How do we Deal with Climate Change?

Kevin Reilly How do we deal with Climate Change? The Montreal Protocol worked for two reasons: participating was an economically sound decision in terms of international trade; and more importantly technology advances led to a smooth transition after a CFC ban (Pilke). The regime behind the Montreal Protocol was lucky with the timely technological advances that turned CFC’s into HCFC’s and now even HFC’s, both of which decreased the damage to the ozone (Broder). This saved the Ozone, however, the earth is still heating up at a catastrophic rate. To avoid devastation by the time the next century rolls around, there needs to be a push for advanced eco-friendly technology research and implementation. The only way to bring every developed and developing country to any form of international agreement on climate change is one that is mutually beneficial economically. In Kyoto the countries agreed to cut emissions by too little of an amount and gave no practical way to slash the greenhouse gasses. In Copenhagen, the countries reached for a massive goal in which China and India, who claimed to be developing countries would never agree too. Many states struggle to see the benefit of cutting emissions, because there is no obvious reward to slowing climate change. Slowing climate change is avoiding punishment many years down the road. With the Montreal Protocol, participating countries saw the Ozone come back due to their efforts and if there were a visible reward for climate change, perhaps climate change would be an easier cause to gain international cooperation. Where it may be difficult for countries to appreciate the climate staying the same as a reward, they would not miss a positive or negative slide in international trade. Over 800 sustainability experts who lived within 70 different countries say that economic instruments are the most important mechanism in developing a global solution (Erikson, Jeff) The response to trade is where research and development of environmentally friendly automobiles, especially in public transportation, is essential to the future of climate change. If developed countries invested heavily in eco-friendly vehicle development, advanced mass transit systems in all major cities, and worked with developing countries to implement similar systems there would be a massive cut in emissions. As an intern a leading congressman in most science fields, I sat in on an alternative energy lobbyist meeting (I will avoid specific names out of respect for the office). The lobbyist explained to the office’s assistant on military affairs that they developed a battery that is powerful enough to energize a fully functioning tank, using minimal fuel. The technology to save the climate exists and is on the verge of completion, but with the strength of corporations who rely on greenhouse gas emission it will take an international effort to implement fuel-efficient practices. A good example of what the standard for cars needs to become is the Tesla Model S. This vehicle is cosmetically attractive, fast, and emits nearly no greenhouse gas as it runs primarily on electric battery. This car is already selling rapidly in the world’s greatest greenhouse gas emitter, China, according to Yahoo’s John Voelcker . Sales of a car like this can alter Chinas current path of emission. China’s emissions from transportation will increase from “200 megatons annually today to nearly 1200 megatons in 2050,” according to a University of California, Davis study. Six times more emissions by the world’s biggest country will be fatal to the climate. Changing their automobile market to electric based vehicles or fuel efficient mass transit systems will help slow the growth. To save the climate, it is essential for all countries to do away with greenhouse-gas-emitting-vehicle-centric cultures. Advancing research in necessary fields should become the talk and purpose of climate change summits. Copenhagen proved there will be gridlock finding the right percentage of emissions to cut (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ybecKdwj2c). Also, developing countries will feel jaded when told to cut emissions or are threatened to have their greenhouse gas emissions taxed. These regulations will hinder their growth and they are not the major emitters of greenhouse gas. In a research and economic based agreement, all countries can contribute a respectable amount to research, speeding up the process of fuel-efficient vehicle development. There investment in the development could lead to a further investment in applying the research. The next project will be to have current vehicle owners and manufactures to buy into the efficiency programs. One solution would be for governments to tax individuals based on greenhouse gas emissions. Gas stations could be taxed heavily gas sales. In terms of international trade there could be similar agreements to Montreal. Countries that fail to implement mass transit systems, spend money on agreed research, and tax their emitters will be blacklisted from specified sections of trade. Subsidizing developing countries development of mass transit systems would be another economical instrument that could make an agreement more feasible. The goal of these ideas is to get away from recent attempts to cut emissions. Those strategies rely on picking a specific number to cut emission by then every country goes its own way and is expected to comply. Developing eco-friendly technology and creating trade restrictions or benefits are tangible aspects to an agreement that could more effectively cut emissions. Pilke, Roger 2012. “Technology Was the Key Factor in Saving the Ozone Layer.” John M Broder, “A Novel Tactic in Climate Fight Gains Some Traction.” The New York Times, Nov. 9, 2010. Erikson, Jeff, After Kyoto, a new economics? ChinaDialogue.net, September 5, 2012. Voelcker, John, Tesla Model S China Sales 'Robust', Electric Car Waiting List Long: Analyst Green Car Reports, https://ca.autos.yahoo.com/news/tesla-model-china-sales-robust-electric-car-waiting-140004026.html A Global High Shift Scenario, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, University of California, Davis; https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/A-Global-High-Shift-Scenario_WEB.pdf

