This conference is all about climate finance, and some sort of weak finance mechanism is all that we can really expect as an outcome for this conference. Oh, and there might be some sort of outline for the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, which is the post 2020 deal that will replace the Kyoto Protocol to be agreed upon in 2015. It is now the beginning of the second week of the conference, and to be honest not much has happened. We have four days of this conference left and by then the negotiators might have a weak finance mechanism to help developing countries with loss and damage, which is where countries that are hardest hit by climate change are provided with financial assistance since they have to deal with the consequences of anthropogenic climate change. It is pretty clear that very little is going to come out of this conference and that countries are going to hold their cards as long as they can.
It is also clear that trust and efforts of collaboration are breaking down between countries, which is concerning, very concerning. Developed and developing countries are pitted against one another as these mechanism are being created because developed countries are holding out on the funds and developing countries are claiming rights to funds wherever they can. Although the developing countries may be right in their demands, it is creating a lot of tension overall in the conference. Climate change has become more about finance than solutions in my opinion, but the unfortunate part is I am not the least bit surprised.
In addition to these finance battles, major countries with recently converted conservative governments are reducing their pledges for emission reduction, which includes Japan and Australia. For the first time in a long time the United States and its lack of commitment is not the country people are primarily talking about in this conference. Not to say that the US is getting out of being challenged, but there is certainly a shift in atmosphere at this conference that I did not witness in Doha.
Last year I wrote my honors thesis on game theory and identifying the reasons as to why countries are struggling to make commitments. As we get closer to the 2015 deal I see these reasons become vividly clear. As the Peruvian Environmental Minister states "we have a dilemma." The dilemma is that we are in what is called a Stag Hunt Game. Games in political philosophy explain human behavior by analyzing what they do in certain situations, and then it is applied to real situations. For this case the story goes that there is a community of individuals that need to hunt food to survive. If they were to work together and effectively strategize they could hunt the mightiest of stags and have a plethora of food. However, in this case everyone would need to work together to make sure that they get the stag. There has to be trust between all hunters because if one defects then the food will be lost and the energy to hunt will be wasted. In large groups it is hard to have this trust, and hard to know what people will put forward during the hunt. Will they put in all their resources? Will they run a little faster and farther to make sure the stag is captured no matter what? If they do get to the stag first will they try to claim more than they deserve? These are questions that would be running in your mind if you had to embark in a community action such as this. This is where the hares come in. Individuals might also see a hare while hunting, and decide to go after that because it is easier than relying on others that they might not completely trust.
Now back to climate change. We have a situation where all nations need to work together to combat climate change, and to capture the stag. They have to share technologies, funding, ideas, make commitments, and ultimately trust one another to make something happen. The sticky point with making these commitments for all countries is that if one country commits to it strongly, implements new policies, and spends a lot of money to mitigate and adapt to climate change while the rest of the world does nothing it will not matter. It would be like a hunter chasing a giant stag around and using a lot of their own resources, bodily energy, to get no reward. Because this all depends on what other countries are willing to commit to, and the trust that comes with it countries are trying to wait until the last minute to say what they are willing to do so they do not have to spend more energy, money and capital then they have to on this issue if other countries are unwilling to commit. That is why it is such a problem that Japan and Australia are decreasing their commitments. This means that the bar has been lowered and you can expect that the bare minimum will be put forward for the 2020 action unless something changes in the next two years in Lima, Peru and Paris, France.
Right now developed countries need to fork up a little finance so that trust can be reinstated between parties, and communication can be open. Actions are very powerful, and that would be one action that would send a clear message to countries around the world if nations were to put funding into climate change mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage. Trust and momentum is all we have to make the changes necessary to save this planet and the lives of people. So I ask, where's the finance?
It is also clear that trust and efforts of collaboration are breaking down between countries, which is concerning, very concerning. Developed and developing countries are pitted against one another as these mechanism are being created because developed countries are holding out on the funds and developing countries are claiming rights to funds wherever they can. Although the developing countries may be right in their demands, it is creating a lot of tension overall in the conference. Climate change has become more about finance than solutions in my opinion, but the unfortunate part is I am not the least bit surprised.
In addition to these finance battles, major countries with recently converted conservative governments are reducing their pledges for emission reduction, which includes Japan and Australia. For the first time in a long time the United States and its lack of commitment is not the country people are primarily talking about in this conference. Not to say that the US is getting out of being challenged, but there is certainly a shift in atmosphere at this conference that I did not witness in Doha.
Last year I wrote my honors thesis on game theory and identifying the reasons as to why countries are struggling to make commitments. As we get closer to the 2015 deal I see these reasons become vividly clear. As the Peruvian Environmental Minister states "we have a dilemma." The dilemma is that we are in what is called a Stag Hunt Game. Games in political philosophy explain human behavior by analyzing what they do in certain situations, and then it is applied to real situations. For this case the story goes that there is a community of individuals that need to hunt food to survive. If they were to work together and effectively strategize they could hunt the mightiest of stags and have a plethora of food. However, in this case everyone would need to work together to make sure that they get the stag. There has to be trust between all hunters because if one defects then the food will be lost and the energy to hunt will be wasted. In large groups it is hard to have this trust, and hard to know what people will put forward during the hunt. Will they put in all their resources? Will they run a little faster and farther to make sure the stag is captured no matter what? If they do get to the stag first will they try to claim more than they deserve? These are questions that would be running in your mind if you had to embark in a community action such as this. This is where the hares come in. Individuals might also see a hare while hunting, and decide to go after that because it is easier than relying on others that they might not completely trust.
Now back to climate change. We have a situation where all nations need to work together to combat climate change, and to capture the stag. They have to share technologies, funding, ideas, make commitments, and ultimately trust one another to make something happen. The sticky point with making these commitments for all countries is that if one country commits to it strongly, implements new policies, and spends a lot of money to mitigate and adapt to climate change while the rest of the world does nothing it will not matter. It would be like a hunter chasing a giant stag around and using a lot of their own resources, bodily energy, to get no reward. Because this all depends on what other countries are willing to commit to, and the trust that comes with it countries are trying to wait until the last minute to say what they are willing to do so they do not have to spend more energy, money and capital then they have to on this issue if other countries are unwilling to commit. That is why it is such a problem that Japan and Australia are decreasing their commitments. This means that the bar has been lowered and you can expect that the bare minimum will be put forward for the 2020 action unless something changes in the next two years in Lima, Peru and Paris, France.
Right now developed countries need to fork up a little finance so that trust can be reinstated between parties, and communication can be open. Actions are very powerful, and that would be one action that would send a clear message to countries around the world if nations were to put funding into climate change mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage. Trust and momentum is all we have to make the changes necessary to save this planet and the lives of people. So I ask, where's the finance?
No comments:
Post a Comment