Untitled Flashcards Set

Unit 3 AOS 1 – Global Issues, Global Responses

Cause #1: The burning of fossil fuels to meet our energy needs

 In 2023, for example, coal power capacity grew by 2%, with energy-related emissions reaching a new record high of 37.4 billion tonnes. This was in contrast to the international expectation that coal-fired power plants are closed down at a rate of 6% annually to avoid a climate emergency.

Exp – The growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the past 10 years has increased the rate in which these gases are accumulating in the atmosphere, exacerbating the naturally occuring greenhouse effect in the process. The increase in global temperatures resulting from these emissions is having a drastic impact on both human and natural environments.

Analysis – The growth of greenhouse gas emissions due to energy consumption and the burning of fossil fuels can be attributed to a range of economic, technological and political factors.

 Economic: States continue to profit from fossil fuel exports, such as Australia who exported $127.4 billion worth of coal in 2022/2023. Much of this is consumed by China, who is responsible for over 50% of the world’s coal-fired emissions. China’s growing energy-needs also prolong its reliance on fossil fuels which hinders progress.

 Technological: Transportation is the 2nd largest source of emissions, producing more than 8 billion tonnes annually. 2024 - US Environmental Protection Agency noted that transportation accounts for 29% of emissions.

 Political/Ideological: Trump’s declaration of a “national energy emergency” and desire to “drill, baby, drill” reflects a political commitment to fossil fuel exploitation that serves political purposes based on economic nationalism.

Cause #2: Deforestation

 Each year, approximately 12 million hectares of forest are purposefully cleared for grazing land, agriculture, or timber. This releases upwards of 8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

 The world’s forests also absorb around 7.6 billion metric tonnes of CO2, annually.

Exp – When forests are cleared and burned, there is an increase in emissions that exacerbates the naturally occuring greenhouse effect. The loss of forested land also removes vital carbon sinks that decrease the earth’s ability to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Hence, deforestation contributes to climate change and global warming in two distinct ways.

Analysis – Increasing rates of deforestation occur due to a range of Environmental, Economic and Political factors.

 Environmental: The increasing frequency and severity of bushfires is an environmental factor that is resulting in greater deforestation. 13.4 million acres burned in 2024.

 Economic: The clearing of forested land for grazing and agriculture is often driven by economic benefits. Brazil, for example, is the largest exporter of beef in the world, which increases pressure on the country’s forests for new grazing land. 44.2 million acres were deliberately burned in 2024.

 Political/Ideological: Former Brazilian President Bolsonaro was responsible for closing several environmental agencies designed to protect the Amazon from deforestation. Commitment to “small government”.

Global Interconnectedness: Refers to the interdependence between states due to advancements in technology and the trade. A more interconnected world creates both challenges and benefits for global efforts to resolve climate change.

Challenge #1 – It can exacerbate the causes of climate change. (Interests of actors contributing to causes)

 The global demand for commodities increases their rate of exploitation and subsequent emissions. Australia exported $127.4 billion in coal in 2022/2023, highlighting how global demand for resources increases their extraction and eventual use by states like China who is responsible for over 50% of coal-fired emissions.

 The global demand for commodities can also increase the rate of deforestation. As the largest exporter of beef in the world, Brazil’s rapid deforestation is largely driven by global demand for a product (in this case beef) that requires significant grazing land. 44.2 million acres burned in deliberately lit fires in 2024.

Challenge #2 – It creates greater transport emissions

 Global shipping alone is responsible for 3% of all emissions and 40% of all goods transported are fossil fuels. The global network of transport and trade directly contributes to increased emissions and resource exploitation.

Benefit #1 – Facilitates increased levels of international climate diplomacy that serve to promote resolutions.

 COP29 in Baku was attended by over 200 countries and 80 heads of state and facilitated new deals on climate finance and carbon credits. The ability to share resources from the $300 billion finance fund is also expanded.

International Law #1 – The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

 General Purpose: The main objective of the UNFCCC is to stabilise the rate of greenhouse gas emissions and minimise the human-induced (anthropogenic) impacts of global warming.

