[3] This is a means by which the carbon cycle can be managed and territorialised through being assigned to a physical geographical space instead of being thought of as a global phenomenon.
The act of territorialisation oversees the combining of material natures and state institutions into one system through the creation of carbon territories.
Carbon governance is addressed via governmental decisions made through leadership and management which attempt to improve and resolve problems related to climate change.
The Copenhagen Accord, which will come into effect in 2012 after the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol, was unsuccessful in creating a legally binding framework of global emissions reduction.
[7] Instead of approaching the problems from a global scale, local governments are asserting themselves as active institutions in the making of climate policy.
The concept of territorialisation of carbon governance is a method which reverses how environmental policy regulates global climate from a top down to bottom up approach.
With the support of modern technologies for controlling, modeling and measuring atmosphere-biosphere interactions, the ‘invisible’ process of climate change, in recent years, has been “moulded onto territorial ground”.
This allows individual states to set specific emission reduction targets and manage carbon sinks alongside their environmental policies.
The former ‘command and control’ model, which dictated regulations and regimented practices could no longer function effectively within the present environmental governance network.
This new method gave rise to more appropriate and effective conditions for collective action between stakeholders which can work together to achieve common goals and mitigate environmental problems.
This has resulted in the duties of government no longer being centralised within the state but being shared with other parts of society such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), cities and regional and local authorities.
A states traditional sovereign decision-making authority has become shared, in recent years, with such actors [10] giving rise to new methods and strategies.
Cities are an example of a sub-national space and can demonstrate specific strategies which can help address and mitigate problems in climate change governance.
The 1987 Brundtland Report drew particular attention to the significance of cities as a means through which issues surrounding sustainable development could be addressed.
[11] The power of cities to organise and initiate specific strategies within carbon governance has been underestimated yet displays enormous potential.
Policy making and environmental regulation has shown specific cases of progress and success through the territorialisation of carbon governance.
This illustrates examples of multi-level governance whereby a shifting in action between local, national and supranational governmental institutions has taken place.
[8] In order to territorialise carbon, geographical areas are created whereby emissions are monitored and environmental policy can set targets of reduction.
Although the physical greenhouse gas molecules are part of the shared global atmosphere, sections of them have been assigned to Seattle's jurisdiction.
Although there are several greenhouse gases which contribute to global warming, carbon represents the key relation between the state and nature (Rice, 2010).
The Seattle Climate Action Now (SCAN) program has been developed to educate and inspire the local population to become actively involved in reducing carbon emissions.