1. 1
American- Swedish partnership for a Better Environment: Unifying
the world under a non-binding climate change agreement
By Gabriel Dascalu and Simon Otis Ryfisch
Someday, our children, and our children’s children, will look us in the eye and
they’ll ask us, did we do all that we could when we had the chance to deal with
this problem and leave them a cleaner, safer, more stable world? - President
Barack Obama, 2013
Nature of the problem
The world nowadays has come to
represent not an environment that we want
to live in and leave for future generations
to come, but a system in which
ineffectiveness, inefficiency and inequity
prevail. This is especially striking when it
comes to climate change regimes which,
like e.g. the previously existing Kyoto
Protocol from 1997, have not only failed
to initiate a paradigm shift, but have as
well promoted competitiveness instead of
collaboration. More than two decades have
passed since the Rio summit in 1992 and
the establishment of “Common but
differentiated responsibilities”, yet the
international system has failed to limit the
impact of the climate change mitigation -
development dichotomy. On the one hand,
there are the developed countries, so called
The international community finds
itself today in a situation where existing
environmental regimes have failed to
make a difference, promoted a competitive
atmosphere, and have not found the
balance between the trade-offs of climate
change protection and economic
development. This has brought any
negotiations about a new over-arching
agreement to halt, despite the urgency of
the matter.
To address this, our policy brief
recommends a non-binding voluntary
agreement, incorporating national
emission reduction targets. Along with
this agreement an independent monitoring
mission and supervisory board should
assist states in mitigation and adaptation
efforts and facilitate the cooperation
between developed and developing states.
Previous successful policies, no matter at
what political level, function as role
models, as they have proven that
environmental protection and economic
growth are not mutually exclusive.

2. 2
Annex I, with a vested interest in climate
change protection, which historically,
however, have contributed the most to
environmental pollution; while on the
other hand, there are the still developing
countries, so called Annex II, which have
rejected legally binding emission reduction
targets, but instead have insisted on their
right to develop. The results of such
discord mean that any further delays in
taking immediate action will only increase
the risks and costs for each nation, with the
consequence being the collapse of our
common natural, social and economical
system.
Scrutinizing the roots of the
problems mentioned above, we come
across insufficiently developed
mechanisms and provisions. If existing at
all, they are not exerted to their full
potential. Specifically, crucial
dissimilarities between developed and
developing countries are acknowledged by
the international realm, but not sufficiently
dealt with in the agreements at hand.
Nevertheless, moral and even legal
obligations of solidarity between all
nations exist - no matter their state of
development.
To avoid intensive irreversible
damage and suffering, the global society
should make use of the momentum, since a
whole variety of states have recently
shown interest and political will to turn
previously unsuccessful efforts into
successful achievements before it is too
late. Rising up to the challenge we call
upon Sweden and the US to join forces
and guide the global community towards
an effective, efficient and equitable climate
change agreement at COP21 in Paris.
Firstly, as Swedish and US American
policies have started converging; and
secondly, as both have signalled their strife
for leadership regarding these matters.
This will ensure the safety and prosperity
of future generations.
Shortcomings of the current policy
approaches
Today it is of utmost importance to
acknowledge that the first option on hand,
namely a business-as-usual approach,
cannot qualify as such. If alarming signals
of global warming are ignored, if our
atmosphere continues to be polluted, it will
inevitably happen that we surpass the
natural capacity of the environment to
provide us with the essential resources and
services for survival. Consequently,
developed states will inhibit any
possibility for developing states to reach
the same state of wealth, at least not on a
basis bearable for our common good. In
fact, not only environmental and social
costs need to be taken into account, but

3. 3
also the economic costs will exceed
previously known dimensions: the widely
accepted Stern Review states a possible
loss of global GDP up to 3.5% by 2100.
To address these pressing issues, a
second significant approach has been the
Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted at
COP3 in 1997. Nevertheless, as introduced
in the previous section, the Kyoto protocol
has failed to capture the hearts and minds
of developing states, not to mention
convincing developed states to unite under
the same ideals and take action against the
issue on hand. After almost a decade of
hesitation to ratify its final draft, it seems
like the Protocol’s vision to hold global
warming under the 2°C threshold has not
been and will not be achieved. One reason
is that first commitments, including
reduction targets between 2008 and 2012,
have often not been met. However, the
shortcomings of the protocol’s architecture
are more profound, making an effective,
efficient and equitable climate change
policy impossible.
Primarily, important international
actors, i.e. states with very high GHG
emissions, did either not submit binding
reduction targets, like China, or if so did
not ratify the protocol, like the US. This
alienation of decisive states, has led to a
process rendering the agreement with
barely any difference-making impact.
Furthermore, there is an insufficient degree
of collaboration, which is reflected in the
concept called Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM). This allows
developed countries to invest into climate
change mitigation projects in developing
countries, which is not per se deficient
because the same amount of emission
reductions can be obtained at a lower cost
there, but within its current framework it is
only replacing financial aid anyway
provided to less advanced states and
perpetuating the Western lifestyle of over
consumption, which in term is
consolidating dependency patterns.
Currently, there is a noteworthy
gap between the aid provided by
developed nations and the aid expected by
developing nations. From a moral
standpoint, Annex I countries should not
fail to recognize the right to equal social
and economic development of Annex II
countries, as they themselves have
experienced during the 19th and 20th
century. The Kyoto Protocol was non-
inclusive and missed to integrate large
emitters such as China and India into the
agreement’s framework, therefore making
a transgression of the 2°C threshold
inevitable. This fails to address the
“contraction and convergence”-scenario, in
which developed states back up their
promises by swift and significant emission