 Specific Objective #1: The UNFCCC places the responsibility of addressing climate change on the most heavily industrialised / developed states who are largely responsible for its occurance in the first place.

 Specific Objective #2: It also establishes the framework for conducting annual climate conferences (the COP) in an ongoing effort to facilitate climate diplomacy and unite state responses.

Exp – Given that the causes and consequences of climate change transcend state boundaries, the UNFCCC plays an essential role in coordinating different global actors to ensure that their responses are aligned and meaningful.

 The UNFCCC has 197 ratifying members. It’s near universal ratification implies a symbolic commitment to addressing climate change by all members.

 Since implementation, there have been 29 subsequent conferences held to further climate action. The most recent occurred in November 2024 in Baku, Azerbaijan (COP29).

 Many successful agreements and laws have been established at these conferences, including:

 COP26 (2021) in Glasgow: All members of the UNFCCC agreed to phase-down coal-fired power by 40% by 2030, and end deforestation in the same time period.

 COP29 (2024) in Baku: Developed states tripled pledges to $300 billion annually to support developing states in their efforts to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change. A “new era for climate finance” – EU Climate Commissioner.

X 2025: US President Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement and also threatened to remove America’s support for the UNFCCC. This represents both a practical and symbolic challenge to international efforts to resolve the issue.

X The lack of progress achieved at recent Conferences lead to former UN Sec General Ban Ki-moon stating that “the COP is no longer fit for purpose” and requires a “shift from negotiation to implementation.” Such comments suggest that the COP mechanism, established by the UNFCCC, is insufficient and required reform.

X In 1994 when the UNFCCC was established, 80% of the world’s primary energy came from fossil fuels. This ratio remains the same in 2025. The reflects a lack of progress through the COP mechanism that the UNFCCC creates.

You can discuss the UN’s lack of an enforcement mechanism as a major challenge to implementing the UNFCCC.

International Law #2 – The Paris Agreement (PA)

 General Purpose: States pledge to keep global temperature increases to well-below 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Preferably, global temperature increases would be limited to 1.5 degrees above PII.

 Specific Objective #1: States are required to peak emissions by 2025 and decrease them by 43% by 2030.

 Specific Objective #2: States are required to set NDCs every five years stipulating what measures will be taken to uphold the Paris Agreement’s core objective. These must be expanded each time.

Exp – The PA is important given that it places greater legislative pressure on states to set new targets and expand their climate goals. It differs from the UNFCCC in that there is a much greater focus on how climate change needs to be resolved, rather than simply outlining the mechanism for resolving climate change through diplomacy.

 As of Jan 2025, 195 countries and the European union have ratified the Paris Agreement.

 As of June 2024, 140 states responsible for 88% of emissions had adopted net-zero pledges in law. This includes the world’s biggest polluters in China, America, India and the EU.

 You can also refer to updated NDCS (Brazil) to reflect specific commitments to the PA.

X First Global Stock Take Report (Sep 2023): “the world is not on track to meet the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement.”

X 2024 was the hottest year on record and has already exceeded the 1.5-degree preferred threshold set by the PA.

X Climate Action Tracker – the existing policies of Paris signatories would result in a 2.7 degree increase by 2100.

X Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the PA in 2025 was another heavy blow, both symbolically and practically. As the world’s biggest economy and 2nd largest emitter, the US is no longer bound by the restrictions of the PA. The act also serves to encourage other states to withdrawal, with Argentina also making threats to exit the PA.

X Trump also declared a “national energy emergency” and pledged to “drill, baby, drill” – reaffirming his commitment to fossil fuels in complete contrast to the expectations of the PA.

You can discuss American sovereignty or the competing domestic interests as one of the core challenges to the PA.

State Actor #1 (cooperative effort): Brazil

Response

 At COP29 in Baku (Nov 2024), Brazil pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by as much as two-thirds by 2035 compared to 2005 levels. These cuts would result in a 59 or 67% reduction in emissions.

