Below is an academic response to the ineffectiveness of the UNFCC in an attempt to be awarded marks within the confines of academic curriculum. It is not necessarily the view of the author or The Girke Group.
UNFCC, The Kyoto Protocol, and The Paris Agreement
Even though the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was promulgated more than three decades ago, international deliberations on climate remain entangled in formidable impediments to the practical and necessary amelioration of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.[1] The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), instituted in 1992, is an influential international accord dedicated to addressing global climate transformation.[2] The records of the UNFCCC are enriched with commendable achievements, chief among them being the inception of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, an instrument of tangible consequence that imposed binding emissions reduction targets upon developed nations.[3] Moreover, 2015 witnessed a momentous milestone when, under the patronage of the UNFCCC, the world bore witness to the realisation of the Paris Agreement, an accord that summoned the clear majority of nations on Earth to the grand platform of collective commitment.[4] This historic pact sought to confine the dangerous ascent of global temperatures to a threshold scarcely exceeding 2 degrees Celsius beyond the pre-industrial era while harbouring an even loftier aspiration of curbing the increase to a mere 1.5 degrees Celsius.[5]
Challenges, Critiques, Voluntariness, and Financial Aid
Nevertheless, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has not remained immune to formidable challenges and discerning critiques.[6] Foremost among these critiques lies the notable gap in the realm of binding enforcement mechanisms, as the UNFCCC primarily hinges upon the goodwill of nations, relying on their voluntary undertakings to curtail the pernicious emissions of greenhouse gases.[7] Regrettably, this voluntary modus operandi has given certain nations the latitude to transgress their commitments with minimal repercussions, eroding the overall efficacy of global endeavours to combat climate change.[8] Additionally, the convoluted nature of reconciling the disparate interests harboured by participating nations has imbued the negotiations with an enduring aura of protracted deliberation, engendering sluggish progress and fostering contentious dialogues.[9] Furthermore, the quandary of climate financing, particularly the contentious issue of fulfilling the promise to provide financial aid to developing nations, has burgeoned into a contentious debacle.[10] Apprehensions about the inadequacy of funding have cast an envelope over vulnerable countries' adaptation and mitigation initiatives, confounding their noble aspirations.[11]
Divergent National Interests & Economic Agendas
The intricacies of international climate negotiations are inherently daunting.[12] Many countries, each with varying levels of development, economic interests, and historical emissions contributions, converge to seek common ground.[13] The 2015 Paris Agreement, a monumental accord engaging a consortium of more than 190 nations, is a quintessential exemplar of the intricate endeavour to harmonise an array of multifaceted agendas and vested interests.[14] While universally acclaimed as a historic pinnacle in diplomatic craftsmanship, the 2015 Paris Agreement concurrently laid bare a tapestry of discordance that interwove its fabric, underscoring the manifold points of contention that riddled the landscape of participating nations.[15] At the heart of the discord lay a pivotal hub of debate: the differentiation between the echelons of developed and developing nations.[16] Within this discourse, certain developing states postulated that the accord should impose a substantially weightier onus upon the historically prolific greenhouse gas emitters among the developed nations, a stance rooted in recognising their historical culpability for the lion's share of emissions.[17]
Developing Nations
In contrast, the developed nations articulated a viewpoint grounded in the pursuit of equilibrium, underscored by the ascendant prominence of emerging economic powerhouses, as symbolised by China and India, amid the ranks of the globe's most substantial emitters.[18] Their stance revolved around the assertion that these growing economies should shoulder a proportional share of responsibility in the pivotal undertaking of greenhouse gas reduction.[19] This divergence of opinion precipitated a dialectical deadlock, culminating in a negotiated resolution embedded within the agreement, affording nations the prerogative to tailor their commitments concordantly with the unique crises inherent to their respective national contexts.[20]
An additional contentious facet lay in the overarching magnitude of aspiration encompassed within the framework of the Paris Agreement. Detractors postulated that the initial pledges presented by nations, denoted as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), exhibited a marked insufficiency in their capacity to curtail the inexorable ascent of global temperatures to the audacious mark of 1.5 degrees Celsius beyond the pre-industrial epoch.[21] This schism in perspective manifested as a chasm between those advocating for more potent, legally binding commitments and those accentuating the pivotal role of adaptability and non-binding accords to engender a broad swath of participation.[22] Ultimately, the denouement of this discourse materialised as a delicate dilemma, incorporating the tenet of yearning for heightened ambition in the forthcoming epochs and the bedrock principle of actions undertaken according to the sovereign determination of each nation.[23]
