Search

A significant number of countries classified as 'developing' during the negotiation of the UNFCCC in the early 1990s have experienced rapid economic growth and increase of greenhouse gas emissions since then. We assess whether governments of such countries are considering taking up responsibility for emissions mitigation in the context of the UNFCCC's principle of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR). While an expansion of mitigation responsibility to Non-Annex I countries has been strongly opposed by overarching groups such as the G 77, we find countries such as South Africa and Indonesia that have clearly supported binding commitments. Other countries like China and Singapore oppose binding commitments but increasingly engage in domestic mitigation action. Moreover, China has pledged a significant amount of climate finance. Even in the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which adamantly refuse mitigation commitments, some mitigation action seems to emerge. We thus foresee that countries will increasingly adopt differentiated positions regarding their responsibility for mitigation. This could provide new dynamics in international climate negotiations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

That the climate is changing and societies will have to adapt is now unequivocal, with adaptation becoming a core focus of climate policy. Our understanding of the challenges, needs, and opportunities for climate change adaptation has advanced significantly in recent years yet remains limited. Research has identified and theorized key determinants of adaptive capacity and barriers to adaptation, and more recently begun to track adaptation in practice. Despite this, there is negligible research investigating whether and indeed if adaptive capacity is translating into actual adaptation action. Here we test whether theorized determinants of adaptive capacity are associated with adaptation policy outcomes at the national level for 117 nations. We show that institutional capacity, in particular measures of good governance, are the strongest predictors of national adaptation policy. Adaptation at the national level is limited in countries with poor governance, and in the absence of good governance other presumed determinants of adaptive capacity show limited effect on adaptation. Our results highlight the critical importance of institutional good governance as a prerequisite for national adaptation. Other elements of theorized adaptive capacity are unlikely to be sufficient, effective, or present at the national level where national institutions and governance are poor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States and China are responsible for nearly 40 per cent of total annual greenhouse gas emissions. Global climatic stabilization cannot succeed without the participation of people and organizations in the PRC and the USA. Given the likelihood of continued political paralysis at the national level in both countries, it is important to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and potential of nongovernmental actors in bringing about durable reductions in GHG emissions. Consumption trajectories present one of the most intractable barriers to anthropogenic GHG-emissions reductions and to long-term climatic stabilization. Nordlund and Garvill's (2003) model is adapted and applied in assessing prospects for value change, specific problem awareness, and sustainable-consumption behavior in the PRC and USA. The contributions of nonstate actors are elucidated when issue bundling (specifically links with stress reduction and healthy futures) and principle bundling are incorporated into the explanatory framework. The involvement of transnationally competent activists in emissions mitigation projects, value change, and durable sustainable-consumption practices provides a beacon for future possibilities. Chinese transnationals are a key overlooked and underestimated piece in the current emissions-reduction puzzle because of their critical position at the intersection of values, behavior change, and nongovernmental institutions directly and indirectly involved in climatic-change mitigation. Given their special U.S./P.R.C. leverage, other actors concerned with building a sustainable-consumption movement and with climatic stabilization are likely to benefit from devoting increased attention and responsibilities to this group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]