Search

The 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was held in Glasgow a year later than scheduled, with expected outcomes achieved under a post-pandemic background. Based on the Issue-Actor-Mechanism Framework, this paper systematically evaluates the outcomes achieved at COP26 and analyzes the tendency of post-COP26 climate negotiations. Overall, with the concerted efforts of all parties, COP26 has achieved a balanced and inclusive package of outcomes and concluded six years of negotiations on the Paris Rulebook. It is fair to say that COP26 is another milestone in climate governance following the implementation of the Paris Agreement. Meanwhile, the Glasgow Climate Pact has cemented the consensus on a global commitment to accelerating climate action over the next decade and reached a breakthrough consensus on reducing coal, controlling methane, and halting deforestation. In the post-COP26 era, we still need to take concrete actions to implement the outcomes of the Paris Agreement and the Glasgow Climate Pact, innovate ways to speed up CO2 emissions reduction, and continue to strive for breakthroughs in important issues such as finance, technology, adaptation, and collaboration. In addition to avoiding the escalation of international conflicts, we need to collectively and properly handle the relationship between energy security, carbon reduction, and development and facilitate the efforts of countries to achieve their Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including climate-related goals. China will continue to maintain the existing multilateral mechanisms and processes for climate governance, unremittingly take concrete actions to address climate change, promote a domestic comprehensive green transition and global cooperation on carbon neutrality, and contribute constructively to global climate governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates how the Kyoto Protocol has framed political discourse and policy development of greenhouse gas mitigation in Australia. We argue that ‘Kyoto’ has created a veil over the climate issue in Australia in a number of ways. Firstly, its symbolic power has distracted attention from actual environmental outcomes while its accounting rules obscure the real level of carbon emissions and structural trends at the nation-state level. Secondly, a public policy tendency to commit to far off emission targets as a compromise to implementing legislation in the short term has also emerged on the back of Kyoto-style targets. Thirdly, Kyoto’s international flexibility mechanisms can lead to the diversion of mitigation investment away from the nation-state implementing carbon legislation. A final concern of the Kyoto approach is how it has shifted focus away from Australia as the world’s largest coal exporter towards China, its primary customer. While we recognise the crucial role aspirational targets and timetables play in capturing the imagination and coordinating action across nations, our central theme is that ‘Kyoto’ has overshadowed the implementation of other policies in Australia. Understanding how ‘Kyoto’ has framed debate and policy is thus crucial to promoting environmentally effective mitigation measures as nation-states move forward from COP15 in Copenhagen to forge a post-Kyoto international agreement. Recent elections in 2009 in Japan and America and developments at COP15 suggest positive scope for international action on climate change. However, the lesson from the 2007 election and subsequent events in Australia is a caution against elevating the symbolism of ‘Kyoto-style’ targets and timetables above the need for implementation of mitigation policies at the nation-state level. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]