I Know, Annoying.

Due to the para-Olympics and, well, me being a slow reader its looks like I won't be able to fully contribute to the UNFCCC meeting in Bonn, Germany until it is all over and everyone has gone home. So hopefully you'll excuse me while I randomly throw this out for discussion.

As always one of the main sticking points is whether the new agreement will be legally binding or not. Obviously I don't think we can do this on an honour system alone. However a legally binding agreement will reduce the level of ambition of the agreement. Also - as happened with Kyoto - a legally binding agreement discourages governments from thinking about the problem holistically with them instead becoming entirely focused on hitting their targets.

That said it looks like any new agreement is going to be based on a more joined up approach to climate change with mitigation efforts, adaptation efforts and finance being more closely interlinked. As a result it might be possible to formulate a hybrid agreement that imposes penalties for nations that do not meet their commitments but stops short of them being taken to Court over missed targets.

For example if - say - a European nation is providing a loan guarantee for a Chinese company to provide solar panels to an African nations through the Green Climate Fund (GCF) it should be possible to include clauses whereby a failure by the European nation to fulfil its commitments triggers part of that loan guarantee meaning that the European nation is forced to pay directly for the solar panels. Similarly if a nation is struggling to meet its commitments it could effectively buy carbon credits to offset its emissions by making a financial contribution to something like the GCF or the REDD+ fund. After all the forests protected by the increased spending should be able to absorb the extra emissions.


(Originally Posted) 11:30 on 13/3/15 (UK date).