 They have also pledged to reach “zero deforestation” by 2030.

 The new pledge made Brazil one of the first states to release its latest NDC ahead of the Feb 2025 deadline.

 Brazil is also hosting COP30 in November 2025.

Perspectives

By embracing key international expectations and supporting other states by lowering their emissions, Brazil is embracing a largely cosmopolitan perspective. Brazil was both legally and morally obligated to set these pledges.

Realism may, however, still be evident in the sense that Brazil continues to profit from Beef and Agricultural exports that can result in increased deforestation. This highlights how self-preservation still factors into Brazil’s actions.

Interests

Such a perspective suggests that Brazil values its international standing (as a leader of global efforts to address climate change) and sustainable economic development (that seeks to balance economic growth with the conservation of resources for future generations).

Causes

 Setting new NDCs that reduce emissions directly targets the burning of fossil fuels as the fundamental cause of climate change. Such pledges directly reduce the rate at which these fuels are consumed.

 Reaching zero deforestation by 2030 also targets deforestation as a primary cause and seeks to ensure that forested areas can continue to serve as vital carbon sinks.

Laws

 Setting an updated NDC prior to the Feb 2025 deadline reflects a clear commitment to the PA.

 Hosting COP30 outlines Brazil’s support for the UNFCCC and its process of climate diplomacy.

Positive Consequences

 The pledge scales up Brazil’s 2016 commitment, which aimed for a 43% reduction by 2030.

 The new targets are “ambitious, but also feasible.” (VP Geraldo Alckim)

 Amazon Environmental Research Institute – Brazil has “done a very good job” reducing deforestation levels in recent years, dropping by one-third between 2023 and 2024.

 More than 85% of Brazil’s electricity is generated without burning fossil fuels, a share almost three times higher than the global average.

Negative Consequences

X Brazilian Climate Observatory – The dual targets are “confirmation that Brazil could do much more.”

X “Policy-wise, it’s a pretty good NDC .. but the NDC is very weak; it is not 1.5C aligned.”

X Agriculture makes up half of the country’s exports and accounts for one quarter of Brazil’s emissions each year.

X Brazil is also the largest beef exported in the world, with exports around $7 billion annually. 70% of deforested land becomes cattle pasture (80 million head of cattle currently located in the Amazon region).

X 44.2 million acres of forest were deliberately burnt down in 2024, much of which was an illegal attempt to access new pastureland.

Challenges

 Conflicting economic interests: Brazil’s dependency on both beef and agricultural exports provide an incentive to clear more land for pasture and farming.

 Global interconnectedness: Creates greater international demand for Brazil’s commodities, which puts further pressure on ranchers and farmers to meet such demand by deforesting more of the Amazon.

 Insufficient enforcement: Many of Brazil’s environmental enforcement agencies are considered weak due to factors like underfunding. This makes it very difficult to stop illegal land grabbing and deforestation.

State Actor #2 (pursuit of own objectives): America

Response

 Jan 2025: US President Trump signed executive orders removing America from the Paris Agreement.

 Trump condemned the legislation as “the unfair, one-sided Paris climate accord rip-off.”

 He also declared a “national energy emergency”, pledging to explore new opportunities for the exploration of oil and natural gas - “drill, baby, drill.”

 Scrapped Biden’s Green New Deal and 78 Biden-era policies, including the “electric vehicle mandate.”

Perspective

By openly rejecting key international standards and adopting an America-first approach to economic growth and the maintenance of state sovereignty, Trump is embracing a largely realist perspective.

Interests

Such a perspective suggests that Trump values the interests of traditional economic development and combating inflation over any interests relating to America’s international reputation. Securing American energy supply is also a key interest being targeted through such actions.

Causes

 With estimates suggesting the Trump’s policies could contribute an additional 4 billion tonnes of additional US emissions by 2030, it is clear that such a response fails to address the underlying cause of burning fossil fuels.

 Trump will exacerbate the causes by expanding the extraction and use of fossil fuels.

