Tag: Ronald Mitchell

CO2 Emissions From France, Italy, Denmark, and the Netherlands Pre and Post Signing the Kyoto Protocol

Presenter(s): Johanna Boyers − Environmental Studies

Faculty Mentor(s): Ronald Mitchell

Poster 143

Research Area: Environmental Studies

The purpose of this research is to identify CO2 emission changes in countries before and after signing the Kyoto Protocol. Throughout this research I will be analyzing what the impact was of the Kyoto Protocol for pusher versus dragger countries in the European Union. I expect to find all countries having reduced CO2 emissions post signing the protocol, however based on France and Italys history of being draggers, I expect their emissions to be higher than Denmark’s and the Netherlands. I expect the change in CO2 emissions for France and Italy to be much smaller than those of Denmark and the Netherlands, based on their history of being pushers. By identifying the change, or lack thereof, in CO2 emissions post signing the Kyoto Protocol, we can see whether protocols like this one are useful in lowering CO2 emissions for future use.

Explaining the Negotiating Positions of Countries Within the Paris Agreement on Climate Change—An Interest-Based Approach

Presenter(s): Sulley Schuster − Political Science, Environmental Studies

Faculty Mentor(s): Ronald Mitchell, Craig Kauffman

Poster 123

Research Area: Social Science

Sprinz and Vaahtoranta (1994) developed a theory that state positions within international environmental agreements are driven by two factors: environmental vulnerability and abatement costs. Furthermore, they posit that the interaction of these factors positions states as either pushers, intermediates, bystanders, or draggers in international environmental negotiations. The following study tests whether or not this theory can accurately predict the negotiating positions of states with the Paris Agreement by quantifying the ecological vulnerability and abatement costs of each participating state and comparing it to their observed negotiating position. The results of this analysis show that an interest-based theory can accurately predict negotiating positions around two-thirds of the time, and that ecological vulnerability and international environmental norms also play an important role in shaping negotiating positions within the Paris Agreement. These findings are important in understanding exactly how states develop their negotiating positions within complex international environmental agreements, and can provide policymakers with valuable tools to design future agreements in ways that motivate states to take stronger negotiating positions than they would have otherwise. Subsequent research questions include: Which specific cases fail to fit this theory and why? To what extent are other factors playing a role in leading states to be more, or less, supportive of climate policy than environmental vulnerability and abatement costs would predict?

Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements: A Review of International Environmental Governance Theory

Presenter(s): Brendan Adamczyk—Environmental Studies

Faculty Mentor(s): Ronald Mitchell

Session 4: Preserving Mother Earth

Every country in the world faces a myriad of environmental problems, from air and ocean pollution to the existential threat posed by climate change and many more . In response, many nations create or join international environmental regimes and agreements to affect positive change and influence global environmental policy . This paper examines the theory related to two research questions: how do scholars define the effectiveness of international environmental agreements? And what are the essential metrics by which the structure and effectiveness of a given international environmental agreement can be assessed? I seek to answer these questions by conducting a review of international environmental governance literature from the past three decades using a counterfactual framework—that is, comparing what did occur in the real world with a treaty in effect to what one expected would have happened if that treaty didn’t exist . Ultimately, I conclude that three key elements influence the effectiveness of international environmental agreements: the standards by which one measures effectiveness, the degree to which the language of an agreement utilizes legalization, flexibility, and specificity, and the tools environmental regimes encourage the use of in enforcing agreements . In the face of increasingly urgent environmental challenges, the most promising path for improving effectiveness moving forward is the complete integration of these three essential factors into the treaty writing, ratification, and enforcement processes .