Preface
The initiative to develop a doctrine for addressing climate change issues was motivated by questions that seemed to come from the mouths of future generations who are forced to bear the burden of climate change consequences due to the indifference or irresponsibility of decision makers in previous years from the previous generation.
Why can’t humanity, or perhaps doesn’t want to solve this simple problem: to jointly agree to influence nature as much as nature allows, so that it continues to provide natural living conditions for future generations?
Why don’t today’s parents and grandparents care about the future of their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren (and the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the latter)?
To find answers to these “whys”, we should address the problem from its roots.
Introduction
Background, nature of the problem and the need for a new or alternative doctrine
The main question is the following.
It has been 34 years since the presentation of the “First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (IPCC) in 1990.
In 1992, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted.
In 1997 – the Kyoto Protocol with its Doha Amendment of 2012.
In 2015 – the Paris Agreement
However, global warming continues, and the average global climate temperature has increased relative to the pre-industrial period by almost 1.5 degrees, as set by the Paris Agreement, and there is no end to its increase.
It is interesting to note that decision makers unanimously declare the need to reach “peak emissions” by a certain year. What does this mean if the increase in GHG content in the atmosphere continues at a rate corresponding to the difference between emissions and absorption?
If by “net emissions” in the graph we mean only emissions (without ecosystem absorption), then we can somehow still talk about the residual emission budget for not exceeding the maximum temperature of 2 degrees according to the PS (we must forget about not exceeding 1.5 degrees). However, as the graph shows, even a complete and urgent rejection of fossil fuels will not be enough; we must completely and urgently stop at a minimum, methane emissions.
I repeat, if the natural absorption capacity of the ecosystem, mainly the ocean, remains at a level of about 10-15 gigatons of CO2eq per year.
And then it will only be possible to stabilize the climate that has changed by that time, and even
Returning to the intergovernmental process within the UN.
1) In reference to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The IPCC’s First Assessment Report on Climate Change served as the basis for the development of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It is suggested to pay attention to the word “intergovernmental” in the IPCC’s name. Yes, this and subsequent IPCC reports are not scientific studies. They are compiled by experts and approved by persons authorized by the relevant governments.
Given that these individuals represent various interests of their states and governments, it is natural to question the impartiality of the reports and records, especially the short “Summary for Decision Makers”. For example, considering the interests of states producing and exporting fossil fuels.
2) In reference to UNFCCC
Even the first acquaintance with the convention raises questions, starting with the definition of its goal (Article 2): “…to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that does not allow dangerous anthropogenic impact on the climate system, within a time frame sufficient for natural adaptation of ecosystems to climate change…”
It is easy to see that the goal is not to prevent climate change and return the system to its previous natural state, but only to set the pace (period) of these changes so that “ecosystems naturally adapt to these changes.”
In other words, future generations are predicted to live in vulnerable conditions due to climate change (for example, as a result of rising ocean levels, people living on islands will have to migrate).
3) In reference to the Kyoto protocol (the first budget period – 2008–2012 – «Kyoto 1»).
The given document sets insignificant and unjustified quantitative obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or limit their growth, and only for 37 so-called developed countries, which must collectively reduce their emissions by 5% compared to their total emissions in 1990 in the period 2008-2012 (the first budget period of the Kyoto Protocol – “Kyoto 1”).
The US, the main emitter of greenhouse gases, signed the Kyoto Protocol, but Congress never ratified it. As a result, the coverage of global emissions for their total reduction by 5 percent was 30% instead of 47%.
Russia, figuratively speaking, extorted the Protocol entry into force for 5 years with its “significance” (without its ratification, the Protocol could not enter into force).
4) The Second Budget Period of Kyoto Protocol (“Kyoto-2”) – 2013–2020, (COP18, Doha).
“Kyoto-2” is very indicative for understanding the “commitment” of states to the struggle against climate change.
