User:RCP4.5/sandbox

The 2024 Amsterdam Convention, frequently referred to as the Amsterdam Convention, was an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The agreement was negotiated in Amsterdam, Netherlands, in the aftermath of the 2022 Great Crises (GC-22). Currently, all member states of the United Nations are parties to the agreement.

The Amsterdam Convention aimed to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, primarily through the development of green infrastructure. The Convention focused primarily on the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2), with a lesser focus on other greenhouse gases such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Unlike previous agreements, the Convention used market-based ideas to influence change.

The Convention first took effect in the beginning of 2025, lasting fifteen years and ending in 2040. Its initial goal was to halt the increase in greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, following the IPCC RCP 4.5 scenario, which was accomplished. The Bonn Amendment, agreed upon in 2036, implemented a second agreement period, starting in 2041 and extending indefinitely.

Background
Negotiations for the Amsterdam Convention officially started on 22 April 2023 (Earth Day) in Amsterdam, and ratified a year later on 22 April 2024. It is commonly accepted that the Amsterdam Convention was a result of the 2022 Great Crises and the ensuing pressure from the public, corporations, states, and international organizations such as the European Union. The agreement would later go into effect on 1 January 2025.

Lead-Up
The Amsterdam Convention deviates from the Paris Agreement by its legally-binding nature and from the Kyoto Protocol by its universal adoption. The negotiations were greatly slowed down by determining how to enforce the terms, how to distribute the costs among nations, and how to balance international power.

2022 Great Crises
The 2022 Great Crises were a series of events, including natural disasters and economic troubles, mainly taking place during the summer of 2022 worldwide. Following the GC-22 and a report following the crises that tallied the total costs at 1.5 trillion US dollars, public and international concern for climate change increased, generating the political willpower needed for the creation of such an agreement.

Creation of the Convention
In response to the global increase in climate change awareness, the need for a new climate framework was evident at the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference. However, the parties present at this conference were unable to come to a consensus on the content of the agreement.

The final Amsterdam Convention was drafted during COP29 (the 29th meeting of the Conference of the Parties). The Convention was ratified by the required 129 parties only a month after the conclusion of the Conference; the 129th country, South Korea, ratified the Convention on 2 June, 2023. By the time it entered into force in 2025, 191 of the 193 parties had ratified the Convention.

Objectives
The Amsterdam Convention mandated drastic measures to be implemented with the primary goal of combating climate change.
 * 1) The implementation of the IPCC RCP 4.5 Scenario, which stipulated the stopping of growth of global greenhouse emissions by the 2040s and then its decrease.
 * 2) Balancing international development. The equitable acceleration of the development of green infrastructure in developing countries and transitioning developed countries towards slower, but sustainable economic growth via prioritizing greener alternatives for goods and services.
 * 3) Promoting international peace to decrease resources put into war and arms races.

Carbon Tax
To enforce reducing fossil fuel emissions, a carbon tax was enacted after the 2024 Amsterdam Convention, varying by country depending on their carbon footprint. Carbon taxes assign a cost to each tonne of carbon emitted to factor in the negative externality that carbon emissions induce on the environment.

Although it is possible for countries to individually enact economic policies to reduce carbon like carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes, because of concepts in game theory, countries are unlikely to do this unless all countries agree to do it such that the playing field is level. This is because if one country imposes a carbon tax they are at an economic disadvantage relative to other countries in the global market. This means that the Nash equilibrium is such that no country imposes carbon taxes or other economic measures to reduce carbon emissions.

The solution to this was realized during the 2024 Amsterdam Convention in which policy makers agreed that changing the game would move the equilibrium to a more optimal position that factors in environmental costs. Policy makers agreed on a global mandate for a carbon tax with a variable rate for each country depending on each countries’ GDP per capita and time since 2024, with the idea that the carbon tax would increase with respect to time and be higher in countries that could afford it and lower in countries that could not. The global mandate prevents countries from leaving the agreement such that roughly no country has an economic advantage over others.

Subsidization of Fossil Fuels
Another idea used by the Convention to enact change was a global mandate requiring the reduction in subsidies to fossil fuels and their derivatives (such as petroleum). According to statistics from 2017, the fossil fuel industry was receiving over 447 billion dollars yearly in direct subsidies while causing further negative impacts on the environment through high carbon emissions. It estimated that after factoring in the cost of negative externalities, fossil fuels were being subsidized at a ratio of 19:1 when compared with renewable energy sources.