Moreover, financing climate adaptation and mitigation endeavours within the confines of developing nations persisted as a fulcrum of discord.[24] Developing states tenaciously advanced their plea for more substantial pecuniary underpinning from their developed counterparts, envisaging it as a veritable lifeline to grapple with the burgeoning repercussions of climate metamorphosis and to chart a course toward economies endowed with diminished carbon footprints.[25] The Paris Agreement, albeit marking a decisive juncture, delineated financial mechanisms, among them the Green Climate Fund, to assuage these apprehensions.[26] However, the debate concerning the adequacy and predictability of such financial disbursements remained an enduring leitmotif, nurturing a simmering discord between the developed and developing nations, perpetuating the tensions that underscored their interactions on this pivotal front.[27]
With notable frequency, governments accord precedence to proximate economic and political exigencies over the weighty mantle of protracted climate imperatives, thereby inculcating a palpable hesitancy towards embracing significant emissions curtailments.[28] Apprehensions about the potentially deleterious effects on national economies or the electoral fortunes of governing cadres often serve as a deterrent, impeding the willingness of leadership to embark upon audacious climate objectives.[29]
The ‘Toothless-Tigerness’ (Non-Binding Nature) of International Aspirations
This propensity is further exacerbated by the voluntary character inherent within the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), coupled with a dearth of stringent enforcement mechanisms, which grants certain nations the liberty to backtrack on their solemn commitments without incurring punitive consequences.[30] A stark manifestation of this conundrum transpired with the conspicuous withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement, wherein the allure of perceived economic advantages assumed an unmistakable ascendancy over climate stewardship.[31] The conundrum of voluntary undertakings coupled with a paucity of robust enforcement mechanisms transcends the precincts of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) framework and the Paris Agreement but also permeates numerous international accords and conventions.[32] A salient illustration of this pervasive dilemma is discernible within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), where nations avow their voluntary dedication to the preservation and judicious utilisation of biodiversity.[33] Much akin to the UNFCCC, the CBD grapples with the absence of coercive enforcement mechanisms, rendering compliance contingent upon the goodwill and dedication of participating nations, thereby echoing the recurrent challenge of aligning global aspirations with sovereign commitments.[34] In human rights, international treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) also rely on voluntary adherence and peer pressure.[35] Compliance with human rights standards is often a matter of political will, and violations can occur when countries prioritise their interests over human rights commitments.[36] Developing nations frequently grapple with formidable impediments of resource scarcity and technological limitations in their endeavours to shift towards economies characterised by diminished carbon footprints. This pivotal predicament, regrettably, persists with insufficiencies in its redressal, thereby obstructing advancements in the noble pursuit of emissions abatement.
SIDS: An Exception to The Rule for Developing Nations?
Small island developing states (SIDS), profoundly susceptible to the escalating spectre of surging sea levels and other harbingers of climatic perturbations, stand in dire need of substantial infusions of both financial resources and advanced technology to effectively navigate the labyrinthine terrain of climate adaptation.[37] Among the comprehensively documented exemplars of a Small Island Developing State (SIDS) teetering on the precipice of vulnerability to the repercussions wrought by ascending sea levels and climate metamorphosis, the Republic of Maldives emerges as a salient case study.[38] Nestled within the embrace of the Indian Ocean, the Maldives manifests itself as an insular nation, comprising a mosaic of 26 atolls and an assemblage exceeding 1,000 coral islands.[39] With its median altitude scarcely breaching the modest zenith of 1.5 meters above the ocean's expanse, the Maldives perpetually resides in the annals of the world's most abyssal-lying countries, a precarious disposition rendering it acutely predisposed to the multifarious implications of climate change, most notably the inexorable encroachment of rising sea levels.[40] The Republic of Maldives has diligently embarked upon a concerted quest for international fiscal and technological backing, strategically designed to confront and surmount the chinks in their armour exposed by their climate-induced susceptibilities.[41] Their endeavours have encompassed substantial investments in the construction of seawalls, the elevation of pivotal infrastructure, and the meticulous cultivation of sustainable water management methodologies.[42] Nevertheless, the yawning chasm between their modest resource reservoirs and the monumental scale of the challenge they confront endures as an irrefutable testament to the indispensability of external aid, not only for the Maldives but also for kindred Small Island Developing States (SIDS) grappling with akin perils.[43] These nations fervently underscore the paramountcy of fostering international cooperation and bolstering support networks, a sine qua non-for safeguarding their perennial existence and fortitude in the face of the formidable spectre of climate change.
