Suchergebnisse

The climate is changing. As the global mean temperature continues to rise, the immense urgency of addressing the climate change crisis is evident. Since climate change entered the international political agenda in the 1980s, efforts to construct an effective global response have been organized under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Recently, this UN-led interstate diplomacy has been criticized for its inability to grapple with the polycentric, multiactor landscape of today. In this context, the 2015 Paris Agreement altered the formal context of global climate politics by institutionalizing a 'hybrid,' 'catalytic' regime where states are to outline, submit, and periodically enhance their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the global response. While the continuous submission of NDCs is legally binding, their content and design are largely determined by states' ideas about the appropriate means and ends of climate action. The Paris regime also entails an unprecedented position for nonstate actors who were welcomed as an integral part of climate mitigation and adaptation and invited to pledge their contributions to the global effort through various UNFCCC-led initiatives. Through this supposedly cata-lytic design, the Paris regime pins its hopes on continuous increases in ambition levels and implementation rates of states' and nonstate actors' pledges to stave off the urgent crisis that is climate change. Global climate governance research has delved into the characteristics of this new architecture to examine how the disperse climate action pledges can be understood, aggregated, and enhanced, and how this hybrid design can ensure legitimate orchestration of a plurality of actors. While providing valuable suggestions for enhanced effectiveness of and participation in the Paris regime, this thesis suggests that post-Paris climate governance research to a large extent center around issues of improving the functions of the Paris model and that there is a lack of critical accounts of how the hybrid, catalytic, and largely voluntary Paris design rests upon and projects particular ways of ordering world politics. To fill this gap, this thesis draws upon Foucauldian governmentality studies to critically examine how climate change is governed through voluntarism under the Paris regime and its political implications in terms of shaping the idea of what constitutes appropriate climate conduct. It asks how climate change is constructed as a problem for government by exploring the rationalities that inform climate governance under the Paris regime and the technologies through which governing is conducted. By illuminating the ideas and practices that underpin governing through voluntarism, the thesis contributes to a critical discussion on the means and ends of this mode of governing which, in turn, carves space for articulation of alternative problem descriptions and solutions. The thesis builds on four studies that, in turn, examine how climate change is problematized in states' NDCs in terms of climate policy discourses employed (Paper I) and suggested roles for the state in climate action (Paper II), and how climate action is mobilized through the NDC (Paper III) and UNFCCC-led initiatives to engage nonstate actors (Paper IV). The thesis demonstrates that governing climate change through voluntarism under the Paris regime is characterized by efforts of coordination that emphasize a need for quantifiable, comparable, and aggregable climate actions. Rather than merely a technical necessity for organizing disperse climate pledges, it argues that coordination is a governing strategy that posits climate action as a non-conflictual project of problem-management and shapes the idea of appropriate climate conduct by constructing states and nonstate actors as responsible actors charged with keeping their conduct in check. At the same time, the thesis also finds that the Paris regime leaves some room for resistance where alternative ideas on the appropriate means and ends of government can be advanced and debated. It argues, however, that the overwhelming emphasis on coordination shapes the field of possibilities for resistance by treating resisters as 'those not yet convinced,' rather than as ex-pressors of fundamental political differences. In essence, by illuminating how current modes of government shape the idea of appropriate climate conduct, the thesis stresses that the urgency of the climate change challenge must not foreclose critical discussions on how governing climate change under the Paris regime is accomplished. ; Klimatet förändras. I ljuset av den fortsatta ökningen av den globala medeltemperaturen är det akuta behovet att möta klimatkrisen uppenbart. Sedan klimatförändringar tog plats på den internationella politiska agendan under 1980-talet har försök att konstruera effektiva globala åtgärder organiserats under Förenta nationernas ramkonvention om klimatförändringar (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC). På senare tid har denna FN-ledda, mellanstatliga diplomati blivit kritiserad för dess oförmåga att handskas med dagens polycentriska politiska landskap där många olika typer av aktörer florerar. Parisavtalet, som antogs år 2015, ändrade den formella kontexten för global klimatpolitik genom att institutionalisera en "hybrid," "katalytisk" regim inom vilken stater förväntas formulera, skicka in och periodvis revidera sina nationella klimatplaner, så kallade Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC:er). Medan det kontinuerliga inlämnandet av NDC:er är juridiskt bindande bestäms deras innehåll och design till stor del av staters idéer om vad som är lämpliga metoder och mål för klimatåtgärder. Parisregimen innebär också en förändrad position för icke-statliga aktörer som nu välkomnas som en integral del av arbetet med mitigering av och anpassning till klimatförändringar. Icke-statliga aktörer upp-muntras att skicka in sina bidrag till det globala arbetet mot klimatförändringar genom olika UNFCCC-ledda initiativ. Genom denna katalytiska design sätter Parisregimen hoppet till en kontinuerlig ökning av staters och icke-statliga aktörers ambitionsnivåer och implementeringstakter för att avvärja klimatkrisen. Forskning inom global klimatpolitisk styrning har undersökt egenskaperna hos denna nya styrningsarkitektur och hur de varierade klimatbidragen kan förstås, aggregeras och ökas samt hur den hybrida designen kan säkerställa en legitim orkestrering av en stor mix av aktörer. Sådan forskning har bidragit med värdefulla förslag på hur effektiviteten och deltagandet kan ökas i Parisregimen. Denna avhandling menar dock att forskning om klimatpolitisk styrning post-Paris till stor del behandlar frågor om hur den nuvarande Parismodellen kan förbättras och att det finns en brist på kritiska studier av hur den hybrida, katalytiska och, till stor del, frivilliga Parisdesignen vilar på och projicerar specifika sätt att ordna världspolitiken. För att fylla denna forskningslucka tar denna avhandling inspiration från Foucaults idéer om politisk styrning (på engelska, governmentality) för att kritiskt undersöka hur kli-matförändringar styrs genom frivillighet under Parisregimen och dess politiska implikationer i termer av att forma idén om vad som konstituerar lämpligt klimatbeteende. Den undersöker hur klimatförändringar konstrueras som ett problem för styrning genom att utforska de rationaliteter som informerar klimatpolitisk styrning under Parisregimen och de teknologier genom vilka styrning genomförs. Genom att belysa de idéer och praktiker som ligger till grund för styrning genom frivillighet bidrar avhandlingen till en kritisk diskussion om styrningens metoder och mål vilket ger utrymme för artikulation av alternativa problembeskrivningar och lösningsförslag. Avhandlingen bygger på fyra studier som i tur och ordning undersöker hur klimatförändringar problematiseras i staters NDC:er vad gäller de klimatpolitiska diskurser som används (Artikel I) och de roller som föreslås för staten (Artikel II) samt hur klimatåtgärder mobiliseras genom NDC:n (Artikel III) och UNFCCC-ledda initiativ för att engagera icke-statliga aktörer (Artikel IV). Avhandlingen visar att klimatpolitisk styrning genom frivillighet karaktäriseras av tekniker för koordinering som framhåller behovet av klimatåtgärder som går att kvantifiera, jämföra och aggregera. Snarare än en teknisk nödvändighet för att organisera vitt skilda klimatbidrag, är koordinering en styrningsstrategi som presenterar klimatåtgärder som ett problemhanteringsprojekt i vilket stater och icke-statliga aktörer konstrueras som aktörer som är ansvariga för att hålla sitt eget beteende i schack. Samtidigt visar avhandlingen att det finns utrymmen för motstånd i Parisregimen där alternativa idéer om metoder och mål för styrning kan föras fram och diskuteras. Den överväldigande emfasen på koordinering formar dock möjlighetsutrymmet för motstånd genom att behandla motståndare som "ännu inte övertygade" snarare än som uttryck för fundamentala politiska skillnader. Ge-nom att peka på hur nuvarande sätt att styra formar idén om lämpliga klimatåtgärder understryker avhandlingen att brådskan i klimatutmaningen inte får hindra kritiska diskussioner om hur klimatpolitisk styrning under Parisregimen genomförs. ; Funding agencies: Swedish Research Council Formas through the project 'A Global Potluck: Cross-National Patterns of State Engagement and Performance in the New Landscape of International Climate Cooperation' (Grant No. 2011-779) and the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research – Mistra through the 'Mistra Geopolitics'research program (Grant No. 2016/11 #5).