Laws

 Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement undermines its legitimacy and removes any legislative restrictions on the US to set expanded NDCs.

 Trump has also threatened to withdraw from the UNFCCC, further detracting form the legitimacy of this law.

Negative Consequences

X Expanding US emissions will be a literal environmental consequence of their withdrawal from the PA. Estimates suggest that an additional 4 billion tonnes of GHG emissions will be released by 2030.

X US targets under Biden were already rated as “insufficient” by Climate Action Tracker.

X The US remains the world’s top producer of oil and natural gas. They exported $10.15 billion in petroleum to 173 states in 2023, which was roughly 10 million barrels per day.

 X The response negates Biden’s 2024 pledge to cut emissions by 61%-66% by 2035 from 2005 levels. This pledge can be used to highlight a more cosmopolitan perspective and progress that had been made prior to Trump’s election and subsequent dismantling of efforts to address climate change.

X The US is also not on track to reach its 2021 pledge of a 50-52% reduction by 2030 (with estimates suggesting that they are on track for a 45-46% cut.

Challenges

 Conflicting economic interests: US profits from oil / gas production (see above) serve to discourage efforts that curtail the use and sale of fossil fuels.

 Global interconnectedness: Creates greater international demand for America’s commodities, which puts further pressure on oil / gas producers to expand exploration and extraction.

 Democracy: The policy changes that occur from one government to the next can destabilise efforts to address climate change and result in a lack of continuity.

Stability vs Change

 Stability: By rejecting change and promoting the status-quo, Trump’s actions reflect political stability. This is largely because he is preserving America’s reliance on fossil fuels, rather than taking action to transition to more sustainable forms. Trump is opposing the changes made by the previous Biden administration by reversing his policies and returning to the status-quo.

 Change: By encouraging the transition to more sustainable alternatives, Brazil is a stronger advocate of change. Moving away from traditional to sustainable energy sources (85% sustainable energy) reflects this change.

Institution of Global Governance: United Nations

Response

 The UN convened the 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29) in Baku, Azerbaijan.

 Facilitated dialogue between 54,000 participants and delegates from over 200 states, including 80 heads of state.

 Furthering opportunities for climate finance and updating the rules around carbon trading / credits were the main areas of focus for COP29. This is why it would become known as the “finance COP.”

Perspective

By facilitating international standards / norms and encouraging cooperation between states, the United Nations is embracing a largely cosmopolitan perspective. The UN exists to coordinate relations in an interconnected world.

Interests

Such a perspective suggests that the UN values international peace and security and developing relationships between states as two of its core aims / interests. This is because they are encouraging states to work harmoniously together, while also recognizing that climate change represents one of the biggest threats to international peace and security in the 21st century.

Causes

 Providing climate finance is designed to help developing states transition to sustainable alternatives that reduce emissions in the process.

 Setting rules around carbon training may encourage states to plant forests in order to offset emissions elsewhere.

Laws

 Enhancing climate finance addresses requirements of the Glasgow Pact that were established at COP26.

 Furthering rules around carbon credits addresses the PA, which requires states to establish rules around trading carbon credits in an attempt to incentivise actions that reduce emissions.

 Addresses the UNFCCC by asking developed states to take responsibility by financing developing states and their efforts to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change.

Positive Consequences

 Developed states agreed to triple their climate finance from $100 billion to $300 billion annually by 2035.

 This represented a “new era for climate finance” – EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra

 New rules established to help states classify and trade carbon credits, which provides an incentive for states to decrease their emissions further (and punishes those who continue to over-emit).

Negative Consequences

X The Indian Climate Envoy labelled the new finance deal a “paltry sum”

X The Marshall Islands’ Climate Envoy stated that “It’s not nearly enough.”

X Economists argue that upwards of $2.3 trillion is required to help developing states phase out fossil fuels entirely. This suggests that the $300 billion commitment is grossly insufficient.

X The Least Developed Countries (LDC) negotiating bloc walked out of negotiations in frustration over the lack of funding.

