研讨会:巴黎之后全球气候治理的新兴问题

发布时间:2016-12-02浏览次数:76

 

  尽管巴黎气候变化会议COP21取得了巨大成就,但全球社会必须采取更加果断的措施,以便将全球变暖幅度控制在2摄氏度以下。德国阿登纳基金会亚太区能源安全与气候变化区域项目(Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung RECAP)与上海同济大学共同邀请30位国际专家于香港共同研究在欧洲和亚洲新兴的跨领域概念。

  

  国际社会定下限制全球平均温度升幅不超过2摄氏度、甚至1.5摄氏度的首要目标,只能透过所有领域和层次的共同努力来实现,包括国家,还有城市、社区、企业、工业部门和非政府组织等。


  作为加强跨国气候变化网络建设(尤其是中国和欧洲跨国气候变化网络建设)的一部分,阿登纳基金会与同济大学举行了一个关于未来气候治理系统的研讨会。来自中国,欧洲和亚洲国家的学术界,政界和商界的专家在以下三个专题领域展开讨论:


*鼓励跨国行动者,如各大城市,参与全球气候讨论和行动
*更好地结合科学与决策,为气候政策提供新颖和有效的概念和方向
*在(生态)系统中激励和促进社会技术创新

  

  研讨会的目的在于了解在“巴黎COP21协议”之后全球气候治理与国家决策之间的进一步联系。


  研讨会的第一个环节讨论了应对在气候政治方面的跨国协调的挑战。COP21的谈判和结果清晰地显示各级和跨国行动者如地方行政部门、非政府组织等的重要性。这回的讨论探讨了这些行动者如何能够更有效地影响未来的全球气候变化和政治发展。发达国家的行为者仍然占主导地位,新兴国家的能力必须相应加强。城市和地区政府发挥了补充作用,能够采取相当灵活的行动。但这并不意味着削弱国家政府的职能和责任,而是由各方面的努力形成一种“合奏”。不论在政府或企业方面,提高排放和环境影响的透明度都是增加互信和提升减缓全球气候变化工作的先决条件。在这方面,开发可靠和值得信赖的方法来不间断地测量不同类型的行动者和不同层面上引起温室气体排放量,以及加强法律框架和绿色筹资机制,都是必要的。

  

  减缓和适应气候变化对于最先进的科学研究的依赖,也许超过了一切政治领域。然而,这两个“世界”之间的关系往往是脆弱、模棱两可和有偏见的。会议第二轮的讨论着眼于提高科学与政策的互动。举例来说,深入观察全球气候变化协议的不同"功能"诸如正当化国家政治的角色或决定发展中国家的定损与赔偿的基础,是十分重要的。这在日常政治中造成不一致性,并降低了以证据为基础的政策方向的价值。尽管如此,若要承认这些模糊之处在一定程度上是不可避免的、而且还是得以联合行动的前提条件,需要更深入了解科学与政策核心联系中的政治进程。

  

  在科学和技术领域上,工业化国家和发展中国家之间的差距是明显的。与减缓气候变化的重要性及气候变化的潜在危害性相比,全球对于研发的投入远远不够,亟待联合国气候变化框架公约机制加以解决。知识产权保护的争论仍是中国和欧盟之间更深层次合作的主要障碍。在将来,区域和全球贸易协议需要提出适当的解决方案,因为知识的大规模和系统性的转移被许多(发展中)国家视为在减缓气候变化方面取得实质性进展的重要关键。在此背景下,像中国这样的国家在发展低碳经济的过程中所面临的挑战在于避免陷入中等收入陷阱,及获得更多科学建议以将减缓气候变化与工业和科技政策相结合。

  

  第三轮讨论探讨了气候变化本身极其复杂的跨领域、跨系统相关性,及与之相应的减缓和适应措施。目前,若要理解和制订涵盖不同社会、科技与自然系统的有效政策,我们将不得不面对科学知识的不确定性。气候变化的正面外部影响,如对公共健康的益处或创造就业机会,是合理的,但很难证明。所谓的“反弹效应”,会减低得来不易的成果,这也指出改变那些根深蒂固的行为确有必要。显而易见,由于中国与欧洲在发展新的政策理念和创新方面都非常活跃,在相互学习交流方面有着巨大的潜力。碳排放交易体系(ETS),就是一个好的例子。这制度已经在欧洲实施,而中国将于明年启动全国碳排放权交易市场。

  

