A Multitrack Climate Treaty System
Scott Barrett, Johns Hopkins University
SUMMARY: Scott Barrett offers a multi-pronged policy approach to address global
climate change. He calls for pledges of “appropriate measures” such as emission
mitigation actions with subsequent multilateral reviews. Such a pledge and review
system would not carry binding consequences for non-compliance, but instead rely on
moral suasion and naming and shaming in the international arena. To promote the
development and deployment of climate-friendly technologies, Barrett recommends an
R&D protocol coupled with a technology standards protocol. In the R&D agreement,
countries would contribute funds to a coordinated international R&D program. After the
development of new technologies through this R&D program, their deployment would be
mandated through international technology standards. International negotiations among
at least the largest economies would determine specific technologies that would need to
be employed in specific industries. Rich countries should also finance technology
transfer to developing countries. Barrett proposes more substantial adaptation assistance
for developing countries. The adaptation program should focus on the investment of
global public goods for development, such as investments in malaria prevention and
control. He also advocates for R&D in various geo-engineering responses as an
insurance policy.
PROS: The suite of policy measures advanced by Barrett aim to mitigate the risks of
climate change through emission mitigation, adaptation, and geo-engineering. The
marginal cost of mitigating climate change risks could be equilibriated among these three
types of interventions and lower the cost of a climate change policy relative to a Kyotolike emission mitigation agreement. Mandating technology standards could yield
adoption of climate-friendly technologies through a “tipping treaty” effect – so long as
enough countries coordinate on adoption of a given technology, then it will become the
de facto world standard. This would effectively secure emission mitigation in countries
that would not otherwise take on a quantitative emission commitment.
CONS: Several components of this proposal require developed countries to finance R&D,
technology transfer for developing countries, and adaptation assistance. There may not
be incentives for these governments to appropriate sufficient funds for these efforts. The
technology standards protocol may be difficult to implement through international
negotiations on specific technology mandates in specific industries. It may also be much
more costly to impose uniform standards across all sources within an industry, relative to
more cost-effective cap-and-trade or tax proposals. While geo-engineering may be
considered a complimentary, insurance-like measure, some may perceive it instead as a
substitute for emission mitigation.