Abstract
In the landmark Paris Agreement, the global economies agreed to put forward their best efforts in mitigation and adaptation of climate change. The member countries set their international and national targets to limit global temperature rise within 2 °C. The major and developed economics play a productive role in achieving the goals set in the Paris Agreement and failing would make it hard for the global community to limit the global temperature within the targeted range. The announcement of the USA to back out of the Paris Agreement has caused uncertainty in the global climate governance (GCG) regime. The present study overviews how the US defiance is likely to affect emission space, carbon prices, and macroeconomic conditions of the economies. It also focuses on the objective to analyze multiple strategic scenarios regarding GCG considering the role of three major contributors to GHG emissions—the USA, the EU, and China. An integrated conflict resolution strategy has been proposed by combining the analytical hierarchy process and attitude-based graph model for conflict resolution. The possible post-withdrawal scenarios based on possible alternatives for the GCG regime has been examined. This study incorporates influence power-based and attitude-based approaches to generate preference rankings of the alternative GCG strategies. The influence power-based and attitude-based preferences are used in general stability and attitude-based stability analyses to explore equilibrium GCG strategies. The analyses reveal that influence power and attitudes of the decision-makers (DMs) influence the preferences of DMs. This influence on preferences has implications on the outcomes of the GCG scenarios. The results of the influence power-based and attitude-based analyses imply that the collective GCG strategies are indispensable to protect the shared natural climate for environmental sustainability and development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-promoting-energy-independence-economic-growth/.
The World Bank reports "rapid, climate-informed development needed to keep climate change pushing more than 100 million people into poverty by 2030. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/11/08/rapid-climate-informed-development-needed-to-keep-climate-change-from-pushing-more-than-100-million-people-into-poverty-by-2030.
Article 28 of the Paris Climate Agreement (UNFCCC 2015b).
Chines President stated Chinese position on the PCA in his address “Joint Building Human Destiny Community” in the UN Office of Geneva in January 2017. http://politics.people.com.cn/n1/2017/0119/c1001-29033860.html.
Leber, Rebecca discusses “Trump has no idea what he just did or the backlash that awaits” https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/06/trump-will-regret-leaving-paris-climate-deal-0/.
US fortune 500 companies public support for the Paris Agreement. https://www.eenews.net/assets/2017/05/26/document_daily_02.pdf.
Exxon and Conoco reiterate support for Paris climate deal. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-31/exxon-conoco-back-paris-climate-deal-as-trump-weighs-pact-exit.
Lavelle, Marianne discusses how “China, India to Reach Climate Goals Years Early, as U.S. Likely to Fall Far Short”.
References
Ahmad, N., & Du, L. (2017). Effects of energy production and CO2 emissions on economic growth in Iran: ARDL approach. Energy, 123, 521–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.01.144.
Ahmad, N., Du, L., Tian, X.-L., & Wang, J. (2018). Chinese growth and dilemmas: modelling energy consumption, CO2 emissions and growth in China. Quality and Quantity. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0755-0.
Ahmed, W., Tan, Q., & Ali, S. (2018). Strategic Negotiation for Resolving Infrastructure Development Disputes in the Belt and Road Initiative. In Y. Chen, G. Kersten, R. Vetschera, & H. Xu (Eds.), Group Decision and Negotiation in an Uncertain World: 18th International Conference, GDN 2018, Nanjing, China, June 9–13, 2018, Proceedings. Springer International Publishing. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67774-3_19
Aldieri, L., Kotsemir, M. N., & Vinci, C. P. (2018). Knowledge spillover effects: empirical evidence from Russian regions. Quality and Quantity, 52(5), 2111–2132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0624-2.
Aldieri, L., Kotsemir, M., & Vinci, C. P. (2020). The role of environmental innovation through the technological proximity in the implementation of the sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2382.
Ali, S., Xu, H., Ahmed, W., & Ahmad, N. (2019a). Resolving strategic conflict for environmental conservation of glacial ecosystem: An attitudinal conflict resolution approach. International Journal of Global Warming, 18(3/4), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGW.2019.101084.
Ali, S., Xu, H., Ahmed, W., Ahmad, N., & Solangi, Y. A. (2020). Metro design and heritage sustainability: conflict analysis using attitude based on options in the graph model. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(4), 3839–3860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00365-w.
Ali, S., Xu, H., Al-amin, A. Q., & Ahmad, N. (2019b). Energy sources choice and environmental sustainability disputes: An evolutional graph model approach. Quality and Quantity, 53(2), 561–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0775-9.
Ali, S., Xu, H., Xu, P., & Ahmed, W. (2019c). Evolutional attitude based on option prioritization for conflict analysis of urban transport planning in Pakistan. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 28(3), 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-019-5413-0.