The 2015 Paris Agreement was adopted in a geopolitical context that is very different from the post-Cold War era when the Climate Convention was negotiated. This new global climate deal responds to a more fragmented and multipolar world signified by the rise of major economies in the South. This paper examines the geopolitical landscape in which the Paris Agreement is enacted and implemented. We conduct a discursive analysis of the Nationally Determined Contributions submitted by parties to the Paris Agreement. We ask what policy discourses emerge in these national climate plans, which states cluster around them and how they compare to UNFCCC annex, geographical location, income group, and negotiation coalitions. Our findings suggest that liberal environmentalism retains a strong hold over the political imagination in the post-Paris landscape. However, we see points of diffraction and tensions that might give rise to conflict. While liberal environmentalism is only challenged in Nationally Determined Contributions from the global South, we conclude that conventional geopolitical patterns only partly explain the formation of discourse coalitions. In the Paris Agreements implementation stage discursive struggles are likely to become increasingly prominent. Discourse analysis facilitates understanding of disagreements on the Paris rulebook and the global stocktake.

The continuous submission and scaling-up of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) constitutes a key feature of the Paris Agreement. In their NDCs, states propose governance mechanisms for implementation of climate action, in turn distinguishing appropriate roles for the state in climate governance. Clarity on Parties suggested roles for the state makes explicit assumptions on the premise of climate policy, in turn contributing to enhanced transparency in negotiations on the scaling-up of NDCs. This also speaks to ongoing debates on roles for the state in climate governance literature. This article identifies the governance mechanisms proposed by states in their NDCs and the roles for the state envisioned by those governance mechanisms, and also examines how cross-national patterns of roles for the state break or converge with conventional patterns of international politics. The analysis shows that states propose a plurality of roles, which to different extents may be complementary or conflictual. We conclude that income, region, and the Annexes under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are important for understanding suggested roles for the state, but that there are nuances to be further explored. We argue that this paper has three key findings: i) a majority of states rely on market mechanisms to implement their NDCs while rules on implementation and assessment of market mechanisms are still an outstanding issue in the negotiations, meaning that resolving this issue will be essential; ii) the process for evaluating and assessing qualitative governance mechanisms needs to be specified; and iii) increased awareness of differing views on the states roles makes explicit different perspectives on what constitutes an ambitious and legitimate contribution to combating climate change. Key policy insights A majority of states (amp;gt; 75%) envision the state as regulator (creating and strengthening legislation), market facilitator (creating and maintaining market structures), or facilitator (creating more favourable material conditions for climate-friendly behaviour). Greater awareness of differing views on roles for the state can increase understanding of different perspectives on ambition and legitimacy of contributions, in turn facilitating trust in negotiations. A distinction between substantive and procedural qualitative governance mechanisms and their function and interaction would facilitate the stocktaking dialogues. ; Funding Agencies|Swedish Research Council Formas through the project A Global Potluck: Cross-national patterns of state engagement and performance in the new landscape of international climate cooperation [2015-00871]; Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research -Mistra through the research programme Mistra Geopolitics [2016/11, 5]