Suchergebnisse

The European Union has played a leading role in pushing for the establishment, ratification, and meaningful implementation of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, although it still has significant efforts to make to achieve its target of an 8 percent cut of greenhouse gas by 2008–2012 relative to the 1990 level. This article explores the political factors behind continued EU leadership in climate change. It argues that a few individual states (including Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, and the UK) played an essential role in establishing the EU's agenda in this domain. However, the decentralized governance structure of the EU has also encouraged a process of mutual reinforcement, whereby individual states, the European Commission, and the European Parliament are competing for leadership.

In 2001, the Japanese government committed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change against industry pressures and in spite of the US decision to withdraw from the agreement. This commitment was crucial for the survival of the protocol. Japan has subsequently introduced substantial—yet, mostly voluntary—measures. To explain the puzzle of Japan's ratification, this article builds upon the agenda-setting literature and advances the concept of embedded symbolism. During the 1990s, political leaders elevated climate change and the Kyoto Protocol to the level of a national symbol. Thus, although in 2001 successful implementation of the Kyoto target looked extremely difficult and industry opposition was strong, the symbolism of Kyoto backed by strong public support tipped the balance in favor of ratification.

In 2001, the Japanese government committed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change against industry pressures and in spite of the US decision to withdraw from the agreement. This commitment was crucial for the survival of the protocol. Japan has subsequently introduced substantial-yet, mostly voluntary-measures. To explain the puzzle of Japan's ratification, this article builds upon the agenda-setting literature and advances the concept of embedded symbolism. During the 1990s, political leaders elevated climate change and the Kyoto Protocol to the level of a national symbol. Thus, although in 2001 successful implementation of the Kyoto target looked extremely difficult and industry opposition was strong, the symbolism of Kyoto backed by strong public support tipped the balance in favor of ratification. Adapted from the source document.

The European Union has played a leading role in pushing for the establishment, ratification, and meaningful implementation of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, although it still has significant efforts to make to achieve its target of an 8 percent cut of greenhouse gas by 2008-2012 relative to the 1990 level. This article explores the political factors behind continued EU leadership in climate change. It argues that a few individual states (including Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, and the UK) played an essential role in establishing the EU's agenda in this domain. However, the decentralized governance structure of the EU has also encouraged a process of mutual reinforcement, whereby individual states, the European Commission, and the European Parliament are competing for leadership. Adapted from the source document.

Canada and Germany are both pursuing major energy transitions and far-reaching climate programs but differ in terms of policies towards some energy sources and their preferred policy instruments. Both countries have committed to large scale emission reductions despite the challenge of regional divestment from fossil fuels: hard coal in North Rhine Westphalia and the Saarland; lignite in the Rhineland, on the German-Polish border in the Lusatsia (Lausitz) region, and in central Germany; coal in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia; and oil in Western Canada. We contrast the current Pan Canadian framework (PCF) on Clean Growth and Climate Change to the German Climate Law and the European Green Deal setting targets to become climate neutral by 2050. Germany has plans for a dual phase out of nuclear energy by 2022 and coal by 2038. In contrast, Canada differs by province in terms of policies on fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Both are leaders in renewable energies, but differ in the type of renewable energy which dominates. We further examine the international action components of the PCF and its implications for collaboration with Germany and the EU. We discuss potential partnerships and strategic alliances between Canada and Germany in the context of their mutual interest to enable an energy transition and to lead to the implementation of the Paris agreement for climate change action. We identify political challenges within each federation, and especially the approach to impacted coal regions in Germany and Poland as well as the Canadian oil sands. Barriers to progress for meeting identified targets and timelines are considered. We conclude with insights on the possibility and likelihood of linking policies and regulatory measures across the Atlantic, and the political threats of advancing towards decarbonization and an energy transition away from fossil fuels in each jurisdiction.