The ius economic perspective is an analytical tool that delivers a broader vision from its multidisciplinary core, based on law, ecologic economics and ecology. It is dialogic and argumentative and is rooted in the defense of human rights, it adheres to nature´s laws, as described by thermodynamics. Follows that an energy metric is presented as being more transparent, universal, clearly understood, thus better suited for the mission. The new actors for global action: civil society and business will value it. The resulting transparency will facilitate financing.

1. An ius- económic perspective for addressing daunting problems posed by the Paris
Agreement in addressing climate change
Valentin Bartra1
When addressing environmental and climate change related issues, given the
complexity and vast number of matters and interests involved, it is necessary to adopt
a transversal cross-cutting approach vs. the sectoral, more standard traditional way.
Important flaws on compliance and implementation in the current climate regime can
be traced back to the sectoral paradigm held by mainstream thinking. An ius economic
perspective contributes a way to tackle such problems. Hereby we call on the use the
ius economic perspective to mobilize international cooperation and action on climate
change.
The so called ius economic perspective, evolved from the observation and analysis of
the damages caused to the environment and the overexploitation of natural resources
resulting from the weak efficacy of the existing environmental legal framework. By its
very nature the ius economic perspective is designed to question and shed light on
unresolved and unsatisfactory solutions or the status quo. The ius economic
perspective is an analytical tool that delivers a broader vision from its multidisciplinary
core, based on law, ecologic economics and ecology. It is dialogic and argumentative
and is rooted in the defense of human rights, it adheres to nature´s laws, as described
by thermodynamics.
Given the nature and complexity of the Paris agreement, an ius economic perspective
is proposed to address its various issues. Our global climate challenged with a rising
temperature trajectory, cannot incur in another failure as the Kioto Protocol and learn
from its lessons and shortcomings. The Kioto Protocol, was genetically flawed, it
pursued the impossible path of seeking to check the global temperature rise by actions
taken by only 38 countries, while the remaining 156 continued unchecked, failing to
understand the enormous growth potential of the developing world in a dangerous
carbon intensive route.
The Paris Agreement is in line with the objectives of the Framework Convention on
Climate Change to limit dangerous temperature rise in the global ecosystem. This main
concern needs to be understood as a consequence of the energy and matter balance,
not exclusively as emission / removal of CO2 tons from the atmosphere. No question
here about the causality, but about the lack of precision and common understanding of
such measure. The ius economic perspective proposes the energy metric, which is
universal and well understood, as such is best suited for reporting NDC and its ulterior
verification of compliance.
The ius economic perspective, in harmony with the preamble of the Paris Agreement
recognizes the importance of nature as the necessary foundation and reference for
1
Dr. Valentin Bartra was in Marrakesh as member of the Peruvian Delegation. Has been
involved in climate change issues since 1998 and followed closely climate change negotiations
in COPs and other venues. Practicing lawyer and professor of Environmental Law in various
public and private universities in native Peru.

2. understanding and addressing ecological related issues, like global warming, with the
correlated climate change.
Its Art.2 sets forth three important aims. The first one relates to limiting the increase of
global temperature rise below 2°C above pre-industrial levels. The second goal, to take
actions to adapt to the adverse impacts caused by the actions covered by aim one, and
the third to provide finance to make possible corrective actions. The latter two fall within
the bona fide argumentative space.
With regards to the first target, the standard response to this includes mitigation actions
focused on CO2 emission reductions and removals by sinks, understood as negative
emissions. Although causality has been clearly established, distortions appears when
dealing with equivalent greenhouse effects by other gases, or the removal by sinks that
will regrow, if talking about reforestation or biomass more generally, or the processing
of refuse to produce green gas without taking into account the carbon footprint, or
simply burning solid waste. Without a universal energy metric that takes into account
the different elements that determines temperature rise from warming /cooling factors
or the exchange of physical labor for clean energy or the radical change in methods of
production and transport and the transition of the energy matrix to renewables, the
touted balance between emissions and sinks will remain short in delivering the
expected purpose.
In Marrakesh, one of the issues more debated was related on how countries should
report their respective national effort and how can them be held accountable. Using the
current mechanism based on the difficult to grasp CO2 ton unit, this will likely create
spaces for fraud and corruption, misunderstanding and conflict, contributing to the
delay of real and productive action.
An energy metric is more transparent, universal, clearly understood, thus better suited
for the mission. The new actors for global action: civil society and business will value it.
The resulting transparency will facilitate financing.
We advocate a simpler, transparent and easily understood metric based on energy and
the balance of matter, to quantify and verify the aims of the Convention of keeping
global temperature rise below the magic 2° C and the provisions of the Paris
Agreement, with all countries obligated to submit nationally determined contributions
(NDCs). Issues related to how countries should report their respective national efforts
in the areas of climate protection, adaptation, climate finance, technology transfer and
capacity building to the UN Climate Secretariat and how they can be held accountable
for a lack of implementation and compliance or simply monitoring, gets expedited by
using the energy metric as a complement to the existing way. It can operate as a
standard to ensure transparency and quality.
There will be challenges of implementation. Would the use of the energy metric disturb
the markets? No, for it will produce more transparency and certainty. The energy metric
supplements all the concepts already in place like ambition, monitoring or verification.
Thus, the ius –economic perspective is an option, a small contribution to help advance
work towards the implementation of the Paris Agreement and reach the essential goal
that humanity demands.