Navigating Varying National Ambitions
The variation in ambition levels among nations when setting emissions reduction targets poses a substantial challenge.[44] Critics argue that while some countries' targets represent a step in the right direction, they fall short of the 1.5°C global warming limit outlined in the Paris Agreement.[45] This lack of ambition threatens to undermine the agreement's effectiveness in curbing climate change.[46] International entities, notably exemplified by the United Nations, hold the potential to assume a pivotal mantle in the erection of more formidable apparatuses devised to oversee and compel compliance with climate commitments meticulously.[47] The integration of mechanisms incorporating financial penalties or trade restrictions as punitive instruments for transgressions stands to imbue countries with the essential impetus for realising their emissions mitigation targets.[48] This approach, augmenting the sinews of international climate accords, would substantiate their mettle and galvanise their efficacy.[49] Nonetheless, the endeavour to fortify enforcement mechanisms within the milieu of international agreements, especially when contextualised within the ambit of climate commitments, begets an array of intricate practical and political obstacles.[50]
National Sovereignty, and The Right to Political Self-Determination
One of the fundamental challenges in enforcing international climate commitments is respecting the sovereignty of individual nations.[51] Countries are generally reluctant to cede too much authority to international organisations or other countries in dictating their domestic policies.[52] For instance, nations like China and India have resisted external interference in their internal affairs, particularly in setting emissions reduction targets, citing their right to prioritise economic development.[53]
Countries vary widely in their historical emissions, development status, and capacity to reduce emissions.[54] As a result, creating a one-size-fits-all enforcement mechanism can be challenging.[55] For example, a stringent enforcement mechanism that applies uniformly to developed and developing nations might be considered unfair, as it does not account for differing historical responsibilities for emissions.[56]
Developing and implementing effective enforcement mechanisms that are both comprehensive and equitable is a complex task.[57] The Kyoto Protocol, which imposed binding emissions reduction targets on developed countries while allowing developing countries more flexibility, encountered challenges in creating a fair and effective enforcement system.[58] The lack of legally binding commitments for all countries in the Kyoto Protocol highlighted the difficulties in achieving universal compliance.[59]
Towards Greater Compliance & Global Cooperation
Enforcing climate commitments often requires strong political will and diplomacy.[60] Countries may hesitate to impose sanctions or penalties on others due to concerns about diplomatic relations and potential economic repercussions.[61] For instance, the European Union's consideration of a carbon border tax has sparked debates about potential trade conflicts and economic consequences.[62] Establishing a fair dispute resolution process can be challenging.[63] For example, the World Trade Organization's dispute settlement system has faced criticism for its complexity and lengthy processes, which can discourage countries from pursuing cases against alleged violators.[64] Climate activists, scientists, and influential political leaders can pressure governments to raise their climate ambitions. Youth climate activists like Greta Thunberg have mobilised millions worldwide, advocating for more decisive climate action and influencing political discourse.[65] By leveraging their influence, they can compel nations to set more ambitious targets and commit to deeper emissions reductions.[66] Wealthy countries, international financial institutions, and philanthropic organisations must support developing nations financially and technologically. Initiatives like the Green Climate Fund, established under the UNFCCC, aim to assist developing countries in mitigating and adapting to climate change by offering financial resources.[67] This support is crucial for narrowing the technological and financial gaps that hinder progress in these regions. Trade organisations and finance institutions can integrate climate considerations into their policies. For instance, the European Union's proposal to introduce a carbon border tax aims to prevent "carbon leakage" by incentivising carbon-efficient production.