New Zealand and Japan refused to take on obligations. The USA and Canada remained outside Kyoto-2. The coverage of global emissions compared to the first period of the Kyoto Protocol fell four times more – from 30% to 7.6%.
It is symptomatic that the European Union “needed” five years to ratify the Doha Amendment, probably thinking about whether it is worthwhile to take quantitative commitments to reduce emissions under Kyoto-2 alone (only 1.3% of the emissions reduction of developed countries) …. Naturally, with such a scope and without the participation of developing countries, it is impossible to solve the global climate change problem.
5) Paris Agreement
This document does not contain any quantitative obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for any country (state). The limitation is imposed only on the “permissible” increase in the global average climate temperature. In this sense, it is even inferior to the Kyoto Protocol.
The Paris Agreement aims to bring climate change to a level consistent with an increase in the global average climate temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere of 2 degrees Celsius below the pre-industrial average temperature. This is the collective goal of the Paris Agreement.
This goal is formulated in its Article 2 “…to hold the increase in global average temperature to “well below” 2°C and “pursue efforts” to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C.” That is, on the one hand, the goal is blurred in a wide range of global average temperature growth from 1.5 °C to 2 °C, and on the other hand, it does not reflect real collective quantitative goals for the remaining emission budget of greenhouse gas emissions to avoid exceeding the specified temperatures.
And most importantly, these temperature indicators are not justified by any measurable goals for the protection or restoration of the Earth’s climate system. According to this document, each country itself determines how to “fight” climate change, so the word “contribution” is used instead of the word “commitment”. This approach is called the “bottom-up approach”.
In fact, a country can declare an increase in greenhouse gas emissions as its contribution. For example, in its 2021 official declaration (NDC), the Republic of Armenia envisages an increase in its emissions by 50% by 2030 compared to 2019 emissions. The “bottom-up approach” of the Paris Agreement allows for such a strategy to “fight” climate change and is used by many governments…
This raises the question of financing climate change action. Developing countries have generally demanded and continue to demand that only developed countries bear the financial burden, and developed countries demand that developing countries also contribute to the financing.
This intransigent position has led to Article 9 of the Paris Agreement on finance being formulated in the most general and vague terms. The approach to financing is only formulated in paragraph 53 of the decision of the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (1/CP.21) [“at least US$100 billion per year by 2025 for developing countries”].
However, the question arises: how can one seriously discuss the amount of funding without knowing what for? Therefore, it is no coincidence that when discussing the “quantitative” part of the “New Collective Quantitative Goal on Long-Term Financing” (NCQG) at COP29, the Parties and other participants expressed unfounded and at the same time incomparably different positions: annual collective allocations from 150-200 billion dollars to 3-5 trillion dollars. As a result, a decision was made to increase collective funding from developed country Parties to “at least 300 billion US dollars per year by 2035 for developing country Parties for climate action”
From the above and the comments it follows that a real and justified “New collective quantitative target for climate finance” cannot precede and be discussed in the absence of collective quantitative targets for: a) reducing emissions and absorption and accumulation of greenhouse gases, b) adaptation to climate change and, c) compensation for losses and insurance of damage from the anthropogenic component of climate change.
All the above and the comments to them indicate that in the format of established intergovernmental (interstate) relations and negotiations, the task of stopping global warming and, therefore, the problem of anthropogenic climate change cannot be solved.
This is evidenced by a) the latest WMO data on the excess of the average global temperature in 2025 by 1.55 degrees compared to the pre-industrial period, b) expert assessments on the impossibility of keeping the increase in the global average climate temperature within 2.0 degrees compared to the pre-industrial period and “talk” about the inevitability of raising the temperature ceiling to 2.5 and even 3.0 degrees.
The most eloquent evidence of the futility of the current negotiating format is the decision of the US administration to withdraw the country from the Paris Agreement again and to sharply increase fossil fuel production. Thus, a new (or innovative) doctrine is needed to set the task and solve the problem of climate change.
