A different beast

I have been doing research on compliance mechanisms and carbon finance recently. I wont comment on carbon finance right now because there is too much that I am still trying to digest. In relationship to compliance, I have come to concluded that dealing with compliance to climate policy is a unprecedented task. Although the Montreal Protocol offers some insight, the market nature and extensive legal spectrum of climate policy makes it a whole new monster. Someone recommended that compare compliance to the Rotterdam convention on prior informed consent (PIC) to analyze the law creation process. Unfortunately, I was only able to conclude that PIC and Climate policy can only be compared for the sake of showing extreme contrast. The linear history of awareness -raising to binding law in the case of pesticides and other hazardous chemicals shows a very different normative intent. The "common but differentiate responsibilities" nature of climate policy takes the discussion to a new level where players have bipolar roles.

I still see hope in creating incentives for GHG reduction when looking at the case of SO2 in the United States under the Clean Air Act 1990. Unfortunately, the process to reduce GHG is much different from the process of reducing SO2 and, in the GHG world, there is not political willingness to create regulations and incentives such as the ones used to reduce SO2. Although this is an evolving process, current federal behavior suggest that we are far from taking strong steps to phase-out GHG from our environment.

Perhaps we need more drowning polar bears to create a sense of urgency similar to Rotterdam or the Clean Air Act...