A short history of the successes and failures of the international climate change negotiations

Review of Article: A short history of the successes and failures of the international climate change negotiations, by Mark Maslin and John Lang

General assessment:

It is very laudable that ahead of COP27 there is a useful publication on the key outcomes of COPs in the past which gives guidance on what will be important in upcoming negotiations. It is easy reading, links climate activities with political news then, and its headlines and the figures are visually catching. I found it novel to also include an assessment the role of global environmental social movements which have given the COPs indeed some new impulses.

It is also good to address the influence of the Russian war in Europe against the Ukraine. This together with the youth movements gives the climate narrative a new spin.

However, I suggest for making it even more useful it should give a more complete picture of the history of COPs and its outcomes, and the figures could be edited in adding some more details and explanations.

Specifics:

The abstract suggests that this is a rather holistic review of the past 30 years of climate change negotiations and their key objectives, but in the following elaborations the authors focus only on some key COPs. True that not every COP had the same importance, but the title suggests differently.

The introduction would deserve the full picture of climate history which has been described in an excellent and complete manner by John W. Zillman, in “WMO Bulletin, Vol. 58(3), July 2009, A history of climate activities” https://public.wmo.int/en/bulletin/history-climate-activities .  It is key to understand the path of activities which led to the founding of the UNFCCC and the various elements and programmes which until today have an impact on the COPs.

Reference to Figure 1 about IPCC “was set up in 1988 and produced its very first science report on 1990”: This figure does not show when the IPCC was set-up.

Missing more detailed analyses of COPs between “COP 3” and “COP15”: I am missing e.g. COP 12 in Nairobi 2006, which established the Nairobi work programme and emphasized the need for adaptation to climate change.

The outcomes of COPs between COP3 and COP15 are only brushed over and do not do them justice.

I would also suggest including some notion about the global stocktake, GST, of the Paris Agreement as aim to assess progress towards achieving the purpose of the agreement and its long-term goals. This is mechanism is causing until today some political turmoil.

I am missing also touching on discussions and findings on “Loss and damage” and on “Research and Observation” in the past COPs in the sections before.

I am challenging the labeling of the Green Climate Fund as a “political breakthrough”. There have been many other mechanisms with similar mandate and objectives, which would deserve mentioning as well.

Reference to Figure 2, “:. Ratcheting up mitigation ambition”: Figure needs better explanation.

Reference to Figure 4: The text of section on COP27 does not match the content in Figure 4. I would expect that the graphics is textually fully explained in the section on COP27.

Figure 5: source ?

Conclusions: It is not a typical conclusion of a science paper, but rather a final word.

This manuscript does an excellent job of incorporating reviewers’ comments, and the authors further included a briefing on the latest development in the climate change negotiations around COP27.  This work is a good reminder for the audience to maintain the political will to “move to implementation”, which is yet to be sought for in the global efforts. In the same context, the continuing work of the authors may consider discussing the international and national efforts to develop science-based solutions and their application to the global south (either in this manuscript or the following one).

While global negotiations are of fundamental importance, the pace of national policy development and private sector movement is becoming a decisive factor toward the transition, particularly in climate finance and net-zero targets. I look forward to the continuing work of the authors in this regard.

I congratulate the authors as this paper that attempts to summarize a vast amount of information and history. Furthermore, its content is important to contextualize the economic landscape and transitions - driven by energy transitions - needed to achieve net zero.

The paper would benefit from the inclusion of the following 3 points:

1. Global Stocktake process: There is no specific reference to the UNFCCC Global Stocktake process (GST) when you discuss the assessment of the Paris Agreeement by countries. The GST is an important process that will conclude in 2023 at COP28 - to be held for 2 years at every 5 years.

2. Global environmental social movements: The role of global environmental social movements is very important, namely the role of the private sector. I'd suggest mention of the 3 scopes used to help companies to better understand and manage their GHG emissions, and to facilitate consistent and comparable reporting. Measuring and reporting of those will accelerate energy transformations from now on. Measurement of emissions scopes 1 and 2 are already common practice by companies. However, there's added pressure for scope 3 accounting now based on the recognition of the increasing importance to engage supply chains, extraction, production, transportation and consumption to be able to achieve net zero commitments. You can read more about Scope 3 Emissions at: https://www.wri.org/update/trends-show-companies-are-ready-scope-3-reporting-us-climate-disclosure-rule

3. Global Biodiversity Framework: It would be important to mention the recently adopted Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) at the Convention on Biological Diversity COP-15 in December 2022. Recognition that climate is negatively impacting biodiversity is timely. Biodiversity and ecosystems, with nature-based solutions such as the protection of mangrove forests and coral reefs, is gaining traction in the climate discussions, also as a way to create resilience. Protecting the world's ecosystems will help safeguard the world's climate (example, the Amazon Forest).

