Territorialization of Carbon Governance (ToCG) is a concept used in political geography or environmental policy which is considered to be a new logic of environmental governance. This method creates carbon-rising citizens who become enrolled in the process of governing the climate. The territorialization of carbon governance transforms climate change from a global to local issue. It embodies political practices that serve to connect the causes and consequences of global climate change to local communities. The commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) has been a key component of sustainability within the governance of the early 1990s. The ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability is an international association of local governments towns and the associated 70 countries in their commitment to sustainable development. IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Rio Earth Summit and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These organizations strive to tackle anthropogenic forces which are increasing risks of global warming. Under the territorialization of carbon, climate and global flows of carbon are considered as ‘national sinks’. This is a means by which the carbon cycle can be managed and territorialized through a global phenomenon. The act of territorialization oversees the combination of natural resources and systems. This approach can be applied to carbon management in the United States. Carbon governance can be interpreted as mitigated. This is achieved through regulating and controlling carbon activities. Measures and protocols exist in an attempt to address the issues surrounding greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon governance is addressed via governmental decisions made through leadership and management. This approach can be applied to carbon management in the United States. Carbon governance can be interpreted as mitigated. This is achieved through regulating and controlling carbon activities. Measures and protocols exist in an attempt to address the issues surrounding greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon governance is addressed via governmental decisions made through leadership and management. This approach can be applied to carbon management in the United States. Carbon governance can be interpreted as mitigated. This is achieved through regulating and controlling carbon activities. Measures and protocols exist in an attempt to address the issues surrounding greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon governance is addressed via governmental decisions made through leadership and management. Carbon governance can be interpreted as mitigated. This is achieved through regulating and controlling carbon activities. Measures and protocols exist in an attempt to address the issues surrounding greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon governance is addressed via governmental decisions made through leadership and management. Carbon governance can be interpreted as mitigated. This is achieved through regulating and controlling carbon activities. Measures and protocols exist in an attempt to address the issues surrounding greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon governance is addressed via governmental decisions made through leadership and management.

ToCG finds its origin in the global climate change. Climate change is often referred to as a global ‘commons’ problem. The atmosphere is shared by the whole world, resulting from the effects of climate change. The implications of this problem are to slow down global warming, ‘top-down’ international treaties must be signed. This idea can be related to the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ since the world contains multiple nation-states all acting with self-interest yet sharing one resource. The shared resource being exploited in this example can be represented by the atmosphere and the resulting increase in global temperature is the result. In an attempt to combat and tackle these issues and measures have been deployed. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement which sets binding targets for GHG emissions. This treaty demonstrates a global approach to carbon governance. While the United States is the world’s most famous emitter of GHG broadcasts, it is due to expire in 2012. However, the United States The Copenhagen Accord, which will come into effect in 2012 after the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol, was uniquely in creating a binding binding framework of global emissions reduction. These problems can be understood as global approaches and agreements between nation states The territorialization of carbon governance is a method that has been used to overcome this problem, but it is a bottom-up approach to making change. ‘Think globally, act locally’ is an idea which can be interpreted spatially and conceptually. Instead of approaching the problems of a global scale, the local governments are asserting themselves as active institutions in the making of climate policy. In doing so they are taking responsibility for the accumulation of greenhouse gases within their area. This contradictions the global “commons” theory is unable to take on global issues. The territorialization of carbon governance and the role of carbon territories.

The concept of territorialization of carbon governance is a method which reverses how global policy regulates global climate from a top down to bottom up approach. This technique tackles issues on a local scale rather than taking a global approach. Territorialization of carbon governance. By which environmental issues are addressed to a number of different levels. These include local, regional, national and international. The scale at which territorialization of carbon governance operates is local. The idea of ​​’space’ can be used to link nature to a design in ‘carbon territories’. Territorialization of nature uses “legible and bounded space” to define the regulation and administration of state policies related to the environment. 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 “molded onto territorial ground”. > Territoriality can be understood as a form of behavior that “binds, refines and controls space for some social end”. Within this, ‘rule over space’ can be defined as a particularly important form of contemporary political authority. It seeks to govern issues related to climate change. In this regard, it can be used to “border” climate change between states. This allows individual states to meet their environmental policies. the ‘invisible’ process of climate change, in recent years, has been “molded onto territorial ground”. > Territoriality can be understood as a form of behavior that “binds, refines and controls space for some social end”. Within this, ‘rule over space’ can be defined as a particularly important form of contemporary political authority. It seeks to govern issues related to climate change. In this regard, it can be used to “border” climate change between states. This allows individual states to meet their environmental policies. the ‘invisible’ process of climate change, in recent years, has been “molded onto territorial ground”. > Territoriality can be understood as a form of behavior that “binds, refines and controls space for some social end”. Within this, ‘rule over space’ can be defined as a particularly important form of contemporary political authority. It seeks to govern issues related to climate change. In this regard, it can be used to “border” climate change between states. This allows individual states to meet their environmental policies. can be defined as a particularly important form of contemporary political authority. It seeks to govern issues related to climate change. In this regard, it can be used to “border” climate change between states. This allows individual states to meet their environmental policies. can be defined as a particularly important form of contemporary political authority. It seeks to govern issues related to climate change. In this regard, it can be used to “border” climate change between states. This allows individual states to meet their environmental policies.