  会议的第四个环节检视了气候治理过程的政治机制:话题涉及京都议定书和哥本哈根气候大会的不足之处、运用科学工具预测未来气候变化谈判结果、以及地球工程学的不确定性。随着“多中心”治理模式的出现(不限于气候治理),有效地连接不同领域的行动是国际关系中最大的挑战之一。显然,一个成功并可持续的改革,不论在全球、国家或地方层面,唯有通过多方广泛参与的过程来实现。在这方面,地球工程学很有代表性,它开启了“共同但有区别的责任”中的深入伦理讨论,并展现了大型技术“解决方案”下的政治复杂性,而后者正日益对决策者产生影响。

  基于会议报告和讨论的结果,与会者分为四个小组,收集有关中欧具体合作的想法和建议:制定与记录减缓气候变化的跨国行动、低碳创新、增加科学-政策互动、能源系统整合。
  生动的讨论明确指出,许多政治、科技、社会观念,同气候政策机制一样,应得到优化和改进。只有中国和欧洲在商业、研究、模式和政策制定各方面加强合作,才能在发展低碳社会的道路上取得显著进步。以下建议均是在“后巴黎”时代自下而上的新型气候治理动态背景下,或指出中欧之间的核心趋同性,或以此为基础:
·中国和欧盟可以在联合国气候变化框架公约内联结国家和地方层面充当领导者,协调地方或跨国气候行动;
·应发展全球统一的方法和指标用于评估测算地方政府减缓气候变化的工作;
·基于目标为本及策略性的欧盟和中国合作,建立适用于国际层面(多方参与或G20)的精简研发与长期技术创新框架;
·创建一个免专利低碳技术的数据库,以促进全球的技术转移及就业;
·中欧的能源系统转化应被设计为在概念,技术和商业上互相挂钩。能源转型(Energiewende)在全球层面提供了不少在发展共同建立模式,规划和实施后碳时期的发展及相关政策方面的机会。中期和长期的补足和协调需要谨慎地被设计和深化,以充分实现能源脱碳的潜力,并加速其进程;
·中国和欧洲应更积极地扩大和深化低碳合作,包括联合研究项目、推广电动交通,参与其他国家去碳化工作、规划后化石燃料时代的城市,以及维持策略性研发资金的长期协作;
·中国和欧洲应在不同的科学文化、科学化咨询制度、实证为本的决策、风险认知和中央规划体制等方面加强相互理解。
  一份阐释欧洲与中国在全球气候治理中合作的共同前景及途径的联合立场文件将会于www.kas.de刊登。

  

Emerging Issues in Global Climate Governance after Paris

Despite the great achievements of the Paris Climate change conference COP21 much more decisive steps must be taken by the global community in order to keep global warming below 2 degree. KAS RECAP and Tongji University Shanghai invited 30 international experts to Hong Kong to jointly elaborate new cross-cutting concepts for Europe and Asia.

The overarching goal of the international community to limit global warming to a maximum of 2 or even 1.5 degrees can only be achieved by joint efforts of a large number of different stakeholders of all fields and levels, including nation states but also cities, communities, companies, industrial sectors and non-governmental organizations.

As part of their contributions to strengthen transnational climate change network building, in particular between China and Europe, Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung RECAP and Tongji University organized a workshop on key dimensions of a future climate governance system. Experts from academia, politics and business from China, European and Asian countries discussed three thematic fields:

* Engaging transnational actors, like cities, in global climate discourse and action

* Better connecting science and decision making in drafting new and effective concepts of and approaches for climate policy

* Incentivizing and modeling socio-technical innovations across (eco)systems

The workshop aimed on defining progressive links between global climate governance and policy-making on the national level after the Paris COP21 agreement.

The first panel of the workshop dealt with the challenge of strengthening transnational coordination in climate politics. The negotiations and the success of COP21 clearly showed the importance of sub- and transnational actors such as local administrations, NGOs etc. The panel explored how these actors can even more effectively shape future global climate governance and influence political dynamics.Actors from developed countries are still dominant and the capacity of those from emerging countries has to be strengthened. Cities and regional governments play a complementary role and are able toact quite flexible — but this will not diminish the function and responsibility of national governments,becausea sort of “orchestrating”of different efforts is needed. Creating greater transparency on emissions and environmental impacts, both on parts of countries as of enterprises, is a prerequisite for mutual trust and in speeding up global climate mitigation efforts. In this respect the development of reliable and trustworthy methodologies to coherently measureGHG emissions by different kinds of actors and at different levelsis necessaryas well as the enhancement of legal frameworks and green financingmechanisms.