Ali, S., Xu, H., Xu, P., & Theodora, M. (2018). Attitudinal analysis of Russia-Turkey conflict with Chinese role as a third-party intervention. In Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Vol. 315, pp. 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92874-6_13
Ali, S., Xu, H., Xu, P., & Zhao, S. (2017). The analysis of environmental conflict in Changzhou foreign language school using a hybrid game. The Open Cybernetics and Systemics Journal, 11(1), 94–106. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874110X01711010094.
Barclay, E. (2017). 3 winners and 5 losers from Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement. Vox. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/6/2/15723988/winners-losers-trump-paris.
Beeler, B. C. (2017). What would the US leaving the Paris climate deal look like? https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-05-31/what-would-us-leaving-paris-climate-deal-look.
Boden, T. A., Marland, G., & Andres, R. J. (2017). National CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2014. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A. https://doi.org/10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2017
Boffey, D., Connolly, K., & Asthana, A. (2017). EU to bypass Trump administration after the Paris climate agreement pullout. The Guardian. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/02/european-leaders-vow-to-keep-fighting-global-warming-despite-us-withdrawal.
Carrington, D. (2017). The Paris deal pullout is more damaging to the US than the climate | Environment | The Guardian. The Guardian. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/01/donald-trump-paris-climate-deal-pullout-us-impact.
Dai, H. C., Zhang, H. B., & Wang, W. T. (2017). The impacts of U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on the carbon emission space and mitigation cost of China, EU, and Japan under the constraints of the global carbon emission space. Advances in Climate Change Research, 8(4), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2017.09.003.
Fang, L., Hipel, K. W., & Kilgour, D. M. (1993). Interactive decision making: The graph model for conflict resolution. New York: Wiley.
Fraser, N. M., & Hipel, K. W. (1984). Conflict analysis: Models and resolutions. New York: North-Holland.
Gao, Y., Gao, X., & Zhang, X. (2017). The 2 °C global temperature target and the evolution of the long-term goal of addressing climate change—from the United Nations framework convention on climate change to the Paris agreement. Engineering, 3(2), 272–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENG.2017.01.022.
Hipel, K. W., Fang, L., & Marc Kilgour, D. (2019). The graph model for conflict resolution: Reflections on three decades of development. Group Decision and Negotiation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-019-09648-z.
Hipel, K. W., & Walker, S. B. (2011). Conflict analysis in environmental management. Environmetrics, 22(3), 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/env.1048.
Howard, N. (1971). Paradoxes of rationality: Theory of metagames and political behavior. Cambridge: The MIT Press Classics.
Hunt, E., Levin, S., & McCarthy, T. (2017, June 2). Paris climate agreement: World reacts as Trump pulls out of global accord – as it happened. The Guardian. Retrieved February 27, 2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2017/jun/01/donald-trump-paris-climate-agreement-live-news.
Inohara, T., Hipel, K. W., & Walker, S. (2007). Conflict analysis approaches for investigating attitudes and misperceptions in the War of 1812. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 16(2), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-007-5042-x.
IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Core Writing Team, Pachauri RK, Meyer LA (eds) IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 151 . https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324
Ke, G. Y., Li, K. W., & Hipel, K. W. (2012). An integrated multiple criteria preference ranking approach to the Canadian west coast port congestion conflict. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(10), 9181–9190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.086.
Keating, D. (2018). EU tells Trump: No Paris climate deal, no free trade. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2018/02/08/eu-tells-trump-no-paris-climate-deal-no-free-trade/#60e70d6737c7.
Kilgour, D. M., & Hipel, K. W. (2005). The graph model for conflict resolution: Past, present, and future. Group Decision and Negotiation, 14(6), 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-9002-x.
Kousser, T., & Tranter, B. (2018). The influence of political leaders on climate change attitudes. Global Environmental Change, 50(February), 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.03.005.
Milman, O., Smith, D., & Carrington, D. (2017). Donald Trump confirms US will quit Paris climate agreement | Environment | The Guardian. Retrieved January 21, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/01/donald-trump-confirms-us-will-quit-paris-climate-deal.
Nash, J. F. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1), 48–49. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.36.1.48.
Nash, J. F. (1951). Non-cooperative games. The Annals of Mathematics. https://doi.org/10.2307/1969529.
Newport, F. (2017). Public Opinion and Trump’s Decision on the Paris Agreement. Gallup. Retrieved May 31, 2018, from http://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/211682/public-opinion-trump-decision-paris-Agreement.aspx?g_source=CATEGORY_CLIMATE_CHANGE&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles.
Nieto, J., Carpintero, Ó., & Miguel, L. J. (2018). Less than 2 °C? An economic-environmental evaluation of the Paris agreement. Ecological Economics, 146, 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.10.007.