Knowing this, a global mandate was put in place requiring the direct subsidization of fossil fuels to be phased out over time. The mandate required subsidies in each country to drop by 10% year over year until 2050, resulting in a roughly exponential decrease in subsidies.

International Green Fund
The International Green Fund (IGF) was created as a successor to the Green Climate Fund to accelerate the development of green infrastructure and of developing countries via providing investment loans sourced from contributing countries. Unlike the Green Climate Fund’s flat contribution goal of $100 billion a year solely provided by developed countries, the amount of contribution was to be determined by a combination of a country’s GDP, GDP per capita, and level of greenhouse gas emissions, with the goal of mobilizing at least $500 billion a year and increasing to $1 trillion by 2030. The usage of a variable model was intended to spread the costs of the fund more evenly among more countries and to add additional incentivizes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within individual countries by decreasing the required contribution amount. The IGF aimed to quickly progress individual countries towards stage 4 of demographic transition to reduce population growth rate, with the goal of lowering birth rates towards or below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman, decreasing the total amount of resources consumed by future generations. It was also believed that accelerating development would decrease child mortality, extend life expectancy, and improve the quality of life for the individual. To achieve the goal, the IGF sought to increase education, improve women’s rights, expand access to family planning, and increasing incomes. To avoid the socio-economic problems associated with aging populations that results from demographic transition, the IGF planned for the reduction of direct involvement in development countries approaching targeted levels and the improvement of elderly care.

To promote the development of green infrastructure, the IGF subsidized its constructions, under the model of paying for the difference between green infrastructure and its greenhouse gas emitting equivalent. Such efforts were primarily focused on transportation and energy production, in the form of renewable energy plants and mass transportation. While a large proportion of the fund went to developing countries, a portion was allotted for more developed countries, regularly in the form of low interest loans. To discourage and assuage fears of funding being squandered by corruption, regulations and monitoring were enacted. Commonly, energy or transportation capacity minimums per USD were required for projects to receive IGF funding, with minimums being adjusted according to local circumstances. Should a project exceed its budget or fall below the required minimums, an audit would be initiated, and should there not be sufficient justification for the deviation, participating companies may be blacklisted or countries placed under increased scrutiny. When it would be deemed that domestic companies are unable to meet the requirements, contracts would be offered to international companies, under the condition of companies sourcing low-skill labor domestically and for operation of infrastructure to be placed fully under domestic control within a negotiated amount of time.

China
Prior to the Convention, China was the world’s leading consumer of coal. As a result of the Convention, China set the most aggressive targets for cutting emissions; they pledged to reduce coal usage by 80% by 2075. This resulted in the greatest percentage decrease in coal usage of any country. China remains on track to achieve this goal, with a 45% reduction as of 2048; however, it remains the world’s leading consumer of coal, taking up 42.6% of the world share.

Controversy arose over China’s use of the International Green Fund. Until 2038, China was self-categorized as a developing country under the World Trade Organization (WTO), the criterion used by the IGF to determine eligibility. As a result, while China was one of the IGF’s greatest contributors, it also used the most of its funds, compared to other developing countries. This led to the WTO’s modification of its developing and developed country guidelines in 2038, forcing China to be categorized as a developed country. Since then, Chinese green infrastructure development has slowed, but the country is still expected to meet its 2075 goal.

Germany
During the 2021 German Federal Election, the end of former chancellor Angela Merkel’s 16 year chancellorship saw the weakening of the Christian Democratic Union and the formation of a new progressive coalition. Following the 2022 Great Crises, a snap election was triggered when the governing coalition was unable to agree on how to respond. The 2023 German Federal Election led to the Alliance 90/The Greens becoming the largest party and the election of Annalena Baerbock to the office of chancellor, marking the first time in history when a green party candidate was made the leader of a major nation. Under Chancellor Bearbock, Germany expanded its sustainable development initiatives and the expansion of the European Union’s powers.

Notably, Chancellor Baerbock’s public distaste for the Nord Stream pipeline, a gas pipeline from Russia to Germany, led to worsening relations between the two countries, eventually leading to the shutdown of the pipeline. This led a localized oil crisis within Germany, which caused temporary economic stagnation, increased motivation for the development of green infrastructure, temporarily paused nuclear plant decommissioning plans, and worsened Russian/European Union relations. The deteriorating relations almost led to the outbreak of war over the Baltic states and Ukraine and later, and the crisis would furthered the creation of the Federal European Military.

The Amsterdam Convention was quickly ratified by the German Parliament under a large majority, and today, Germany is a major leader in European Green infrastructure, and the EU International Development Bank.

