San Diego researchers say public criticism could be a major tool to get countries to comply with climate-friendly goals in the Paris Agreement.
The international deal on climate change encouraged countries to set their own climate goals to help curb the release of greenhouse gasses that drive global warming.
The hope was to keep the average global temperature from increasing less than 2 degrees Celsius above the temperature at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
But the pact lacked enforcement mechanisms.
Many of the world’s climate negotiators think making countries accountable for their international climate promises would be effective, according to the study published in a recent edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Researchers concluded several strategies — withdrawing from the agreement, trade embargoes, or even military action — are seen as counterproductive, expensive or unrealistic.
But calling out countries that are falling short of their goals, could be effective, according to the report.
“Each country, every five years makes a pledge. ‘Here’s what we’re going to do,’” said David Victor, a UC San Diego Professor of Innovation and Public Policy. “And the naming-and-shaming mechanism is a way of looking and seeing whether the actions on the ground are consistent with the pledges that they’ve made. And if they aren’t, to then call out those countries.”
Researchers asked nearly 1,000 climate officials who regularly attend the United Nations yearly climate-focused gathering known as the Conference of the Parties.
Climate negotiators said if public critiques came from non-government organizations, that would be more effective than if governments pointed out the shortcomings of signees.
“It’s the best that we can do,” said Emily Carlton, a co-author of the paper and research associate at UC San Diego.
The Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015 as a durable framework to guide the global effort to slow climate change for years to come. The pact covers climate change mitigation, adaptation and finance.
The climate negotiators said the countries with the most at stake would be most likely to respond to criticism.
“The naming-and-shaming mechanism is a way of looking and seeing whether the actions on the ground are consistent with the pledges that they’ve made. And if they aren’t, to then call out those countries.”David Victor, UC San Diego professor of innovation and public policy
“Countries with strong institutions. Those are countries where naming and shaming is most likely to be effective,” Carlton said.
Nearly 200 countries are parties to the agreement.
The deal emphasizes a cooperative, transparent and flexible approach to reducing the amount of greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere.
“This agreement was the outcome of all the countries coming together and having to all agree,” Carlton said. “And so this was the best we could get and still maintain kind of the broad consensus. And that’s the fundamental challenge of consensus diplomacy, that it can only be as strong as the least ambitious.”
The United States briefly left the treaty in late 2020 under the direction of the Trump administration. However, the U.S. rejoined the climate agreement after a couple of months when the Biden administration took office in 2021.
