Global Climate Change is a multi-faceted problem resulting in 20 years of relatively stagnant climate change negotiations. The past negotiations have failed to ratify a climate change agreement that involves all the nation- state actors. The involvement of all nation-states is necessary to achieve the goal of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, which is closing the gap between the countries\u2019 emission pledges and the actuality of countries ability to reach the global average temperature to be below 2 \u00b0C above pre-industrial levels. \u00a0Hence to achieve global involvement and to attain the necessary mitigation goals, alternative negotiations from the \u201ctop-bottom\u201d approach may offer a better solution. The \u201cmixed-track\u201d approach is the most effective method of achieving the post-2020 goals of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action for it incorporates successful aspects of the \u201ctop-bottom\u201d and \u201cbottom-up\u201d approaches, but also resolves the issues that both approaches pose.<\/p>\n
Neither the \u201ctop-down\u201d nor the \u201cbottom-up\u201d approaches allow for completely successful climate change negotiations. One issue with the \u201ctop-down\u201d approach is that it has led to a division between developed and developing nation-states, which has made negotiations tense. \u00a0This divide has become a wall due to most climate policy\u2019s constant incorporation of the CBDR principle (Kallbekken 2014). \u00a0The CBDR policy and changed dynamics between the developed and developing countries should be altered because these nation-states situations have changed and climate change\u2019s current state requires global participation. Another reason why the \u201ctop-down\u201d approach has failed in the past is because nation-state\u2019s participation is voluntary and also there is \u00a0\u201cno enforcement machinery\u201d despite being \u201cunder international law\u201d (Bodansky 2012). \u00a0The Kyoto Protocol operated under these standards and its \u201cfailure\u201d was highlighted due to the withdrawals of the United States, Canada, Russia and Japan. Although the Kyoto Protocol had its disadvantages, it was a major milestone for it provided a framework that was accepted around the globe.\u00a0 If the future negotiations can generate this same global participation, it could lead to the achievement of the Ad Hoc\u2019s goals for 2020.<\/p>\n
Similar to the \u201cbottom-up\u201d approach, the \u201ctop-down\u201d approach has its strengths and weaknesses. Compared to the \u201ctop-down\u201d approach, it has improved international relations for it acts across boarders and has found commonality among nation-states basis.\u00a0 Since private and public transnational networks play such a large role in the negotiations, they should be integrated into the decision-making process.\u00a0 Another strength is that it allows for flexibility and inclusivity for it does not require a protocol or international legal agreement (Bondansky 2012). An example of the \u201cbottom-up\u201d approach was the Copenhagen Accord and Canc\u00fan Agreements, which operate at a national level and are only partially committed, not legally binded. The flexibility of the agreement generates greater\u00a0public approval of an agreement, since it does not necessarily have negative effects if the nation-state deviates from the agreement. \u00a0However, this flexibility is also the downfall of this approach for it gives states too much freedom in which they could lessen their responsibilities towards climate change.<\/p>\n
The \u201cmixed track\u201d approach adds upon \u201ctop-down\u201d\u2019 approach\u2019s successful aspect, but also incorporates the \u201cbottom-up\u201d\u2019 approach\u2019s alternative mechanisms. The \u201cmixed track\u201d approach gives a role to both international and national regime, since they both have been effective in different mechanisms. The \u201cmixed track\u201d positive aspects consist of: legal agreement with some binding and non binding component, variable structure incorporating national and international regimes, multiple types of commitments and mixed mitigation process (Bodansky 2012). Hopefully, the \u201cmixed track\u201d approach would encourage the necessary qualities in decision making , which are \u201ctringency, participation and compliance\u201d .<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Bodansky, D., 2012. The Durban Platform: Issues and Options for a 2015 Agreement.
\nCenter for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). Analysis of President Bush\u2019s Climate Change Plan. February, 2002.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Global Climate Change is a multi-faceted problem resulting in 20 years of relatively stagnant climate change negotiations. The past negotiations have failed to ratify a climate change agreement that involves all the nation- state actors. The involvement of all nation-states is necessary to achieve the goal of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban … <\/p>\n