- The essence and purpose of the doctrine
Doctrine is a philosophical, political or legal theory, religious concept, teaching, system of views, guiding theoretical or political principle.
Initially, doctrine was (was considered to be) the only source of international public law from the point of view of some representatives of the natural law school.
The development of positivism eventually led to the decline of doctrine, and then to a rethinking of the role of doctrine in law. As a result, international and private law also “recognizes” doctrine as a source of law, and not vice versa.
In fact, the current international (and in fact, intergovernmental or interstate) efforts and actions to solve the problem of climate change within the framework of the UNFCCC are carried out by a positivist approach, where the UNFCCC with its Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement acts as a doctrine. Hence the troubles that lead to a dead end in solving the problem of climate change, which is a global problem.
We proceed from the principle that doctrine as a legal concept must proceed from natural law and is based on it.
- Reach and relevance to stakeholders worldwide
Given that the climate change problem is essentially global, it is natural that the scope of the doctrine should be global and be so. The interested party is the entire population of the Earth, which is the bearer of both natural private law and natural public law. The state is the governing institution within the sovereign territory.
This document is a concept of doctrine presented in thesis form (hereinafter referred to as – the Doctrinal Concept)
Basic approaches, principles, values
- Scientific foundations, beliefs, approaches and ethical principles
The scientific approach should be based on the Assessment Reports on Climate Change of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and on the periodic publications of UNEP and WMO on climate change issues.
Based on these publications and relying on the collective boundary conditions of the Paris Agreement on the maximum permissible excess of average temperature, a global collective quantitative goal for maximum permissible greenhouse gas emissions for the entire world (global emission budget) should be derived and, on this basis, an agreement should be reached on a fair distribution of obligations to reduce them between countries. Quantitative indicators of the residual global emission budget for the entire Earth are periodically published by UNEP and WMO.
In contrast to the “bottom-up” approach of the Paris Agreement, the approach to developing the innovative Doctrinal Concept for Combating Climate Change is a “top-down” approach. This approach is based on the systemic approach of “ecological integrity” and corresponds to the “ecosystem approach to nature management” and the axiomatic principles of the “green economy”.
All these approaches are based on the recognition of equal natural rights (as well as equal natural responsibility) of all people to use climate resources, regardless of gender, age, origin, place of residence, etc.
Thus, the approaches of the Doctrinal Concept are as follows.
- Unlike interstate, sometimes diametrically opposed interests, the interests of civil society of all countries in preventing climate change are the same. Therefore, cooperation between countries should develop and deepen primarily on a civil platform. It should be based on the principle of justice, based on the natural private and natural public rights of people.
In this regard, it is necessary to restore, strengthen and develop local self-government, starting with local communities of settlements, which are the primary subjects of public law.
- Not to exceed greenhouse gas emissions above the limits of nature’s ability to self-restore. To standardize (limit) these ecologically permissible amounts of emissions equally for each person in the world’s population and, based on this indicator, determine the obligations of each state to reduce excess greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the size of its population.
- Considering that the boundaries of ecosystems are conditional and have nothing in common with state borders, conduct research and assessment of vulnerability to climate change and adaptation measures with regional coverage, based on the fundamental principles of the “green economy”, and place the ecosystem approach at the heart of environmental management and socio-economic development policies.
- Strengthen and deepen regional solidarity, which is facilitated by cooperation based on an ecosystem approach. Such cooperation can be effective with the motivated participation of civil society – the only real beneficiary, for which a mechanism for its involvement should be formed with its clear, understandable and objectively functioning organizational levers and a fair financial mechanism for cooperation.
- Relying on the systemic approach of “ecological integrity”, develop and strengthen synergies with other global and regional environmental conventions
- To build an innovative socio-economic system with its updated social relations and new ethics based on the undistorted axiomatic principles of the “green economy”. And by “ethics” we mean the culture of social relations formed based on justice, proceeding from natural private and natural public property rights.
