In the field of climate change why is international cooperation so difficult to achieve?’ (45)
Climate change is often referred to as the archetypal example of the complexity of global co-operation, pitting short term national interest against long term collective good. This free rider problem is a central obstacle to the tackling of climate change, but other issues connected to the nature of the problem make a solution all the more elusive. Opinion is split, for instance, on whether nations can be held to account for the actions taken in the past, the developed and developing worlds struggle to agree on who should shoulder responsibility for the issue, while a rights’ based approach stresses the needs of people living in the global south. Meanwhile radical ecologists suggest that fundamental systemic change is required – something that few nations are willing to even contemplate. This essay will examine four obstacles to tackling climate change before suggesting that recent developments hint at progress in tackling this complex environmental problem.
Cooperation on climate change has proved problematic because it requires countries to collaborate in pursuit of the long term collective good, yet the whole fabric of national and international politics is geared towards sovereign states protecting their self interest. This tension is made worse by the democratic system followed in most rich countries which encourages governments to pursue short term populist policies, if only to increase their own chances of re-election. Thus we have a classic free-rider problem, whereby the rational stance for each nation is to shun international cooperation in the hope that others will rise to the challenge. Canada’s recent decision to opt out of the Kyoto protocol undermines cooperation and diminishes the trust required between nations to form a joint solution. Perhaps only a robust international government could, detached from the short-term demands of an electorate, could truly act in the long term interest of the global population.
International cooperation has been particularly elusive between developed and developing nations, with climate change exacerbating the so-called north/south divide (America/Europe v Africa/Asia). The league table of carbon emissions shows that China is the biggest emitter, yet introducing a per capita element to this calculation shows that America is still four times ahead of China. Furthermore, China’s emissions are caused mainly by manufacturing and with the fruits of this labour predominantly being shipped across to rich western nations, it seems harsh to penalise the Chinese for their carbon footprint. The issue of burden-sharing becomes even more problematic when we consider that from a historical perspective, western countries have contributed the most to climate change and have benefited the most from exploiting the environment. Just to add to the complexity, developing countries are the most at risk from environmental change and are the least able to deal with the problem (adaptation or mitigation). Recent shifts in the global world order have only exacerbated the tension between developed and developing nations, with China set to overtake USA in terms of the size of its economy in the next ten years.
Economists take a hard-headed approach to climate change and argue that historical contributions should be ignored (why should we pay the price for decision made by people who are long gone, and who didn’t know that what they were doing was damaging?). Thus if we focus on current emissions then developed and developing should be treated alike, not least because of the rapid growth of the BRICS and the stagnation of rich world. Against this pragmatic assessment there are those who view climate change as a rights-based issue, and if we are looking to protect the equal rights of all global citizens then we should favour the needs of countries which contain more citizens – i.e. those in the global south. The argument can be extended by pointing out that the poverty of the south makes their needs even more important compared with the rich north. Thus there are no clear economic solutions to the problem of cooperation on climate change.
The three issues above seek somehow to reconcile global development with climate change, but radical ecologists argue that climate change is a systemic problem, and therefore solutions require systemic changes. They argue that capitalism and environmental sustainability are incompatible: profit seeking businesses will always be drawn to cheap sources of energy and growth, just as petroleum companies have exploited the tar sands in Canada – extracting oil from sands at great environmental expense. Radical ecologists argue that g’reen capitalism’ is a contradiction in terms and that the prevailing materialist culture creates tension between mankind and nature. Thus climate change is difficult to tackle because it requires individuals to change their values, and this seems unlikely to happen any time soon.
To conclude, we should be careful to avoid a wholly gloomy judgement on the problem of cooperation over climate change. It is worth noting significant examples of cooperation, for example the 27 nations of the EU have acted in alliance for most of the last two decades, and even at the much-criticized Copenhagen summit more than 160 countries attended, with over 100 sending their head of state. At the more recent Durban conference binding agreements were made between developed and developing countries and the deal was signed off by USA, China and India. Thus there seems to be light at the end of a long and gloomy tunnel in which self interest has taken precedence over long term collective good. It should be no surprise however that cooperation has been so elusive. Climate change is a uniquely challenging issue, at odds with both the economist system that has come to dominate world affairs and the notion of state sovereignty which has guided international relations for the last few centuries. It has taken over a generation for any kind of collaboration to emerge, the question remains whether there is still time to act.
No comments:
Post a Comment