X COP29 was not attended by the heads of state for the world’s biggest emitters, including Joe Biden (US), Xi Jinping (China), Narendra Modi (India) and Emmanual Macron (France).

Challenges

 Conflicting interests: During a time of high inflation and increasing cost of living, many states have been reluctant to contribute more to climate finance. This may explain why the pledged $300 billion annually falls well short of the requirements.

 Lack of enforcement mechanism: The UN lacks the ability to set binding targets on its member states, unless agreements are established through the UNSC. Given that climate change is not regarded as a traditional threat to international peace and security, however, it is not discussed in this forum.

 Corporate lobbying: A total of 1773 fossil fuel lobbyists attended the COP29 climate talks, leading many to suggest that the conference had been usurped by corporate interests. This led to those such as former UN Sec General Ban Ki-moon stating that the COP is “no longer fit for purpose.”

Non-State Actor: Toyota

Response

 Toyota’s 2050 Environmental Challenge demonstrates the world largest car manufacturer’s support of international efforts to address climate change. It sets several goals, including:

 Reducing global emissions from new vehicles by 33.3% by 2030 and by 50% by 2035 compared to 2019 levels.

 70% of vehicles sold in the US by 2030 will be electric.

 Carbon neutrality in manufacturing plants by 2035.

Perspective

By making pledges that appear to uphold international norms in support of the collective good, Toyota does embrace elements of a cosmopolitan perspective.

Their continued preference for manufacturing petrol/diesel cars that are heavy emitters, however, suggests that Toyota may be motivated more by self-interest / profit than a global desire to resolve climate change. Toyota’s efforts to lobby against fuel-efficiency standards in Australia, or the electric vehicle mandates in the UK/America, suggest that Toyota is motivated more by realism than cosmopolitanism.

Interests

Although Toyota’s public pledges to support global climate efforts suggest that the TNC might be motivated by global interests, their continued focus on the sale of petrol vehicles and the associated profits of these sales suggest that Toyota is mostly guided by corporate interests. Over 95% of Toyota’s $31.82 billion in profit in 2023 came from the sale of petrol/diesel vehicles.

Causes

 While Toyota’s pledges to reach net-zero and expand its electric vehicle range are meant to decrease the transport-based emissions that contribute to global warming, its reliance on the sale of petrol/diesel vehicles suggests that Toyota is largely exacerbating the causes of climate change by limiting the rate at which emissions are reduced.

Laws

 Toyota’s pledge to reach net-zero by 2050 (globally) and 2040 (in Europe) is consistent with the expectations of the Paris Agreement.

 Their continued focus on selling petrol/diesel vehicles does, however, disregard the anthropogenic causes of climate change that are stipulated in the UNFCCC.

Positive Consequences

 Aim to achieve net-zero by 2050 (globally) and 2040 (in Europe).

 100% emissions reduction in Europe by 2035.

 Carbon neutrality in US operations by 2030.

 Over 24 million electric vehicles sold – this reduces emissions by approximately 176 million tonnes.

 Plans to release 10 new EV models and boost annual EV sales to 1.5 million by 2026.

Negative Consequences

X Greenpeace have accused Toyota of lobbying against fuel-efficiency standards in Australia and the new EV mandate in the United Kingdom. Toyota also supported Trump’s election and subsequent repeal of Biden’s EV mandate.

X Less than 1 in 100 vehicles sold by Toyota are EVs. Only 24,000 out of 10.5 million sales in 2022 were EVs. In comparison, Tesla sold 1.3 million EVs.

X Toyota are “understating its cars’ emissions and overstating its commitment to clean transport.” – Lindsay Soutar (Director of Greenpeace Australia).

Challenges

 Infrastructure limitations: The transition to EVs may not be possible in areas with limited power supply. 37.6% of Toyota’s sales in 2024 were in Asia, where access to reliable electricity may be limited.

 Pressure of shareholders to maximize profit: As a public company, Toyota faces pressure from its shareholders to produce dividends at the expense of their broader obligations.