Search

Begin New Search Topic Climate Change Political Geography China Publishing Institution Finnish Institute of International Affairs Publication Year within 25 Years

1. The Global Arctic: The Growing Arctic Interests of Russia, China, the United States and the European Union

Author:
Juha Käpylä and Harri Mikkola
Publication Date:
08-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
With exciting economic opportunities and serious environmental challenges, the Arctic is transforming and re-emerging as a geopolitically important region. Major global players within and without the Arctic are paying greater attention to the region. While Russia is a traditional Arctic state with significant economic and security interests in the region, China, the US and the EU have also expressed their Arctic interests more explicitly. They are keen to tap into the economic potential and have a say in the way the region becomes accessed, exploited and governed. As a result, the Arctic is no longer a spatially or administratively confined region, but is instead taking its new form in the midst of contemporary global politics. The globalization and economization of the Arctic will most likely downplay environmentalism and reduce the relative influence of the indigenous people and small Arctic states in Arctic affairs. Arctic governance is also likely to turn more complex and complicated as the economic and political stakes are raised.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Climate Change, Development, International Trade and Finance, Oil, and Natural Resources
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, and Europe

2. The EU and the global climate regime: Getting back in the game

Author:
Anna Korppoo, Thomas Spencer, and Kristian Tangen
Publication Date:
02-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The Copenhagen climate summit was seen as a set-back for the eu. It was left out of the final meeting between the usa and major developing countries which lead to the Copenhagen Accord, and had to accept a deal that fell below its expectations. Due to the impact of the economic crisis, the eu's current target of a unilateral 20 % reduction is no longer as impressive as it seemed in 2007–2008; this is undermining the eu's claim to leadership. In order to match the higher pledges of Japan, Australia and the us, as well as shoulder its fair share of the industrialized countries' aggregate 30 % reduction, the eu would have to pledge a 35 % reduction. The eu's practise of attaching conditionalities to its higher target gives it very little leverage. However, there might be a case for the eu to move unilaterally to a 30 % reduction in order to accelerate the decarbonisation of its economy and capture new growth markets. Doing so could support stronger policy development in other countries such as Australia and Japan, and help rebuild trust among developing countries. But on its own it would be unlikely to have a substantial impact on the position of the other big players—the usa, China, India, and Brazil. The incoherence of the eu's support of a “singe legal outcome” from the Copenhagen summit, based on the elements of the Kyoto Protocol, was a major cause for its isolation. The us remains domestically unable to commit to this type of a ratifiable treaty while developing countries are not yet ready to commit to absolute targets. A return to a two-track approach, involving the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol and the negotiation of a new instrument for the usa and major developing countries, may be a more politically and practically feasible approach, while retaining the goal of working towards a legally binding instrument for all key participants over time.
Topic:
Climate Change, Environment, and International Cooperation
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Europe, India, Brazil, and Australia

3. Elephant in the room: The new G77 and China dynamics in climate talks

Author:
Antto Vihma
Publication Date:
05-2010
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
As immediate emotions after Copenhagen COP-15 have faded, space is opening for more measured and systematic reflections on the lessons of the multilateral climate process. One key issue in global climate talks is the current state of the Group of 77 and China block of developing countries—its growing differences, and sources of solidarity.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, International Organization, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
China

4. Towards a new climate regime? Views of China, India, Japan, Russia and the United States in the road to Copenhagen

Author:
Linda Jakobson, Anna Korppoo, Johannes Urpelainen, Antto Vihma, and Alex Luta
Publication Date:
05-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The fifteenth Conference of Parties to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009 has been set as the political deadline for establishing a comprehensive regime to address the dramatic threat of climate change and follow up the Kyoto Protocol. The EU has a convening role in the position formation for the negotiations as the newly elected presidential administration of the US will need all the time available to establish its position for Copenhagen.
Topic:
Climate Change, Energy Policy, and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Japan, China, and India

5. The Dead Souls: How to deal with the Russian surplus?

Author:
Anna Korppoo
Publication Date:
09-2009
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The 10-15% reduction target by 2020 announced by Russia reflects neither the country's efficiency potential, nor modeled emissions trends. With emission reduction measures, Russia could commit to a target of ca. -30% by 2020. Transferring the surplus emission allowances Russia gained under the Kyoto Protocol due to the economic restructuring of the 1990s represents an extreme threat to both the environmental and market integrity of the Copenhagen agreement as it could be used to offset real domestic emission reduction measures in other countries. But it seems politically unlikely that Russia would join without transferring the surplus under the Copenhagen agreement. Countries should recognize the threat posed by the surplus, and offer a cooperative strategy to deal with it. However, pushing through a 'cancel or discount' approach to the surplus problem by three-quarter majority, which could be brought together without the co-operation of the surplus-holding countries, should be kept as a reserve strategy. More ambitious targets - beyond the 25-40% suggested by the IPCC - for the Annex I industrialized country group, especially for the surplus holding countries including Russia, could absorb the transferred surplus. However, given the current low pledges of Annex 1 countries, higher targets are unlikely to absorb the whole surplus, and therefore, a basket of approaches should be applied. To gain credibility on this issue of vis-à-vis Russia and to avoid Russia setting the tone, before Copenhagen the EU must adopt an internal solution to deal with the surplus of its new member states. If expecting to transfer the surpluses, the other surplus holding countries including Russia could announce national surplus use plans prior to the Copenhagen climate talks. In order to minimize a scenario of Russia blocking the Copenhagen process in the final hours, key countries should publically engage Russia on climate and the Copenhagen talks. Important Annex I countries, especially the US, should send very high-level representatives to Moscow like they have sent to China and India.
Topic:
Climate Change and Treaties and Agreements
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, Europe, India, and Asia