Russia
Russia’s climate change plan focused on shifting the country away from its primarily natural gas-powered energy system, towards renewable energy sources.

Prior to the Great Crises, Russia was the world’s leading oil exporter. As demand for oil increased shortly after the Great Crises, especially in Europe, Russian exports increased. However, due to the change in public opinion after the creation of the Convention, demand for Russian oil and gas dropped; the resulting blow to Russia’s economy left the country struggling to reach its emission targets. In response, Russia entered a period of heavy borrowing from other BRICS states, and established a ten-year trade deal with China; in return for China sourcing its oil and gas exclusively from Russia, Russia promised to provide these fossil fuels at lower prices. This trade deal gave Russia time to transition away from its oil-based economy.

Today, Russia remains one of the world’s least changed countries, with only a 24% reduction as of 2048. However, the rate of transition is comparable to other countries, and Russia is expected to achieve 75% reduction from pre-Convention levels by 2075.

United States
During the 2022 United States elections, the Democratic Party saw major gains in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as a result of growing concerns over the environment and a relatively effective federal response to the 2022 Great Crises. The Biden Administration passed a series of bills strengthening environmental regulation, increasing funds for climate adaptation, and expanding social services. The US would later become a major proponent of the Amsterdam Convention and play a major role in enforcing and administering it.

Environmental
The Amsterdam Convention is accredited for being the main driving force being climate change mitigation in the decades following its adoption. Global greenhouse gas emissions peaked in 2040 and began to decline in 2044. A study produced by the International Green Fund predicts greenhouse gas emissions will also meet the goal of reducing emissions to half of 2050’s by 2100, although the accuracy of the report is disputed given the length of time involved.

Although not directly included in the convention, a series of more stringent environmental policies were adopted by individual countries, primarily in the form of waste management, pollution reduction, and water consumption. Although less coordinated and less thorough in comparison to the convention, the changes are still credited with stalling further environmental crises. There is ongoing discussion for a new convention to address other anthropogenic environmental issues in a manner similar to the Amsterdam Convention.

Despite environmental improvements, a large number of plant and animal species were still at risk of extinction, as predicted in the initial IPCC report. Initiatives to prevent species extinctions were created, with methods varying from habitat conservation to the storage of endangered species DNA and reproductive cells with the goal of later cloning the species back into existence. Despite said efforts, a large number of species still went extinct.

Economic
At the time when the convention was adopted, the global economy was still under the effects of a recession as a result of the Great Crises and the remaining effects from the COVID-19 pandemic, with cases still being reported in small numbers across the globe. It is disputed whether or not the convention hastened or slowed the initial economic recovery from the Great Crises, as it isn’t completely clear whether or not the investments mandated by the convention outweighed the economic costs of the new regulations.

In the following decades, it is widely agreed by economists that the convention did slow average economic growth. Studies on the economies of individual countries does indicate a faster than expected economic growth in developing countries, largely as a result of large amounts of foreign investments from entities such as the International Green Fund and the EU International Development Bank, leading to a larger proportion of the global population being pulled up from the poverty line.

Despite decreased economic growth, the welfare and quality of life for the individual still saw improvements. Economists believe the cause behind this phenomenon is a combination of the decrease in global fertility resulting from development and the improvement of aspects not measured by GDP, (i.e. improved environments, technological advancement, improved mental and physical health).

Starting in the 2040s, improvements in green technologies, business adaptations, streamlined environmental related administration resulted in the increase in economic growth rate to pre-convention levels. The change brought renewed optimism for the future, but also concerns whether or not increased economic growth would increase human impact on the environment as a result of increased consumerism. Efforts to shift consumption towards experiences and digital consumption were initiated, leading to the renewed expansion of the video games industry and eco-tourism.

Socio-Political
The convention is also believed to have increased global cooperation on policy and reduced conflicts between countries. As climate change is a global problem and preventing it is a cause that almost everyone supports, the unification of efforts in tackling this problem led to feelings of solidarity amongst citizens around the world. Polling over this timespan (2024-2051) shows a 53% increase in the level of importance at which respondents rank problems faced by people in other countries, showing an increase in global unity.

This increase in unity has had significant effects over the past several decades. Minor conflicts between countries were resolved or put on hold, although major ones still persist (Israel-Palestinian conflict). Global aggregate military spending in 2046 was at levels 74% lower than levels in 2024 and much of that funding has been diverted to global aid, investment in developing countries, and technological advancements, further increasing global unity. The global Gini coefficient has reduced from 0.61 in 2024 to 0.45 in 2050, showing a significant reduction in global wealth inequality.