 Blog Post 1

               One of the biggest issues that unilateral organizations face is that of the population and nations. There are many recent examples of citizens being against a group that has the ability to make rules that all states must follow. The United Nations has always faced fierce opposition by the conservative American population. The World Trade Organization consistently deals with people who think they do not have Earth’s best interest at heart, but only care about making trade fair. In my opinion, many of those that oppose these unilateral organizations are only thinking about their effects in the short term. I believe that these organizations are important in our society, especially when it comes to the environment, and that we need to follow the laws they put in place and maybe even help them construct these laws.

               In the Conca book, we read a chapter about the ecology-sovereignty debate. A lot of the problems states had with these trans-national organizations was the unilateral laws that they created. Nation feel that their sovereignty is eroded when they have to abide by these laws. They believe they lose the right to govern themselves. The natural order between states is anarchic, there is no governing body between them. Due to this, states only look out for their best interests. This is very similar to the Sorcratic definition of human nature, in which there is only one thing man cares about—and that is survival. To me, acceptance of this barbaric definition of human nature is barbaric. If our nations follow the same suit there is no chance at a peaceful world.

               The Desombre and Barkin article, “Turtles and Trade” showed this Socratic nature between states, especially within the United States. The original law that the United States proposed may have seemed pro-environment, but there definitely seemed to be some underlying motivations besides just saving sea turtles. If the proposed law had passed, countries would have had to use technology that the United States produced in order to participate in the shrimp trade. This is unfair to countries who could not develop this specific technology because they were restricted from trade with the US, which gave an advantage to United States based shrimping companies. The environmental groups had a very hostile reaction to the rejection of the proposed American law. They thought that the World Trade Organization was being anti-environmental and held protests against them. Little did they know, the WTO had legitimate reasoning for rejecting this law. When the bill was eventually passed, with tweaks, there were no protests. It almost seemed as if the environmental NGO’s did not want to concede defeat to the WTO and instead chose to not give the new law any notice.  

               To me, the way the environmental NGO’s acted showed a lack of foresight when it comes to the environment. The WTO is focused on non-discriminatory trade which can lead countries to become more developed. Currently, many of the world’s developing nations are the biggest contributors to pollution and other environmental hazards. If these countries are negatively impacted by trade restrictions, then they do  not have the opportunity develop and will continue to be environmental hazards. So while the WTO does not explicitly favor environmental policy, it is inherent in their goal to have all of the world’s nation to be developed. Some environmental NGO’s, and sometimes environmentalism itself, can be anti-capitalism. This puts it at odds with the WTO as it promotes free trade between nations. However, if these NGO’s put more of their energy into working with these unilateral organizations then they can have more input on environmental issues on a global scale and be able to work healthily with different economic systems.

Watch Dogs

        The actions and effectiveness of Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) have gotten mixed results. There are two sides to the issue of NGOs. One side believes they are “the key actors in moving societies away from trends of environmental degradation and toward sustainable economies” (Princen and Finger 1994). And the other believes that environmentalists have little power because “environmentalists do not hold the levers of economic power” (Maurice Strong, UNCED Secretary General). However I believe that NGOs are necessary and can be useful in holding governments and businesses accountable for what their actions do to the environment.

            NGOs along with Transnational Advocacy Networks (TANs) operate outside of the government and can be useful when local governments aren't willing or are simply unable to address certain issues or when their actions negatively affect the NGOs area of expertise. There are NGOs that focus on a wide variety of issues including the environment, human rights, poverty, and medical care.

Last week, the Green 10 a group of environmental NGOs that includes WWF and Greenpeace has asked the European Parliament to block changes announced by the incoming European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker. The group of NGOs stated that the changes are a “serious downgrading of environment and a roll back of EU commitments to sustainable development, resource efficiency, air quality, biodiversity protection and climate action.” The organizations went on to say that “The European Parliament must react forcefully to prevent an agenda which seems to erase 30 years of EU environment policy without democratic debate.” [i] This is an example of some of work that NGOs do in order to further environmental issues.

