The year 2015 marks when people are hoping to have a new grand proposal on emissions reductions and climate change mitigation processes.\u00a0 When looking at the various designs in which this proposal can take, a bottom-up approach, with emphasis on comprehensive evolutionary stringency policies would allow for strong participation at the onset, flexible requirements early on and a longevity of commitment.<\/p>\n
The first key to any policy is to get a lot of participants.\u00a0 Historically a bottom-up approach achieves this.\u00a0 Bodansky uses the UNFCCC as an example of a bottom up approach.\u00a0 The UNFCCC is one of the largest international regimes ever and they accomplished this by having very minimal stringency policies to be more appealing to Nation-states (Bodansky 2).\u00a0 Climate change is a global issue, and although Nation states come to the negotiation table already knowing what their individual positions are, they are never the less engaged in negotiations and talking to each other.\u00a0 This in turn helps to create more cooperation and interdependency. If a country reduces emissions in league with other countries, that country will theoretically also receive the benefits of other nations reducing emissions (Bodansky 2). \u00a0\u00a0This can be supported by Peter Wilson\u2019s definition of idealism international relation theory stating it \u201cwill empower world public opinion, and make it a powerful force that no government can resist\u2026(Wilson 1).\u00a0 Oppositely a top-down approach will not do this, because of the low participation aspect of countries.\u00a0 However, even though a select few could successfully draft a proposal and use their sway to get in accepted a top-down approach does not include the vast majority of the nations.\u00a0 In order for Climate change to be successfully combated, especially in the long term, all nations need to be a part of the negotiations and have equal stake.<\/p>\n
A traditional bottom-up approach would not be feasible in this situation, because of its lack in stringency.\u00a0 Bodansky explains that for a bottom-up approach to work stringency has to be: \u201cpart of an evolutionary framework that leads to greater action later (Bodansky 2).\u201d\u00a0 The first step is to have low commitments with high participation.\u00a0 Next there must be a comprehensive timeline of commitment increases up-front.\u00a0 One of the drawbacks of the Kyoto protocol is possibly that the second commitment period was to steep. Countries, like Canada ratified the protocol and participated but then dropped out as they realized that the emission reductions were to steep.\u00a0 Similarly Japan and Russia are thinking of doing something very similar.\u00a0 The stringency policies should be smaller incremental increases, over a longer period of time.\u00a0 This way, more countries are engaged over longer periods of time, which would lead to lower emissions in the long-term.\u00a0 Bodansky talks about a variable geometry structure in which countries can pick and choose which instruments to be a part of.\u00a0 This would work well in conjunction with optional protocols (Bodansky 3).\u00a0 For example, the MARPOL (International Convention on the Prevention of Pollutants from Ships) has mandatory protocols that deal with higher risk aspects like oil and noxious liquid, while less risk aspects are deemed as optional protocols (Bodansky 4).\u00a0 If a bottom up approach were created in which, certain emission reductions were considered mandatory, while others were optional, more countries would participate and hopefully stay involved because of the flexibility aspect.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Wilson, Peter \u00a0Idealism in international relations: <\/em>Originally published in Dowding, K., Encyclopedia of power. <\/em>Thousand Oaks, USA: SAGE Publications, 2011, pp. 332-333.<\/p>\n Bodansky, Daniel and O\u2019Connor, Sandra Day. \u201cThe Durban Platform: Issues and Options for a 2015 Agreement.\u201d December 2012. The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions<\/em>. Web.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The year 2015 marks when people are hoping to have a new grand proposal on emissions reductions and climate change mitigation processes.\u00a0 When looking at the various designs in which this proposal can take, a bottom-up approach, with emphasis on comprehensive evolutionary stringency policies would allow for strong participation at the onset, flexible requirements early … <\/p>\n