Probably more than in any political field, climate change mitigation and adaption have to be based on state-of-the art scientific research. Yet, the nexus between both ”worlds” is often fragile, ambiguous and prejudiced. The second panel looked into improving science-policy interfaces. It is for instance important to closer look into the different “functions” of global climate change agreements, i.e. in their role of legitimating national politics or laying the basis for claims about loss & damages on part of developing countries. This creates inconsistences in the daily politics and threatens to devaluateevidence-based policy approaches.However, accepting that these ambiguities areinevitable, to a certain degree, and a prerequisite allowing for joint climate actionsmeans to understand better the political processes at the heart of the science-policy nexus.

In the field of science and technologies the aforementioned gap between industrialized and developing countries is evident. And given the importance of climate change mitigation and potential damages, global expenditures on R&D are far too low – an issue, the UNFCCC mechanism has to address urgently. The ongoing debate on IPR protection remains a major obstacle in deeper cooperation between China and the EU. Future regional and global trade agreements have to find proper solutions as massiveand systematic transfer of know-how is seen by many (developing) countries as crucial for substantial progress in climate change mitigation. In this context the challenge for countries like China in the process of decarbonizing the economy lays in not getting stuck in a middle-income trap and more scientific advice is needed how to link climate mitigation with industrial and technology policies.

The third session explored the highly complex interdependencies of climate change effects across diverse fields and systems and related actions to mitigate and adapt. Currently we face an unpleasant uncertainty in scientific knowledge if it comes to understanding and designing effective policy measures that span different social, technical and natural systems. Positive externalities of climate change, i.e. in public health or job creation, are plausible but hard to prove. So-called “rebound effects” may even hamper hard-won gains, which also points at deeply rooted behavioral changes to be addressed. It is quite obvious that there isa hugepotential of mutual exchange of ideas and anticipative learning between China and Europe as both regions are very dynamic in terms of new policy concepts and innovations. A good example is the emission trading system (ETS) which is already established in Europe and is to be implemented in China on a national level next year.

The fourth panel reviewed the political mechanisms of climate governance processes: spanning from the shortcomings of the Kyoto Protocol and Copenhagen to the use of scientific prognosis tools for predicting outcome of future climate change negotiations and the ambiguity of geoengineering. With the emergence of “polycentric” regimes (not only in climate governance), linking different fields of actions together effectively is one of the biggest challenges in international relations. It is quite obvious that a successful sustainable transformation – might it be on global, national or local level –can only be achieved throughout a multi-stakeholder process. In this respect the case of geoengineeringis a good example as it opens the ground for both far-reaching ethical debate on shared and differentiated responsibilities and showcases the political complexities of large-scale technological “solutions” that are increasingly emerging on the horizon of decision makers.

Based on the findings of the presentations and discussions, four working groups collected ideas and elaborated suggestions for concrete cooperation between China and Europe: ambitions and accounting of transnational climate mitigation actions, low carbon innovations, improved science-policy interfaces, coupling of energy system transformations;the vivid discussions made clear that there are plenty of political, technical and social concepts and mechanisms in climate policy which can be optimized and improved. Only if China and Europe enhance cooperation in business, research, modeling, and policy making, a significant progress on the road towards a low-carbon society can be achieved. The following suggestions were articulated to point out and/or to build on key convergences between China and Europe in the context of the new bottom-up dynamic of post-Paris climate governance:

·China and the European Unioncan act as leaders of an „orchestration“ in subnational / transnational climate actions, linking national and local levels within the UNFCCC

·Globally consistent approaches and methodologies of measuring and accounting for subnational mitigation efforts need to be developed;

·Establish a framework for R&D streamlining and long-term technological innovation on a global scale(multi-stake holder and / G20)based on an ambitious and strategic EU-Chinese cooperation;

·Create a data bank for all patent free low carbon technologies to facilitate their global transfer and employment;

·Energy system transitions in China and Europe need to be jointly envisioned as conceptually, technically, and commercially linked. The global dimensions of “Energiewende” offer many opportunities to develop collaborative modeling, planning, and implementing post-carbon developments and policies. Mid- and long-term complementarities and synergies need to be deliberately designed and deepened in order to fully realize potentials of, and accelerate the progress of,decarbonization;

·China and Europe should broaden and deepen law carbon cooperation much more energetically, e.g. including joint research projects, fostering e-mobility, joining decarbonization efforts in third countries, envisioning post-fossil urbanities, enabling long-term coordination of strategic R&D funding;

·China and Europe should improve the mutual understanding of different national scientific cultures and institutional differences of scientific advice as well as evidence-based policy making, risk perceptions, and centralized planning processes.

A joint position paper that pinpointspromising convergences and pathways for European-Chinese collaboration in global climate governance will soon be available on www.kas.de.