            It’s important that NGOs exist and use their influence in order to call out and hold governments whose actions negatively affect the environment accountable. The Green 10’s membership alone exceeds 20 million people. The group’s large membership base allows the coalition of NGOs to use leverage politics in order to exert pressure on a democratic government like the European Parliament. With ten large NGOs working together it is easier for their voices to be heard by the various members of the Parliament. The large membership base also increases its ability to get their message out to the general public. This can be done through the use of information politics. By framing the issue in a way that gains the attention of the public, the public will use its power to influence members of the government.

The Green 10’s use of leverage politics ties into its ability to use accountability politics to influence the issue in their favor. Their ability to raise awareness on the issue of President Juncker undoing the work of years of environmental regulations plays a large part in the pressuring government organizations into acting in a manner that the aids the NGOs in obtaining their goals.

The opposing perspective on the issue of NGOs is that they cannot get things done because they don’t hold the influence that economic growth does. This issue of President Juncker proposed reforms highlight this side of the issue as well. Members of the Green 10 have argued that these reforms show “a clear bias towards prioritizing business interests over protection of human health and the environment”. If parliament doesn't listen to the Green 10 and  passes these reforms then it would favor the perspective that economic growth with trump the environmental issues more times than not.[ii]

Some believe that NGOs aren't worth much because economic self-interest usually wins out. While most governments, businesses, and organizations will favor decisions that will help their bottom line over decisions that favor the environment, I don’t think this means that NGOs are pointless. The alternative which is NGOs not existing would be much worse than the way things work currently. Governments and businesses would be less environmentally conscious about their decisions and business practices because they would be no one to attempt to keep them in check through various means. NGOs may not get an environmentally friendly outcome to every issue but the ability to be bring awareness and  pressure can get organizations to conform is enough to justify their use and existence.

---

[i] http://chemicalwatch.com/21287/ngos-demand-eu-parliament-prevents-erosion-of-environmental-policy

GVPT306 Blog #1: The Future of Climate Change

GVPT306 Blog #1: The Future of Climate Change

Climate change may be the most prominent and pressing global environmental issue of our time. The problems associated with climate change are well known and include higher global temperatures, changing landscapes (melting glaciers), rising seas, increased risks of floods/droughts, species extinction, stronger storms, and increased risk of infectious diseases. Although the problems are well known, it is the link of climate change to carbon emissions that is complex both scientifically and politically. However, as the world continues to warm, countries from around the globe are becoming increasingly anxious about the future of the planet, and may finally be ready to make the necessary strides to curb carbon emissions. In a recent article in the New York Times, President Barack Obama called on both the United States and China to make drastic changes in order to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (Landler and Davenport, 2014). As discussed in class, both the United States and China have generally been seen as ‘dragger states’ when it comes to cutting down on carbon, but according to this article, President Obama is finally ready to step up to the plate and wants China to join him. The question remains, is China willing and able to make the change with us?

The New York Times article, entitled “Obama Presses Chinese on Global Warming,” describes President Obama’s newest initiative to resolve the world’s growing concern about climate change. He calls on China’s President Xi Jinping to take the first steps with him. As the world’s two largest economies as well as polluters, President Obama claims that the United States and China “bear a special responsibility to lead” the worldwide initiative to cut down on carbon emissions (Landler and Davenport, 2014). Furthermore, President Obama states that the United States “would meet a pledge to reduce its carbon emissions by 17 percent, from 2005 levels, by 2020,” and expects China to come up with a similar plan of their own (Landler and Davenport, 2014). The Chinese government responded that they are currently devising a plan to reduce their emissions in the years to come (Landler and Davenport, 2014).

At this time, climate change remains an uphill battle. Due to the scientific and political nature of the issue, climate change is not only complicated to fix, but also requires the world to be selfless, which is nearly impossible for countries who are trying to develop and industrialize. For example, as discussed in class, climate change can be classified as a global commons problem, and some of the solutions to a global commons problem include total participation, voluntary restraint, and socialization (getting people to think about the commons in a different way). Nevertheless, developing countries such as India are not willing to put in the voluntary restraint the world currently needs (because their main focus is on industrialization), which defeats the idea of total participation. Total participation is a vital part of the combat against climate change because almost every country in the world is both a victim, as well as a villain, when it comes to emitting, so it is everyone’s responsibility to cut carbon.