This version of the manuscript has been significantly improved compared to the previous one. Most of the suggestions have been incorporated in the new version and the outcomes of COP 27 have been also included.

I have few specific comments and suggestions for amendments:

1. With the new paragraph “COP16 Cancun and COP17 Durban” there are some sentences which sound redundant and repetitive; for example, I suggest to reduce and rephrase the initial section of the following paragraph “COP21 ….”.
2. I still feel that some the decarbonization policy announced by some corporations may be seen as green-washing if not accompanied by real fossil fuel abandonment.
3. The paragraph about COP27 is very timely. Of course, the outcome of COP27 can be seen as a half failure or a small success. The establishment of a Loss and Damage Fund is a small step forward, though at the moment it is an empty box and it is not clear how and who will fill it.

Finally, please correct misspelling of my name in the acknowledgements (Enrico Brugnoli).

The paper presents a clearly written simple history of the UNFCCC negotiations. However, there are key aspects of this history that have contributed greatly to the negotiations and discussion, which are not explored enough in the paper: 1. the SDGs adopted in 2015, same year as the Paris Agreement and 2. the Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) discussions and pressures on the corporate sector increasingly growing since 2006, expecting the companies they hold to commit strongly to ESG criteria (climate change at the center of these discussions, aligned with net zero strategies that have hundredfold since 2020). Many frameworks for addressing ESG have emerged in recent years. The Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) in December of 2015 was established in an effort to further consider climate in the global financial system. The TCFD allows companies a way to report their climate-related financial risks, consisting of physical, liability and transition risks, to stakeholders. To understand the pressures of commitments made by countries and their NDCs, one must also look at pressured placed on and by the private sector and investmentors. I believe that this paper could highly benefit from addressing ESG, since COP-26 we've seen the corporate world at the center of the discussions and decarbonization and the renewable transition won't happen without them. In fact, at the upcoming COP-27, we'll see a lot more leadership and announcements coming from the private sector, including banks and global asset managers.

General assessment:

This manuscript reflects on the history of global climate change negotiations, centred on the UNFCCC processes. This subject has been widely reviewed by many authors who addressed different aspects that are presently core issues of the ongoing discussion. The major strength of this manuscript is that a clear and linear timeline of the major achievements and failures is presented in a flowing style and supporting infographics, and pinpointed the problems to be considered in the preparation of the upcoming round of the negotiations. I believe that the insights offered by this manuscript certainly merit the wider readership through this publication, and will complement the precedent analyses of other facets.

I have a few suggestions with a view to improving the manuscript readers’ understanding, as follows.

Analysis of paradigm shifts in global negotiations and discussions

(Although related milestones are briefly noted in the manuscript) It would be great to have an in-depth analysis of the paradigm shift that occurred through the negotiation processes in the past 30 years or so, since the scientific evidence compiled by IPCC has become the foundation for climate change discussions. For example; What has shifted the problem of climate change from environmental to socioeconomic concerns? What has derived the change in the major countries’ position from a weak voluntary commitment approach to legal enforcement? In this context, the author’s view on the Stern Review and/or the role and success/failure of the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action and Equity (in relation to the Paris Agreement, the (missing) legal enforcement, and in particular, unresolved issues of responsibility and equity).

Furthermore, the past/ongoing agreements regarding the implementation of the net zero emission target may be elaborated (Respective update of Figs 2 and 3 may also be considered, as necessary).  In particular, the development of the Task force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and the countries’ acceptance/reservation regarding the ongoing effort to set related international standards (ISO, corporate value chain standard, etc.) in the context of future negotiations can add value to the manuscript.

References

I find significant similarities between the first half of the manuscript under consideration and other published papers by the authors themselves, including the example below. It appears that this manuscript is in a series of the authors’ continuous reviews of the negotiation processes, which make it quite natural. I suggest that the relevant previous publications are included in the list of references, and include a text explaining the relevance and extensity of the current manuscript.