Vision for the implementation of the Doctrinal Concept
Do not reject the Paris Agreement completely due to the lack of quantitative commitments for countries (states), but temporarily (for 5 years) use the temperature limits of temporarily permissible impact in the range of an increase in the average global temperature by 1.5 – 2.0 degrees compared to the pre-industrial period established by the Paris Agreement.
Derive the emission budget value corresponding to this interval as a global maximum permissible temporary norm and, using a “top-down” approach, distribute this budget among all countries as quotas in accordance with the number of their inhabitants for a fixed year (e.g. 1990).
In this way we will have a collective quantitative target for reducing emissions and removals (and accumulations) of greenhouse gases for any agreed time interval (e.g. 5 years), which will allow us to discuss a collective quantitative target for short, medium and long term financing of a) climate change mitigation, b) adaptation measures appropriate to the degree of vulnerability; and c) compensation for actual and prevention of expected losses and damages from climate change.
As a payment for ecosystem services, establish a fee for greenhouse gas emissions (Carbon Taxing) based on the “polluter pays” principle and direct it to a global investment fund created specifically for the purposes of mitigating, adapting, compensating for losses and insuring against possible damage due to climate change.
Further, the financial resources of this fund shall be directed to all participating countries, distributing them in accordance with the size of the population in equal amounts per capita as climate working capital, owned in the form of individual non-alienable vouchers, to all residents of the country for the implementation of low-carbon development projects and adaptation to climate change, primarily in the non-governmental sector – cities, rural communities and societies.
Investment turnover and permanent payments for greenhouse gas emissions will ensure that funds are capitalized on a sustainable basis and will provide incentives for reducing emissions (to pay less and receive more).
Conclusion
The doctrine developed in accordance with the proposed doctrinal concept will allow to:
- Overcome the main flaw of the Paris Agreement – the lack of quotas for greenhouse gas emissions and introduce specific quantitative obligations (in figures) to reduce (or limit) greenhouse gas emissions for each country (state) instead of undefined voluntary contributions.
- Fully utilize international cooperation under paragraphs 6.8 and 6.4 of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement through the turnover of investments in low-carbon development projects initiated by communities and NGOs (Article 6.8) and legal entities of private and public law (Article 6.4).
- Lay the foundations for reducing and preventing the threat of loss and damage, as well as their compensation, in accordance with Article 8 of the Paris Agreement by introducing mutual insurance systems into practice.
- Define reasonable and quantified GHG emission frameworks for countries to develop their updated NDCs for 5 years.
Application
Definitions
Ecological integrity – the ability of a system to maintain its composition, structure, functioning, and self-organization over time, using processes and elements characteristic of its ecoregion and within its natural range of variability.
Ecosystem approach – is a strategy for integrated management in the field of nature management and conservation, in which the impact of relevant activities is considered not on individual species of animals and plants, but on their communities and interaction with the environment, their interconnectedness and unity.
The ecosystem approach requires limiting, regulating and standardizing the use of natural resources in such a way that the ecosystem, without losing its internal potential, restores its natural balance thanks to its ability to recover.
Whether it is the use of natural resources or the impact on the environment, the ecosystem approach requires dealing with the ecosystem and limiting the impact (including activity) while remaining within the natural carrying capacity of the ecosystem.
Ecosystem services – are benefits that people receive from the natural environment as a result of the natural functioning of the ecosystem.
Payment for ecosystem services – is a financial instrument for paying for compensation for damage to the natural environment due to excessive anthropogenic load on it to restore the natural functioning of the ecosystem.
Author Aram Gabrielyan, PhD, expert, “Khazer” NGO
“This doctrinal concept has been prepared and is presented within the framework of the project “Commitment to Climate Protection in Kyrgyzstan and the Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia Region”, implemented by the “MoveGreen” NGO and CAN EECCA, financed by the international agency “Bread for the World”. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author and “Khazer” NGO and do not necessarily reflect the views of “Bread for the World”, “MoveGreen” NGO and CAN EECCA.