[68] Media outlets, environmental organisations, and educators are pivotal in raising public awareness about climate change. Initiatives like the Global Climate Strikes organised by youth activists have effectively drawn attention to the urgency of climate action and mobilised millions worldwide.[69] A well-informed and engaged public is essential for holding governments and corporations accountable for their climate commitments. International forums like the G7, G20, and regional organisations offer platforms for fostering collaboration among nations.[70] The Powering Past Coal Alliance is a notable example, bringing together governments, businesses, and organisations committed to phasing out unabated coal power.[71] Such collaborative efforts can facilitate the sharing best practices and promote collective action on climate change.[72]
At the grassroots level, local governments, businesses, and community organisations often lead the charge in climate action. Cities like Copenhagen and Stockholm have implemented ambitious climate plans, reducing emissions and setting an example for others.[73] Supporting and replicating these initiatives can drive meaningful change from the bottom up. International scientific bodies and policymakers should regularly review climate targets to ensure they align with the latest scientific findings. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) regularly publishes assessment reports that inform global climate discussions.[74] Countries can stay on track to meet climate goals by continually assessing and adapting strategies. Young activists, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and community organisers are instrumental in driving engagement and pressuring for action. For instance, the Sunrise Movement in the United States advocates for a Green New Deal and has significantly influenced climate policy discussions.[75] Youth and grassroots movements are catalysts for change, pushing for ambitious climate policies and holding decision-makers accountable. Businesses, NGOs, and local governments can form collaborative initiatives to advance climate action. For example, the We Mean Business coalition brings together companies committed to climate action and has been crucial in advancing corporate sustainability efforts.[76] Such multi-stakeholder engagement can lead to innovative solutions and amplify the impact of climate initiatives.
By embracing these potential remedies in a unified chorus, we draw nearer to a world wherein the rhetoric of climate deliberations seamlessly transmutes into tangible, impactful deeds, thus acting as vigilant stewards of our planet's well-being for future generations.[77]
[1] Nordhaus, William D, Economics and Policy Issues in Climate Change (RFF Press, 2018) [2] “The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.” Botanic Gardens Conservation News 3, no. 2 (1999): 44–45. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24753842. [3] Lovett, Jon C. “1997 Kyoto Protocol.” Journal of African Law 49, no. 1 (2005): 94–96. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27607935. [4] Cara A. Horowitz. “Paris Agreement.” International Legal Materials 55, no. 4 (2016): 740–55. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5305/intelegamate.55.4.0740. [5] Abeysinghe, Achala, and Subhi Barakat. “The Paris Agreement: Options for an Effective Compliance and Implementation Mechanism.” International Institute for Environment and Development, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep02659. [6] Browne, Jaron, and Tom Goldtooth. “Paris Agreement Is ‘Dangerous Distraction.’” Race, Poverty & the Environment 21, no. 1 (2016): 92–95. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44783052. [7] Abeysinghe, Achala, and Subhi Barakat. “The Paris Agreement: Options for an Effective Compliance and Implementation Mechanism.” International Institute for Environment and Development, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep02659. [8] Caytas, Joanna Diane. “The COP21 Negotiations: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back.” Consilience, no. 19 (2018): 1–16. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26427709. [9] Peel, Jacqueline. “Issues in Climate Change Litigation.” Carbon & Climate Law Review 5, no. 1 (2011): 15–24. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24324007. [10] Mitchell, Ian, Euan Ritchie, and Atousa Tahmasebi. “Aid-Funded Climate Finance.” Is Climate Finance Towards $100 Billion “New and Additional”? Center for Global Development, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep29764.7. [11] Sayne, Aaron. “Climate Change Adaptation and Conflict in Nigeria.” US Institute of Peace, 2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep12197. [12] Hunter, David, and James Salzman. “Negligence in the Air: The Duty of Care in Climate Change Litigation.