4. 4
contractions, while the others are allowed
to expand their emissions per capita to
comparable levels until 2030. Afterwards,
a decrease in emissions will be necessary
from all nations in order to restore the
balance and prevent uncontrollable global
warming. Considering the urgency of the
matter, failure to act now, especially in
accordance with the notion of “common
but differentiated responsibility” will, on
the one hand, not only bring about the
destruction of the environment more
rapidly than anticipated, but will as well
leave no time and space for growing
economies to evolve in a sustainable
manner.
Hence, the recognition of the
deviating capabilities is already
incorporated into international law, but has
too often remained at the stage of lip
services. Environmental rights are still not
equal to universal human rights, which is
one reason for the lack of support for states
less well-off. In order to rectify this
deficiency, all members of the
international realm should remind
themselves of
Since the faulty Kyoto Protocol
expired in 2012, we are now looking at a
fragmented and disoriented international
arena, which is first and foremost deeply in
need of a leader unifying it under a new
agreement mending the shortcomings of its
predecessor. To sum up, we once more
stress the following flaws:
Policy recommendations for a new
climate change agreement at COP 21
To address all of the shortcomings
mentioned above this policy brief proposes
a series of measures, aiming at an
effective, efficient and equitable climate
change agreement, to be drafted at the
COP21 in Paris.
Key findings:
 the non-inclusiveness of
rising economies in
international environmental
policies and agreements;
 the non-commitment of
states that are crucial for an
effective climate change
regime;
 the non-collaboration
between states with
different stages of
development, leaving
poorer nations in a trap
“obligations of solidarity assistance to
developing states in form of access to new
and additional funds and the transfer of
environmentally sound technologies or
substitutes.”
Principle 7 of Rio Declaration (1992)

5. 5
Firstly, in order to include all
currently and potentially decisive actors a
voluntary, non-binding agreement is
necessary. As previous experiences have
shown, binding frameworks often fail to
engage all interested parties. Therefore, the
benchmark should be the national emission
reduction targets submitted to the
UNFCCC in 2010. In fact, inclusiveness
can only be achieved if it is each and every
country’s own ambition and goal to make
its contribution towards the global effort of
fighting climate change, and not by
externally imposed limitations. This
accounts as well for the “common but
differentiated responsibilities” and uneven
capabilities between nations.
Now is the time to make use of the
momentum, which is reflected in the
recent efforts made by various important
countries, like e.g. the China-US climate
change agreement, in which both countries
commit themselves to dauntless measures;
the ambitious goals of the “New Energy
for America Plan” drafted by the Obama
administration; and the spadework of the
EU ETS. It is especially upon developed
states to show their sincerity, because only
then we can expect engagement of less
developed states as well. However, the rise
of figures such as the one of Joe Biden has
proven to the American public, and the
international community alike that the
United States is seeking once more to take
the lead in the fight against climate
change, by dedicating all of its knowledge,
wealth and power for the greater good. His
work as a Senator, previous to his Vice
Presidency, advocated for more active US
involvement into worldwide climate
change policies. To be precise, it paved the
way for an engaged Obama administration,
breaking with the passiveness of the Bush
era.
Secondly, the new climate change
agreement should incorporate an
independent monitoring mission, which
verifies efforts of the states in question.
Furthermore, this policy brief proposes, in
connection with this, the formation of a
new supervisory board, which is entitled,
on a basis of a productive dialogue with
the respective countries, to adjust national
reduction targets. Both, the monitoring
mission and the supervisory board, could
in close cooperation reward states who
show a political will to achieve their
voluntary commitments, but seem to lack
the capabilities to do so. This rewards
might take the form of monetary and
technological support from Annex I to
Annex II, thereby ensuring the
agreement’s success.
In an atmosphere where a
supervisory board rather acts as an
advising than punishing organ,

6. 6
international collaboration and mutual
solidarity as demanded by the Rio
Declaration will be facilitated and fostered.
In any way, especially Sweden which has
declared to be willing to “take the lead”
should redirect its attention away from
domestic emission reduction, since the
marginal abatement costs tend to rise
beyond the corresponding benefits,
towards external investments. We envision
an intensified contribution to the Green
Climate Fund, executing true solidarity
and not hiding behind alibis like the CDM.
Thirdly and lastly, a potential
agreement should lower the barriers and
permit local and state initiatives to flourish
under the careful supervision of Mayors
and Governors alike. Such examples can
be already seen in the United States, with
the US Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement giving voice to collective
dispersed activities; the Western Climate
Initiative is aiming at voluntary emission
cuts similar to those suggested by the
“New Energy for America Plan mentioned
above, with ramifications for
transportation, residential and commercial
fuel use. These initiatives can not only be a
tool towards the harmonization of policies,
as they evidently bear similarities to the
EU ETS, but eventually might as well
push federal policy-makers towards
adjusting nation-wide policies. So far, this
has often come to be seen as
counterproductive to the job market and
industries, but as Sweden has proven, it is
possible to reduce GHG emissions while at
the same time grow economically
simultaneously.
All these provisions need to be
recognized and incorporated into a legal
framework - preferably a new climate
change agreement drafted at the COP21 in
Paris - as soon as possible. There is no
time to lose, as any delays will be costly
and partially as well irreversible. First
steps can be faulty and there is need for
fixed and precise caps right now, but rather
the global community is in need of bold
and immediate actions. To achieve this and
to be able to answer the question President
Obama posed with "Yes", a cooperative
leadership of Sweden and the US is
crucial.
Gabriel Dascalu and Simon Otis
Ryfisch are students of the International
Relations programme at Malmö Högskola,
with a special interest in environmental
protection.