Ostberg, S., Boysen, L. R., Schaphoff, S., Lucht, W., & Gerten, D. (2018). The biosphere under potential Paris outcomes. Earth’s Future, 6(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000628.
Parker, C. F., Karlsson, C., & Hjerpe, M. (2017). Assessing the European Union’s global climate change leadership: From Copenhagen to the Paris Agreement. Journal of European Integration, 39(2), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2016.1275608.
Reuters. (2017). EU says deepening ties with climate pact members after U.S. withdraws measures.Retrieved April 17, 2018, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-eu/eu-says-deepening-ties-with-climate-pact-members-after-u-s-withdraws-idUSKBN19A11O.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation (Vol. 2). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T. L. (1995). Transport planning with multiple criteria - the analytic hierarchy process applications and progress review. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 29(1), 81–126.
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590.
Spash, C. L. (2016). The political economy of the Paris Agreement on human induced climate change: a brief guide. Real World Economics Review, 75, 67–75.
Spash, C. L. (2016b). The Paris agreement to ignore reality. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0925-7
Stone, J. (2018). EU to refuse to sign trade deals with countries that don ’ t ratify Paris climate change accord. Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-trade-deal-paris-climate-change-accord-agreement-cecilia-malmstr-m-a8206806.html.
Tobin, P., Schmidt, N. M., Tosun, J., & Burns, C. (2018). Mapping states’ Paris climate pledges: Analysing targets and groups at COP 21. Global Environmental Change, 48, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.11.002.
UNFCCC. (2015a). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its twenty-first session, held in Paris from 30 November to 13 December 2015, Vol. 01192. Paris. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/10.pdf.
UNFCCC. (2015b). The Paris agreement. Paris. http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf.
UNFCCC. (2016). Aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions: an update. Ge, (May), 16–7126. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/iclqaj/24.3.577
Visser, N. (2017). As Donald Trump Pulls Out Of Paris Pact, Eyes Turn To China To Lead Climate Fight. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-paris-agreement-china-climate-change_us_5931114de4b075bff0f21cbd.
Walker, S. B., Hipel, K. W., & Xu, H. (2013). A matrix representation of attitudes in conflicts. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 43(6), 1328–1342. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2013.2260536.
Walsh, B., Ciais, P., Janssens, I. A., Peñuelas, J., Riahi, K., Rydzak, F., et al. (2017). Pathways for balancing CO2 emissions and sinks. Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14856.
Whitmarsh, L., & Corner, A. (2017). Tools for a new climate conversation: A mixed-methods study of language for public engagement across the political spectrum. Global Environmental Change, 42, 122–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.12.008.
Xu, H., Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Fang, L. (2018). Conflict Resolution Using the Graph Model: Strategic Interactions in Competition and Cooperation in Studies in Systems, Decision and Control. Springer (Vol. 153). Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77670-5
Xu, H., Xu, P., & Ali, S. (2017). Attitude Analysis in Process Conflict for C1919 Aircraft Manufacturing. Transactions of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 34(2), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.16356/j.1005-1120.2017.02.115
Xu, P., Xu, H., & He, S. (2017). Evolutional Analysis for the South China Sea Dispute Based on the Two-Stage Attitude of Philippines. In M. Schoop & D. M. Kilgour (Eds.), GDN 2017: Group Decision and Negotiation. A Socio-Tehnical Perspective (Vol. 293, pp. 73–85). Stuttgart: Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63546-0_6
Xu, P., Xu, H., & Ke, G. Y. (2018, July 17). Integrating an Option-Oriented Attitude Analysis into Investigating the Degree of Stabilities in Conflict Resolution. Group Decision and Negotiation, pp. 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-018-9585-7
Yu, J., Kilgour, D. M., Hipel, K. W., & Zhao, M. (2015). Power asymmetry in conflict resolution with application to a water pollution dispute in China. Water Resources Research, 51, 8627–8645. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016257.
Zhang, H. B., Dai, H. C., Lai, H. X., & Wang, W. T. (2017). U.S. withdrawal from the Paris agreement: Reasons, impacts, and China’s response. Advances in Climate Change Research, 8(4), 220–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2017.09.002.
Zhang, Y. X., Chao, Q. C., Zheng, Q. H., & Huang, L. (2017). The withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement and its impact on global climate change governance. Advances in Climate Change Research, 8(4), 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2017.08.005.
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71471087), People’s Republic of China.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ali, S., Xu, H. & Ahmad, N. Reviewing the strategies for climate change and sustainability after the US defiance of the Paris Agreement: an AHP–GMCR-based conflict resolution approach. Environ Dev Sustain 23, 11881–11912 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01147-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01147-5