Mark A. Maslin (2020) The road from Rio to Glasgow: a short history of the climate change negotiations, Scottish Geographical Journal, 136:1-4, 5-12, DOI:10.1080/14702541.2020.1853873

Boram Lee                   Geneva, 28 September 2022

A short history of the successes and failures of the international climate change negotiations

By Mark A Maslin and John Lang

General Assessment

This manuscript provides a concise historical review of international negotiations about environmental issue, climate change and biodiversity. It provides a useful summary of the progresses and failure of international policy dealing with climate change. That said, the manuscript is not novel and does not add new information to the available literature on this subject, also taking into consideration the numerous previous publications and books by the same authors.

International political discussion about the threat of global change and climate warming started toward the end of 1980’s when discussion within United Nations stimulated the need of a scientific international panel, and consequently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set in 1988. Science of greenhouse effect started long before at the beginning of 19 ^th century, although it was only in 1950 that the relationship between greenhouse gases and climate warming was fully recognized. The manuscript might mention, at least shortly, the enormous efforts of science community to convince the international policy about problems and risks connected to greenhouse gases and climate change

The manuscript describes the outcome and problems connected to various negotiations and Conferences of parties (COP) starting from the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 until the latest COP26 in Glasgow and the auspices for the forthcoming COP27 to be held in Sharm-El-Sheik, Egypt. It provides a useful a concise summary, although this subject has been extensively reported in the literature and media.

Negotiations about climate change are difficult and failures to achieve really significant results on the avenue to decarbonization of economies are due to several factors. First of all, negotiations and various COP operates by consensus, meaning that a single country can prevent any decision. In addition, among the 196 parties there are very divergent economic, political and environmental interests. The parties also have very different climate responsibilities and the industrialized countries should pay to contribute the transition to zero-emission for less developed countries (Green Climate Fund). But the compensation Green Fund has not been paid.

Even in the most optimistic scenario, reaching the target of net zero emission by 2050, global temperature will continue to increase at least in the coming decades, overshooting the target of 1.5°C increase compare to preindustrial level. Therefore, adaptation to climate change should be also a priority.

The manuscript general message and conclusion are in the right directions while some interpretation in the text should be clarified and amended. It is true that Margaret Thatcher and George Bush senior contributed to put climate change and environmental problems on to the mainstream political agenda. However, it is also clear that their actual policy did not match their speeches and did not go in the right direction of a green development. Their government favored profound environmental changes including increased greenhouse gas emissions, and land use change. Margaret Thatcher also rejected climate predictions and Al Gore vision and what she called his “doomiest predictions”. On a historical point of view, these aspects should be clarified.

It is also worth to mention that six months before COP21 and its relative success with the “Paris Agreement” the Vatican and Pope Francis published an Encyclical Letter entitled “Laudato Si’ – On the Care of our common home” (May 2015), with solid scientific basis. Regardless of religious belief, this document had a tremendous effect not limited to catholic people but to overall humanity. It addressed all humanity and, especially, policy makers and all countries to protect the Earth, nature and biological diversity and to to take "swift and unified global action” to combat climate change, land degradation and to promote economies based on fair distribution of resources and wealth. The Encyclical letter had a strong international echo and contributed to put climate change to the attention of international political agenda.

When discussing decarbonization of the economy by corporation, I find at least peculiar the example of BP reported as targeted to be carbon neutral by 2050. They will still work to extract and sell oil and gas and, to my knowledge, BP is not one of the companies that have adopted Science Based Targets. It is clear that we have to abandon fossil fuels and therefore the actual oil and gas companies , all over the world, should convert to renewable energy. It is crystal clear that increasing emissions and adopting compensating measures is not sufficient to reach carbon neutral at the global level. Many companies are emitting a lot of greenhouse gases and they plant trees as compensating measure, but this is not sufficient. I strongly suggest to correct this example in the text.

Style and specific comments

The manuscript is generally well written. I have some specific corrections and suggestion for improving it. Some sentences require changes to make them scientifically rigorous.

Abstract: In the second line it is misleading to state that humanity has doubled the amount of anthropogenic CO ₂ in the atmosphere. I suggest changing the sentence to: “During the same 30 years, humanity has doubled the emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere”.

Second last sentence should be changed to “But currently these pledges, if fulfilled, will only limit global average increase in temperature by 2.4°C to 2.8°C.”

Text: When citing the ozone hole over Antarctica it should be cited that the first report was by Farmar, Gardiner and Shanklin, 1985. It is also worth to mention that, on the subject of stratospheric ozone protection and ozone hole, international negotiations represent one of few significant successes.

In the text there are several Literature citations that are missing in the list of references. For example: Bell, 2021; Lewis and Maslin, 2021; Carnac, 2020. Please double check citations and list of references.