Download Global environmental problems and politics

Global environmental
problems and politics
T. Forsyth
DV3166, 2790166
2011
Undergraduate study in
Economics, Management,
Finance and the Social Sciences
This is an extract from a subject guide for an undergraduate course offered as part of the
University of London International Programmes in Economics, Management, Finance and
the Social Sciences. Materials for these programmes are developed by academics at the
London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).
For more information, see: www.londoninternational.ac.uk
This guide was prepared for the University of London International Programmes by:
Dr Tim Forsyth, Reader in Environment and Development, Development Studies Institute
(DESTIN), The London School of Economics and Political Science.
This is one of a series of subject guides published by the University. We regret that due to
pressure of work the author is unable to enter into any correspondence relating to, or arising
from, the guide. If you have any comments on this subject guide, favourable or unfavourable,
please use the form at the back of this guide.
University of London International Programmes
Publications Office
Stewart House
32 Russell Square
London WC1B 5DN
United Kingdom
Website: www.londoninternational.ac.uk
Published by: University of London
© University of London 2009
Reprinted with minor revisions 2011
The University of London asserts copyright over all material in this subject guide except where
otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form,
or by any means, without permission in writing from the publisher.
We make every effort to contact copyright holders. If you think we have inadvertently used
your copyright material, please let us know.
Contents
Contents
Introduction............................................................................................................. 1
Aims.............................................................................................................................. 2
Learning outcomes ........................................................................................................ 3
Syllabus.......................................................................................................................... 3
How to use this subject guide......................................................................................... 4
Study time...................................................................................................................... 5
Structure of the guide..................................................................................................... 5
Essential reading............................................................................................................ 6
Further reading............................................................................................................... 7
Journals......................................................................................................................... 7
Online study resources.................................................................................................... 7
Websites........................................................................................................................ 9
Examination advice...................................................................................................... 10
List of abbreviations used in this subject guide.............................................................. 11
Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems?................... 13
Aims of the chapter...................................................................................................... 13
Learning outcomes....................................................................................................... 13
Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 13
Further reading............................................................................................................. 14
Works cited.................................................................................................................. 14
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 14
The rise of global environmentalism.............................................................................. 15
Theorising ‘global’ environmental problems................................................................... 22
North versus South?..................................................................................................... 26
Adaptation and mitigation............................................................................................ 27
Summary of this chapter/Conclusion............................................................................. 28
A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 29
Sample examination questions...................................................................................... 29
Chapter 2: Environmental regimes........................................................................ 31
Aims of the chapter...................................................................................................... 31
Learning outcomes....................................................................................................... 31
Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 31
Further reading............................................................................................................. 32
Works cited.................................................................................................................. 32
States and non-state actors.......................................................................................... 32
What is a regime?........................................................................................................ 36
Three routes to regimes................................................................................................ 37
The case of the ozone regime....................................................................................... 40
Summary of this chapter/Conclusion............................................................................. 44
A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 45
Sample examination questions...................................................................................... 45
Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC .................................. 47
Aims of the chapter...................................................................................................... 47
Learning outcomes....................................................................................................... 47
i
166 Global environmental problems and politics
Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 47
Further reading............................................................................................................. 47
Additional resources..................................................................................................... 48
What is climate change?............................................................................................... 48
Political disagreements about climate change............................................................... 51
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).................... 58
The road to Kyoto......................................................................................................... 60
Summary of this chapter/Conclusion............................................................................. 62
A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 62
Sample examination questions...................................................................................... 63
Chapter 4: Climate-change policies: the Kyoto Protocol and beyond .................. 65
Aims of the chapter...................................................................................................... 65
Learning outcomes....................................................................................................... 65
Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 65
Further reading............................................................................................................. 65
Additional resources..................................................................................................... 66
The Kyoto Protocol....................................................................................................... 66
Assessing the Kyoto Protocol........................................................................................ 70
The political fallout from Kyoto..................................................................................... 73
After Kyoto................................................................................................................... 75
Summary of this chapter/Conclusion............................................................................. 78
A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 79
Sample examination questions...................................................................................... 79
Chapter 5: International business and global environmental governance........... 81
Aims of the chapter...................................................................................................... 81
Learning outcomes....................................................................................................... 81
Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 81
Further reading............................................................................................................. 82
Works cited.................................................................................................................. 82
Additional resources..................................................................................................... 82
Understanding business and the global environment..................................................... 82
Economically liberal approaches to international business and environment................... 83
Critical views of business and environment................................................................... 85
The Global Climate Coalition........................................................................................ 87
Alternative views of business and environment............................................................. 90
Summary of this chapter/Conclusion............................................................................. 93
A reminder of your learning outcomes........................................................................... 94
Sample examination questions...................................................................................... 94
Chapter 6: Technology transfer and environment................................................. 95
Aims of the chapter...................................................................................................... 95
Learning outcomes....................................................................................................... 95
Essential reading.......................................................................................................... 95
Further reading............................................................................................................. 95
Works cited.................................................................................................................. 96
Additional resources..................................................................................................... 96
What is technology transfer?........................................................................................ 96
Problems of technology transfer.................................................................................... 99
International disputes about technology and environment........................................... 102
New thinking about technology transfer...................................................................... 107
Summary of this chapter/Conclusion........................................................................... 108
ii
Contents
A reminder of your learning outcomes......................................................................... 109
Sample examination questions.................................................................................... 109
Chapter 7: International financial institutions: the World Bank and
