Tags: climate change, The Paris Accords, low-carbon trade agreements, trade diplomacy A second factor is a more open trade and investment policy. Countries have opened their trade regimes unilaterally, bilaterally, regionally and multilaterally. Measures that have imposed, restricted or banned trade have either been removed or significantly reduced. These changes in economic policy have facilitated not only trade, but also the number of countries participating in global trade expansion. Developing countries, in particular, now account for 36% of world exports, about twice as much as in the early 1960s. In the commercial community, this approach is new. In previous multilateral agreements, which deal with tariff concessions such as the WTO Information Technology Agreement (ITA) and the subsequent ITA-II, the agreements were only concluded when the parties represented a critical mass (for example. B 90%) world trade in the products concerned. This was important to them to avoid the problem of “parasites”. Changes in the structure of global trade policy are needed to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
A new discussion paper on global governance by Maria Panezi`s Council of Councils, the Centre for International Governance Innovation, proposes a wide range of options for a more environmentally friendly global trade regime: “something old, something old, something new, something borrowed and green.” In fact, some studies of THE CARBONE miles of traded goods have shown that the effect may be the opposite of what is generally believed. For example, it has been suggested that Kenyan flowers transported to Europe would emit less CO2 than flowers grown in the Netherlands; or New Zealand lamb meat transported to the UK would produce 70% less CO2 than lamb produced in the UK. Therefore, food miles can be a problem that requires case-by-case analysis and empirical review. Less Climate and trade diplomatic communities travel in different environments.