With the United States and China shifting from ‘dragger’ to ‘pusher states,’ the future of climate change may finally be moving in the right direction. Although the plan to drastically cut carbon emissions is just the tip of the iceberg, it may be the beginning of a positive global shift to slow (and ultimately reverse) climate change. Even though past international efforts have not made much headway (for example, the Kyoto Protocol), the world’s biggest emitters are finally accepting their responsibility to cut greenhouse gas emissions. President Barack Obama’s pledge to cut down on emissions is a huge win for the environment. As the New York Times article states, President Obama said in a speech last week, “There should be no question that the United States of America is stepping up to the plate. We recognize our role in creating this problem; we embrace our responsibility to combat it” (Landler and Davenport, 2014). If we can get China to change its approach to carbon emissions, there might be a chance to impact climate change in the future.

Until then, we will have to wait and see how countries around the world choose to prioritize. If huge emitters such as China and the United States can follow through with their plans to curb their carbon emissions, other countries will certainly follow their lead. Although battling climate change has not been very successful in the past, scientists, environmentalists and now world leaders are coming together to make strategic steps towards a greener future. If China is willing and able to reduce their emissions, the world will surely see a positive shift in the years to come.

Landler, Mark, and Davenport, Coral. “Obama Presses Chinese on Global Warming.” September 23, 2014. The New York Times. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/world/asia/obama-at-un-climate-summit-calls-for-vast-international-effort.html?_r=0>

Carley Pouland - Post 1

I hold the view that Wapner described in his paper as being the narrow perception of transnational activists, that they are “solely global pressure groups seeking to change states' policies” (Wapner, 312). This is why I feel that groups such as Greenpeace are not legitimate. They turn their attention to the people, typically though the media, using symbolic or information politics, yet they have no influence in the international system. 

While I agree with the mission of many NGO’s and feel some are quite effective, I believe that often NGO’s and TAN’s are not held accountable and not legitimate contributors to environmental solutions. Though it is but a select few who operate within the sight of society and the media, many of those do so through symbolic political tactics that I would consider extremist. These tactics can decrease the credibility of the cause in the eyes of the public and policy makers, and they also bring about mass attention that could be better used for other issues. For instance, the Sea Shepherds value whales and the end of whaling. Yet, as most environmentalists know, whaling is limited to a few international actors. While it happens, I would not consider it a dire issue. Instead, the Sea Shepherds, already out in the Artic with many resources, could be better using their time to study ocean circulation patterns and acidification. This would not only be a more useful way to contribute to the environmental cause as a whole, but it would also serve to protect the whale population far more effectively than jumping onto Japanese boats.

Hand in hand with the “extremist” type tactics would be the dissemination of biased or unfounded information. NGO’s and TAN’s that operate under the media, and therefore the publics, radar are those I believe to be most persuasive in policy making. Those NGO’s and TAN’s have no reason to share information that is framed to elicit certain responses. They operate with science and research that, at least in the environmental world, does not need to be framed in order to get results. Much research on climate change and other issues, such as fisheries management, have cold hard data to support the implementation of adaptation and mitigation strategies. There is no incentive for these groups to present only limited or skewed information when the actual data is convincing enough.

Wapner disagrees that NGO’s significance can only be defined by their influence on States. I understand that it is important to create attention surrounding an issue so that the public may demand change. However, I think this is rarely successful when using the tactics typically employed by the more visible NGO’s and TAN’s. Oftentimes when environmental political changes are made due to public pressure, it is due to an inciting incident that has nothing to do with the actions of any NGO or TAN. For example, the Love Canal tragedy was an issue that had links with public health. There was clear wrongdoing on behalf of the Hooker Chemical Company, and there was definite causation between the chemical waste and the high incidences of cancer (http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/love-canal-tragedy). These factors combined lead to media attention, which brought about public outcry.  This then lead to the creation of CERCLA (Superfund), which was a major intervention on behalf of the Government. However it was the townspeople, not an NGO or TAN, that identified the problem and sought media support that eventually lead to a solution. So while I believe the public plays a role in pressuring state decision-making, I think it is only when there is a clear and finite problem that is linked with other salient issues (i.e. public health) and has an evident solution. Such finite problems may be ones that NGO’s and TAN’s spend time on, but often it is only environmental tragedies that bring about any real policy changes. Though NGO’s and TAN’s can play a role in encouraging governments to make such changes, I believe many are too focused on sensationalizing certain issues to give any time to research and development that would actually help to solve the environmental problems they care so much about.