Skip Nav Destination
Close Modal
Update search
NARROW
Format
Journal
TocHeadingTitle
Date
Availability
1-5 of 5
David Ciplet
Close
Follow your search
Access your saved searches in your account
Would you like to receive an alert when new items match your search?
Sort by
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Global Environmental Politics (2023) 23 (3): 95–119.
Published: 01 August 2023
Abstract
View article
PDF
In 1991, in meetings constructing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the small island state of Vanuatu introduced a proposal requiring wealthy countries to pay for damages related to sea level rise. More than thirty years later, countries finally agreed to establish a financing mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change. Scholars have observed the slow progress on loss and damage finance, but what tactics did countries use to obstruct negotiations? We answer this question using data from primary and secondary sources, observations at negotiations, and key informant interviews. Our analysis details four periods of obstruction and outlines a typology of fourteen tactics countries have used to delay progress. These tactics limited the issue’s scope, reduced transparency, manipulated language, and advanced nontransformative solutions. These findings contribute to the study of obstructionism in climate governance and can help loss and damage advocates better anticipate and respond to obstruction.
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Global Environmental Politics (2022) 22 (1): 94–116.
Published: 04 February 2022
FIGURES
| View All (6)
Abstract
View article
PDF
There is growing international attention to the goal of universal energy access. Despite this, large financial gaps remain a major obstacle for realizing global energy justice for all communities. Drawing on political theories of global distributive justice, this article develops and applies a framework for how multilateral development assistance for energy projects can be evaluated in relation to three guiding principles. First, the global difference principle asserts that resources should be distributed to maximize the condition of the least well-off humans. Second, the local benefits principle asserts that resources should be distributed in ways that enhance the public goods of local communities, particularly those that are historically marginalized. Third, the global equality of opportunity principle asserts that all social groups and states have the capabilities to equitably access institutional structures relevant to the distribution of resources. We apply this framework to an analysis of finance for all energy projects within the Green Climate Fund (GCF) from 2015 to 2018. In doing so, we offer a nuanced understanding of the successes and failures regarding the performance of the GCF’s energy portfolio in relation to global distributive justice.
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Global Environmental Politics (2018) 18 (3): 130–150.
Published: 01 August 2018
FIGURES
Abstract
View article
PDF
We develop and apply a new theoretical framework for assessing the transformative capability of transparency in environmental governance. Our framework suggests that as norms related to transparency are recognized and translated into accountability mechanisms, and as these mechanisms are complied with, effects cascade and substantially influence the ability of transparency to transform relationships of inequality. Utilizing the case of climate finance in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, we find that while a variety of norms underpinning transparency are recognized within the governance architecture, their translation into accountability mechanisms has been weak, and information disclosed by countries is often opaque. This suggests that a focus on enhanced transparency is unlikely to be sufficient for realizing a climate regime that is adequate and equitable. Moreover, transparency should be seen as a terrain of political conflict over the conditions of inequality, employed differently by various coalitions to benefit their respective interests.
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Global Environmental Politics (2014) 14 (4): 75–96.
Published: 01 November 2014
Journal Articles
Publisher: Journals Gateway
Global Environmental Politics (2013) 13 (1): 49–68.
Published: 01 February 2013
Abstract
View article
PDF
Finance for developing countries to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change now tops the international climate negotiation agenda. In this article, we first assess how adaptation finance came to the top of the agenda. Second, drawing upon Amartya Sen's (2010) “realization-focused comparison” theory of justice, we develop a definition of adaptation finance justice based upon the texts of the 1992 UNFCCC and its subsidiary bodies. From this perspective, we assess three main points of contention between countries on both sides of the North-South divide: The Gap in raising the funds, The Wedge in their distribution, and The Dodge in how they are governed. Overall, we argue that while some ambiguity exists, the decisions of the UNFCCC provide a strong basis for a justice-oriented approach to adaptation finance. However, in practice, adaptation finance has reflected developed country interests far more than the principles of justice adopted by Parties.