While I am most certainly not an expert on global environmental regimes, I have found it important for me to understand the processes that (should) allow for global behavioral shifts. Over the last years or so, I have specifically done some research on the framework convention that works to coordinate international agreements and actions towards mitigating global climate change (GCC).

Recently, a couple of people have asked me about the history of the process and where we stand today, so I figured I would try and use this space to do just that. Please know that this explanation is formal and academic and excludes so, so much of the exhausting and painful work that thousands of people have devoted towards making these agreements a reality. Many of my friends have spent years organizing young people to care about these issues, creating space for marginalized populations that are directly affected by climate change and using their powerful hearts and minds to coordinate political transformations.

The emotional suffering and physical pain that COP 21 (explanation below) brought upon so many people that I love so dearly is nauseating. I will never know what happened in Paris, but what I do know is that on paper, Paris is not enough. For more information, I strongly recommend that you all take a look at my friend Leehi Yona's incredibly thorough account of her personal journey as a climate activist, which she has so beautifully summarized in her book: "Young Hope in a Dark World -- Leverage Points for Climate Action".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In July of 2015, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) and Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO­2) Global Climate Change (GCC) missions both observed the mid­-tropospheric level of carbon dioxide as approximately 404.48 parts per million (PPM) . Additionally, NASA reports a 0.75°C change in global surface temperatures, which are relative to 1951­-1980 average temperatures in 2014­­ -- setting a record high temperature anomaly in the history of the planet in 2014. With both Arctic sea and land ice declining in overall mass and sea levels rising at unprecedented rates each year, it is clear that a GCC regime is environmentally, politically, and morally obligatory amongst formal international discussion and action. In the later part of the 20th century and throughout the 21st century, the origins and issues surrounding GCC were earnestly admitted to the international arena­ ­-- sparking a series of elaborate events which initiated behavioral regulation on regional, state and international levels in the hopes of reducing GCC in a united fashion (Shaftel, 2016).

In 1992, the United Nations called for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in order to allow for the “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (United Nations, 1992). The approximate 195 countries that sanctioned and comprise the Parties of the Convention acknowledged several key steps towards alleviating the human induced GCC crisis for the future of the planet and humankind (United Nations, 1992). According to political scientist Oran Young’s four-­part categorization of international environmental problems, it is clear that GCC is a problem prevailing amongst the “commons,” which is best described as “[a] natural [resource] and vital life­support [service] that belongs to all humankind rather than to any one country” (Chasek, 2010). Amongst a myriad of commitments, objectives, principles, etc., the UNFCCC concluded its proceedings with the following basic agreements: the recognition that GCC is a problem, the urgency to stabilize Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, nations belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) are expected to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, OECD nations must financially assist developing countries to support efforts towards reducing GCC, regularly monitor international climate change policies and measures (including annual inventory of GHG emissions from OECD nations), the path to reducing GCC is a path to reducing a major negative externality of economic progress yet seeks to aid states in need of balancing both reduction and progress and finally that a formal consideration of adaptation to climate change be implemented as means to ameliorate GCC (UNFCCC, 2014).

The inauguration of the UNFCCC was followed by a handful of vital agreements and conferences that enforced both legal, formal rules and suggestive, informal rules that knead GCC reduction into the legislative policy of each party within the convention. The most reputable (up until recently) of which was the international agreement for the need to reduce GHG emissions comparable to those of the 1990s as well as meticulously document and later report annual emission inventories, which was enacted in 2005: the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC, 2014). With the Germany-­based UN Climate Change Secretariat monitoring international transaction logs, 37 industrialized states are legally bound to reducing GHG emissions each year. Until recently the Kyoto Protocol stood firmly as the most influential protocol targeting GCC, however throughout November­ and December of 2015, the UNFCCC held the Paris Climate Change Conference, the twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties (COP), which established an "urgent" international environmental tone for the Parties of the Convention (UNFCCC, 2014). The UNFCCC officially adopted an agreement in Paris that largely contains what representatives from both non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) i.e. Christian Aid, Green Alliance, Greenpeace, RSPB and WWF declared necessary to produce real change: “ambitious action before and after 2020, a strong legal framework and clear rules, a central role for equity, a long term approach, public finance for adaptation and the low carbon transition, a framework for action on deforestation and land use, [and] clear links to the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals” (Green Alliance, 2014) -- not though that not all non-state actors agree with this sentiment. In the past, individual states with immense economic and thus speaking power on such subjects e.g. China and the United States, have critically hindered environmental negotiations and agreements. From the perception and inauguration of the UNFCCC and protocols and conferences to follow, the power of veto diminished as pro­-alternative energy industries and various insurance industries lobbied strongly for the stringent implementation of both the original framework convention and the agreements to follow (Chasek, 2010) -- this is not to say that these powerful nations have "lost" their seats at the table, because they have most definitely not.

From a structural anarchal theoretical viewpoint, it is clear that a significant portion of developing states and a handful of OECD members have created a difficult environment to organize substantial change via the UNFCCC throughout the last several decades (Chasek, 2010). Unfortunately, it is incredibly likely that if acting states were to refuse to cooperate with climate change movements that natural resource availability and usage e.g. agriculture, natural forests, coastal resources, energy and water; it is thus “imply[ed] that the net productivity of sensitive economic sectors is a hill­shaped function of temperature” (Mendelsohn, 1999). Throught the lense of a constructivist theorist, it is vital to acknowledge the incredible economic, political, and scientific variations in climate change effects and understandings amongst different states and how this influences political negotiation (Chasek, 2010). Preceding the UNFCCC’s inauguration, the UN established the 1987 Brundtland Commision to analyze current human­-induced environmental impact on the future of both economic and social development; the commission actively holds economies and societies of states who compromise “the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” accountable for their detrimental actions (Chasek, 2010). Green economists­­ -- the GCC idealists­­ -- seek to develop an international economy that simultaneously lessens carbon emissions, while augmenting global income and employment opportunities: arguably one of the most intricate theories to apply to GCC action in the 21st century. Thomas Homer­-Dixon, a modern day pioneer for environmental change, argues that “resource scarcity, ecosystem collapse, and other environmental problems can act as tectonic stresses, exacerbating existing political, social, or economic instability to the point that armed conflict occurs” (Chasek, 2010). From said viewpoint, the GCC regime is wholly an international crisis that will inevitably generate global contentions over natural resource proprietorship.

The UNFCCC and the agreements to follow symbolize international acknowledgement that GCC is a chief environmental issue that deserves the attention of each state’s representatives and each state’s citizens. No matter the version of theory applied to the GCC, nearly 200 states recognize that climate change is a global matter and that action is essential to protecting the planet, economy, and society for future generations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I'm no expert, but it seems like we still have a lot of work to do. Look forward to a list of things that you can do to mitigate this crisis soon!