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 155, no. 6 (2007): 1741–94. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40041378. [13] Davies, Emily. “Recommendations for Effectively Resolving Climate Change Disputes Against Investors.” Carbon & Climate Law Review 14, no. 1 (2020): 49–55. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26910934. [14] Blau, Judith, The Paris Agreement: Climate Change, Solidarity, and Human Rights (Springer, 2017) [15] Vulturius, Gregor, and Marion Davis. “Defining Loss and Damage: The Science and Politics around One of the Most Contested Issues within the UNFCCC.” Stockholm Environment Institute, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep02775. [16] Reddy, B. Sudhakara, and Gaudenz B. Assenza. “Climate Change — a Developing Country Perspective.” Current Science 97, no. 1 (2009): 50–62. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24112082. [17] Li, Jiangfeng. “CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION: A PROMISING PATHWAY TO CLIMATE JUSTICE IN CHINA?” Virginia Environmental Law Journal 37, no. 2 (2019): 132–70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26742667. [18] Mohajan, Haradhan, ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions of China’ (MPRA Paper, 17 November 2013) <https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/53705/> [19] Grubler, A and N Nakicenovic, ‘International Burden Sharing in Greenhouse Gas Reduction’ (Monograph, June 1994) <https://iiasa.dev.local/> [20] Torvanger, Asbjørn and Odd Godal, ‘An Evaluation of Pre-Kyoto Differentiation Proposals for National Greenhouse Gas Abatement Targets’ (2004) 4(1) International Environmental Agreements 65 <https://doi.org/10.1023/B:INEA.0000019056.43577.b2> [21] Pauw, WP et al, ‘Beyond Headline Mitigation Numbers: We Need More Transparent and Comparable NDCs to Achieve the Paris Agreement on Climate Change’ (2018) 147(1) Climatic Change 23 <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2122-x> [22] Barrett, Scott and Robert Stavins, ‘Increasing Participation and Compliance in International Climate Change Agreements’ (2003) 3(4) International Environmental Agreements 349 <https://doi.org/10.1023/B:INEA.0000005767.67689.28> [23] Huebert, Rob, ‘Climate Change and Canadian Sovereignty in the Northwest Passage’ [2011] (4) The Calgary Papers in Military and Strategic Studies <https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cpmss/article/view/36337> [24] Amoo, Leye M and R Layi Fagbenle, ‘15 - Climate Change in Developing Nations of the World’ in RO Fagbenle et al (eds), Applications of Heat, Mass and Fluid Boundary Layers (Woodhead Publishing, 2020) 437 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128179499000232> [25] Adams, Dennis Tirpak, Helen, ‘Bilateral and Multilateral Financial Assistance for the Energy Sector of Developing Countries’ in Development Policy as a Way to Manage Climate Change Risks (Routledge, 2008) [26] Bowman, Megan and Stephen Minas, ‘Resilience through Interlinkage: The Green Climate Fund and Climate Finance Governance’ (2019) 19(3) Climate Policy 342 <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2018.1513358> [27] McNamara, Karen Elizabeth and Chris Gibson, ‘“We Do Not Want to Leave Our Land”: Pacific Ambassadors at the United Nations Resist the Category of “Climate Refugees”’ (2009) 40(3) Geoforum 475 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718509000335> [28] Boston, Jonathan and Frieder Lempp, ‘Climate Change: Explaining and Solving the Mismatch between Scientific Urgency and Political Inertia’, ed Markus J. Milne and Suzana Grubnic (2011) 24(8) Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 1000 <https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571111184733> [29] Vandenbergh, Michael P, ‘Climate Change: The China Problem’ (2007) 81 Southern California Law Review 905 <https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/scal81&id=917&div=&collection=> [30] Hoffman, Andrew J, ‘Climate Change Strategy: The Business Logic behind Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reductions’ (2005) 47(3) California Management Review 21 <http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2307/41166305> [31] Zhang, Hai-Bin et al, ‘U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: Reasons, Impacts, and China’s Response’ (2017) 8(4) Advances in Climate Change Research 220 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927817301028> [32] Ibid. [33] Glowka, Lyle et al, ‘A Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity’ <https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1373501/a-guide-to-the-convention-on-biological-diversity/1987728/> [34] Ibid. [35] Annas, George