www.perspectives.cc · honegger@perspectives.cc © 2014 Perspectives GmbH

CLIMATE ENGINEERING GOVERNANCE – IS THE CLIMATE CONVENTION THE RIGHT PLACE

FOR IT?

Climate Engineering Conference, Berlin, 2014

Dan Bodansky

Axel Michaelowa

Matthias Honegger

Ying CHEN

Co-hosted by:

www.perspectives.cc · honegger@perspectives.cc © 2014 Perspectives GmbH

The UN Climate Convention is the most adequate forum to

launch a decision making process on CE

Matthias Honegger

honegger@perspectives.cc

Berlin, 20.08.2014

www.perspectives.cc · honegger@perspectives.cc

What is this about?

Different wording for governance: decision-making processes What decisions? Who? On what?

«The likely» versus «the best» forum for a decision process: Evidence based arguments not the same as normative Applicability of evidence for prospective is debatable Normative arguments could be deduced from Political Theory

– applying principles from similar governance problems: climate change & novel technologies for public goods

The Governance Debate is evidence for the need of societal answers and the need for a broad and inclusive approach

www.perspectives.cc · honegger@perspectives.cc

Evidence based arguments

A1: Climate engineering currently taboo in the UNFCCC C1: Adaptation was taboo but is a core issue now A2: UNFCCC has not delivered emissions reductions C2: The interest-structure of SRM is fundamentally different

from mitigation burden-sharing A3: UNFCCC « will explode » – due to overload of issues C3: The problem is complex; negotiations need to mirror the

problem; epistemic community used to this complexity A4: Too inclusive (debatable normative element) and

therefore impractical (empirical claim) C4: 1) Inclusion may be necessary, enabling politically on int.

level

2) Governments need legitimacy to prevent domestic backlash

3) Consensus not as stringent as outsiders think

4) Negotiations force governments to engage the public

www.perspectives.cc · honegger@perspectives.cc

Normative arguments against involvement

A5: International multilateral negotiation fora are not legitimate – representative / close to “the public” enough

C5: 1. Decisions not taken by the decision forum, but by the Parties shaped by domestic interests and decision processes

2. Transparency, public attention: Draft decision texts, statements at the negotiations publicly available; level and breadth of involvement of media and NGO’s is unique under the UNFCCC

3. Some decisions are to be taken locally, some require global coordination: international fora are to coordinate & identify common ground

A6: Efforts should not be diverted from mitigation/adaptation negotiations

C6: Addressing CE in other political venues may do the same; a political choice of allocating resources; CE-interest structure may be different enough to unblock negotiations

www.perspectives.cc · honegger@perspectives.cc

Why the UN Climate Convention?

The right issue focus the necessary negotiation dimensions- Mitigation level and mitigation responsibilities- Adaptation support level- Compensation payments e.g. loss and damage, tech transfer,

mitigation support, etc. The epistemic community familiar with climate complexity Substantial international attention year after year

- Political weight- Transparency and accountability of governments

Based on principles important for agreement on climate change e.g. equity & pursuit of sustainable development

No better alternative for long-term decision making on climate change