1. How should we assess Paris conference? What are goals? Are these realistic? What are metrics of effectiveness? What are constraints, especially after Friday’s terrorist attacks?

2. Questions and strategies of International agreement Formal/binding or informal/non-binding Who to involve: which states, non-states What to discuss: pollutants, activities, approach CO2 / CH4 (not NOx) Fossil fuels, forests, land use Mitigation / Adaptation / Compensation How ambitious to be How to frame things Means of implementation Response to compliance and noncompliance Negotiation process

3. Negotiation Theory ZOPA (Zone Of Possible Agreement) Finding the existing ZOPA Interests as exogenously “given” Can’t do more than countries involved want to do Creating a new ZOPA Interests as endogenously created Leadership Argument and persuasion Bringing external pressure to bear Engaging NGO community Creating deadlines and expectations Ensuring agreement but also follow through

4. Other Recent Climate Deals Goal: limit warming to 2 degrees and possibly 1.5 Quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets by developed countries Developing countries “will” take mitigation actions Registry for developing country actions Green Climate Fund ($30 billion for 2010-12; $100 billion per year by 2020) – compare to economic stimulus bill (~800 million) International Technology Mechanism Cancun Adaptation Framework REDD + (forest-related emissions) International forum for consequences of climate policy Carbon-capture-and-storage as policy option LULUCF included

5. Current status Commitment to new agreement in Paris in 2015 UNEP for 4F: 44 GtCO2e by 2020/ 22 by 2050; 2010 was 50; BAU is 59 in 2020; “good” would be 52 in 2020 Kyoto renewed at weak level (fewer countries, generally weaker commitments) Current status Legal form unclear Financial assistance stalled Technology requests rejected Alliances shifting a bit Much is in flux

6. Not Just International Action Governments: India, China, US, Europe, Japan; Costa Rica: 3.5% carbon tax since 1997 States: Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative; Western Climate Initiative Cities: ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability: >1000 cities, towns NGOs/Corporations: WWF, Greenpeace, Nike, Levi’s, etc. Religions: Faith Action on Climate Change, Interfaith Power & Light, Evangelical Environmental Network, Individuals: Voluntary Simplicity, direct action

7. The Kyoto Protocol How should we analyze its influence? Indicator of effectiveness? Outputs -- laws Outcomes -- emissions Impacts -- concentrations Developed vs. developing? Goals vs. counterfactual? How do we estimate counterfactuals & effects? Establishing causal – Andresen Establishing correlation – Kumazawa/Callaghan

8. Andresen Looking much more at process and details Looking at “problem structure” – maybe no progress because it’s a hard (‘malign’) problem “UNFCCC regime is weak and the main reason is the malign problem-structure” – true but doesn’t preclude it from having been effective

9. Kumazawa and Callaghan Environmental Kuznets Curve model RQ: does relationship of income to emissions change dependent on Kyoto rqmts Finding: “industrialized countries … subject to emission reduction targets [under] Kyoto Protocol, have different patterns of carbon dioxide emissions from other countries that do not have any targets.” “For Annex B countries, since the signing of the agreement, there were significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, a desirable outcome of the protocol. The reduction was larger for the second period when the protocol entered into force. However, non-Annex B countries did not experience any changes in emissions in both periods.”

10. CO2 indexed to 1997

13. CO2 per $ indexed to 1997

16. CO2 per person indexed to 1997

19. Was it effective? And why? DID work, evidence: Why DID it work? Design Problem structure Contextual change Did NOT work, evidence: Why didn’t work? Design Problem structure Contextual change