J, ‘Beyond Nazi War Crimes Experiments: The Voluntary Consent Requirement of the Nuremberg Code at 70’ (2018) 108(1) American Journal of Public Health 42 <https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304103> [36] Ibid. [37] Petzold, Jan and Alexandre K Magnan, ‘Climate Change: Thinking Small Islands beyond Small Island Developing States (SIDS)’ (2019) 152(1) Climatic Change 145 <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2363-3> [38] Sovacool, Benjamin K, ‘Perceptions of Climate Change Risks and Resilient Island Planning in the Maldives’ (2012) 17(7) Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 731 <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-011-9341-7> [39] Ibid. [40] Ibid. [41] Ibid. [42] Ibid. [43] Ibid. [44] Dubash, Navroz K, ‘Revisiting Climate Ambition: The Case for Prioritizing Current Action over Future Intent’ (2020) 11(1) WIREs Climate Change e622 <https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.622> [45] Ibid. [46] Ibid. [47] Dannenmaier, Eric, ‘The Role of Non-State Actors in Climate Compliance’ (SSRN Scholarly Paper, 7 April 2011) <https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1805234> [48] Ibid. [49] Ibid. [50] Ibid. [51] Mallard, Grégoire, Catherine Paradeise and Ashveen Peerbaye, Global Science and National Sovereignty (Routledge, 2010) [52] Ibid. [53] Ibid. [54] Ibid. [55] Ibid. [56] Ibid. [57] Ibid. [58] Ha-Duong, Minh, Jean-Charles Hourcade and Franck Lecocq, ‘Dynamic Consistency Problems behind the Kyoto Protocol’ (1999) 11(4) International Journal of Environment and Pollution 426 <http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=2269> [59] Ibid. [60] Hsu, Angel et al, ‘Towards a New Climate Diplomacy’ (2015) 5(6) Nature Climate Change 501 <https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2594> [61] Ibid. [62] Herber, Bernard P and Jose T Raga, ‘An International Carbon Tax to Combat Global Warming: An Economic and Political Analysis of the European Union Proposal’ (1995) 54(3) American Journal of Economics and Sociology 257 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1536-7150.1995.tb03422.x> [63] Ibid. [64] Bello, Judith Hippler, ‘The WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding: Less Is More’ (1996) 90(3) American Journal of International Law 416 <https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/wto-dispute-settlement-understanding-less-is-more/037703CC2300A3280FC6D3028B706B29> [65] Sabherwal, Anandita et al, ‘The Greta Thunberg Effect: Familiarity with Greta Thunberg Predicts Intentions to Engage in Climate Activism in the United States’ (2021) 51(4) Journal of Applied Social Psychology 321 <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jasp.12737> [66] Ibid. [67] Cui, Lianbiao and Yuran Huang, ‘Exploring the Schemes for Green Climate Fund Financing: International Lessons’ (2018) 101 World Development 173 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X17302802> [68] Bellora, Cecilia and Lionel Fontagné, ‘EU in Search of a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism’ (2023) 123 Energy Economics 106673 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988323001718> [69] Han, Heejin and Sang Wuk Ahn, ‘Youth Mobilization to Stop Global Climate Change: Narratives and Impact’ (2020) 12(10) Sustainability 4127 <https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/10/4127> [70] Kokotsis, John J Kirton, Ella, The Global Governance of Climate Change: G7, G20, and UN Leadership (Routledge, 2016) [71] Jewell, Jessica et al, ‘Prospects for Powering Past Coal’ (2019) 9(8) Nature Climate Change 592 <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0509-6> [72] Ibid. [73] Groen, Lisanne and Arne Niemann, ‘EU Actorness and Effectiveness under Political Pressure at the Copenhagen Climate Change Negotiations’ (Other, 2011) <http://aei.pitt.edu/52840/> [74] Vasileiadou, Eleftheria, Gaston Heimeriks and Arthur C Petersen, ‘Exploring the Impact of the IPCC Assessment Reports on Science’ (2011) 14(8) Environmental Science & Policy 1052 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901111001080> [75] Schwartz, Heather E, The Sunrise Movement: The Climate Revolution Generation (Lerner Publishing Group, 2023) [76] ‘We Mean Business Coalition - About’, We Mean Business Coalition (20 July 2023) <https://www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org/about/> [77] Laybourn-Langton, Laurie, Joshua Emden, And Lesley Rankin. “YOUNGER AND FUTURE GENERATIONS ARE DANGEROUSLY EXPOSED.” INHERITING THE EARTH?: THE UNPRECEDENTED CHALLENGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL BREAKDOWN FOR YOUNGER GENERATIONS. Institute For Public Policy Research (IPPR), 2019. Http://Www.Jstor.Org/Stable/Resrep21889.6.