In recent decades a notable shift in government has been observed. The shift from government to governance is a new concept of a conventional government direct action has been replaced by a more complex system. This newer complex system includes policy making and implementation by a new set of actors. The shift from government to governance issues the new range of actors, sites and issues. These characteristics can also be seen in the context of specific environmental issues. The train ‘command and control’ model, which dictated regulations and regimented practices within the present environmental governance network. The complex nature of the environment, actors and institutions one which attempts to ‘steer’ and guide. This new method is designed to improve the effectiveness of collective action and to reduce the risk of environmental problems. This organization has been established as a non-governmental organization (NGO), regional and local authorities. These ranges of actors and sites involved in environmental governance show a growing diversity. A traditional sovereign decision-making authority has become common, in recent years, with such actors giving rise to new methods and strategies. ToCG is an example of one of these methods in environmental governance. Furthermore, many issues are considered to be beyond the capacity of individual state institutions. This inquiry is made in the relationship between natural resources and natural resources. Territorialization of carbon can allow the connection of materials. Sub-national state spaces are examples of bodies that fall below the level of state. These bodies can be effective in tackling climate change and reducing the effects of global warming. Cities are an example of a sub-national space and can not be avoided. The 1987 Brundtland Report drew particular attention to the significance of cities as a means of achieving sustainable development. The power of cities to organize and initiate specific strategies in the context of carbon pricing.

Policy making and environmental regulation has shown specific cases of progress and success through the territorialization of carbon governance. This is made possible when direct causes and consequences of global climate change. The United States is an example of a country of the world, where it has taken over the federal government and taken over the subject of climate change. This example of multi-level governance has a shifting in action between local, national and supranational governmental institutions has taken place. This displays a whole new range of actors and institutions and provides guidance to the environment.

In order to territorialise carbon, These climatic areas can be implemented. Seattle is an example of a city where local governments are active as active institutions in the development and creation of climate policy. This goes against neoliberal reforms and the favored market-led environmental regulations which endorse the expansion of the market economy in providing ways to regulate environmental problems. The boundaries of nature and ecosystems are unclear and hard to map. This can be further extended to the characteristics of the atmospheric carbon cycle which is also hard to impose and enforce boundaries on. Understanding and gaining a sense of space and boundary is essential in the territorialization of carbon. Only then is it possible to govern carbon and the flows of inputs and outputs within a country or state. The physical greenhouse gas molecules are part of the shared global atmosphere, sections of which have been assigned to Seattle’s jurisdiction. This is achieved through the territorialization of carbon to the greenhouse gases that are spatially referenced to transportation, energy production and consumption and other greenhouse gases that occur within the city of Seattle. Through attributing sections of the carbon cycle to specific carbon emitting activities to a state of responsibility for the individual flows of carbon within their geographical area. This can allow the governance of carbon and the environment to be better executed in specific locations. The chemical make up of greenhouse gas emissions make them invisible to the human eye and hard to actively measure and observe. The city of Seattle has overcome this problem by creating new strategies that can enable the inclusion of these gases into their jurisdictional territory. Whereas, it is possible to define these gases as ‘inside’ or ‘outside’ the territory, which would not be feasible, the gases are accounted for by specific places and activities in the space of Seattle. The territorialization of carbon governance has empowered actors and institutions in Seattle. This provides the city and stakeholders with a view to their ability to regulate their infrastructure. Certain practices, such as transport, pollution and urban development can be better monitored, regulated and managed through the territorialization of carbon governance. Although there are several greenhouse gases in the global warming, carbon represents the key relationship between the state and nature (Rice, 2010). It is through carbon that climate and climate change can be made within a specific geographical area, such as a state. This territorial ‘carbon breakdown’ or territorialization of carbon governance is what provides states with the political power to address climate issues within their jurisdiction. This is an example of how to have a better climate. Through territorialising carbon governance in Seattle, many initiatives and regulations have been introduced. The point at which Seattle has established itself as its own ‘carbon territory’ an array of strategies has been developed and put into practice. The strategies have been implemented and demonstrate success in reducing the effects of climate change. In order to be made possible to the city and to the local residents. The Seattle Climate Action Now (SCAN) program has been developed to educate and inspire the local population to become involved in reducing carbon emissions. All of these efforts and programs are based on the influence of the city of Seattle to regulate the climate through the territorialization of carbon. This new method of climate governance has been achieved in the past. This concept has had a negative impact on climate change. addressed by local communities.