Agreement," Framework Convention on Climate Change, 21 . (accessed March 14, 2018).
Brad Plumer, 2015. Past climate treaties failed. So the Paris deal will try something radically different. (accessed March 14, 2018).
Brad Plumer, Past climate treaties failed.
Class Agreement, 2018, Russia: In-Class Negotiation Exercise.
Daniel Bodansky, "The Paris Climate Change Agreement: A New Hope?" American Journal of International Law 110, no. 2 (2016): 288 Ibid., 288
Class Agreement. Russia: In-Class Negotiation Exercise. (accessed March 14, 2018).
Plumer, Past climate treaties failed.
Bodansky, The Paris Climate Change Agreement: A New Hope, 289
Class Agreement, Russia: In-Class Negotiation Exercise