Global Environment Facility................................................................................ 111
Aims of the chapter.................................................................................................... 111
Learning outcomes..................................................................................................... 111
Essential reading........................................................................................................ 111
Further reading........................................................................................................... 112
Works cited................................................................................................................ 112
Additional resources................................................................................................... 112
Reforming international financial institutions.............................................................. 113
The World Bank and environment............................................................................... 114
The Global Environment Facility (GEF)......................................................................... 121
Summary of this chapter/Conclusion........................................................................... 124
A reminder of your learning outcomes......................................................................... 125
Sample examination questions.................................................................................... 126
Chapter 8: Trade and environment...................................................................... 127
Aims of the chapter.................................................................................................... 127
Learning outcomes..................................................................................................... 127
Essential reading........................................................................................................ 127
Further reading........................................................................................................... 128
Additional resources................................................................................................... 128
Why is trade relevant to environment?........................................................................ 128
Environmental trade-dispute resolution under GATT.................................................... 130
Environmental disputes under the WTO....................................................................... 132
The case of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).................................................... 134
Environment–trade regimes........................................................................................ 137
Summary of this chapter/Conclusion........................................................................... 137
A reminder of your learning outcomes......................................................................... 138
Sample examination questions.................................................................................... 139
Chapter 9: Non-governmental organisations...................................................... 141
Aims of the chapter.................................................................................................... 141
Learning outcomes..................................................................................................... 141
Essential reading........................................................................................................ 141
Further reading........................................................................................................... 141
Works cited................................................................................................................ 142
Civil society and NGOs in global environmental politics............................................... 143
NGOs and knowledge regimes.................................................................................... 145
NGOs and conservation ............................................................................................ 148
NGOs and local representation................................................................................... 151
Summary of this chapter/Conclusion........................................................................... 152
A reminder of your learning outcomes......................................................................... 153
Sample examination questions.................................................................................... 153
Chapter 10: Biodiversity ..................................................................................... 155
Aims of the chapter.................................................................................................... 155
Learning outcomes..................................................................................................... 155
Essential reading........................................................................................................ 155
Further reading........................................................................................................... 155
Works cited................................................................................................................ 156
Additional resources................................................................................................... 156
iii
166 Global environmental problems and politics
Defining biodiversity................................................................................................... 156
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) ........................ 160
The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)...................................... 163
Bioprospecting and intellectual property rights............................................................ 166
Summary of this chapter/Conclusion........................................................................... 167
A reminder of your learning outcomes......................................................................... 168
Sample examination questions.................................................................................... 168
Chapter 11: Forests............................................................................................. 169
Aims of the chapter.................................................................................................... 169
Learning outcomes..................................................................................................... 169
Essential reading........................................................................................................ 169
Further reading........................................................................................................... 170
Works cited................................................................................................................ 170
Additional resources................................................................................................... 170
Tropical deforestation and conservation ..................................................................... 171
Regulating logging..................................................................................................... 175
Forest policy and climate change ............................................................................... 178
Summary of this chapter/Conclusion........................................................................... 182
A reminder of your learning outcomes......................................................................... 183
Sample examination questions.................................................................................... 183
Chapter 12: Conclusion: rethinking regimes and models of governance............ 185
Aims of the chapter.................................................................................................... 185
Learning outcomes..................................................................................................... 185
Essential reading........................................................................................................ 185
Further reading........................................................................................................... 186
Works cited................................................................................................................ 186
States and non-state actors........................................................................................ 186
Reforming international organisations......................................................................... 187
Regimes and regime theory........................................................................................ 188
Summary of this chapter/Conclusion........................................................................... 190
A reminder of your learning outcomes......................................................................... 191
Appendix 1: Full list of Further reading referred to in the guide....................... 193
Appendix 2: Sample examination paper............................................................. 201
Appendix 3: Guidance on answering the sample examination questions.......... 203
iv
Introduction
Introduction
166 Global environmental problems and politics is a ‘300’
course offered on the Economics, Management, Finance and the Social
Sciences (EMFSS) suite of programmes. If you take this course as part
of a BSc degree, 09 Human geography or 11 Introduction to
international relations or 114 Democratic politics and the
State or 21 Principles of sociology must be passed before this course
may be attempted.
This course aims to provide you with insights into and an understanding
of global environmental problems such as climate change and biodiversity
loss, and the ways in which countries and people can address them.
Global environmental problems are relatively new in international politics,
as global environmentalism did not become a political force until the
1960s. But since then, governments, non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) and other organisations have tried to reach agreements on or
new ways to deal with these problems. Some agreements have been based
on existing methods of international negotiation or political governance,
while some have been based on new thinking and a need to break new
ground in achieving political agreement.
This course appeals to many students from different backgrounds. Those
studying it might be worried about environmental problems and want to
understand ways to address them, or simply want to know more about the
kinds of risks they pose. Some of you may also wish to undertake a career
in environmental management, or concerning environmental politics and
international development.
The course aims to show how and why environmental changes pose
problems for different countries and societies, so it will be relevant for
anyone who wishes to understand more about how global environmental
problems raise important political dilemmas. It also shows how different
policymakers have approached environmental problems in the past, and
what challenges there are at present, and in the future. The course is
relevant to anyone studying politics, geography, international relations,
development studies, sociology and of course environment.
That said, I should also point out what this course does not do.
First, this course is not an analysis of physical environmental science. It
refers briefly to our understanding of environmental problems. But it does
not summarise the scientific debates about controversies concerning the
origins of – say – climate change or biodiversity loss. Instead, it summarises
debates about how to deal with environmental problems within the sphere
of political and social action. This approach does not mean we always
assume that environmental problems are proven, or that we should
believe everything we read in the newspapers. Rather, a political analysis
of environmental problems acknowledges the uncertainty about some of
them. It also explores how different people might represent environmental
problems in different ways in order to win political advantages.
Secondly, this is not simply a course in the discipline of international
relations. Global environmental problems, of course, require an international
response and the discipline of international relations can help a great deal
in understanding how different states negotiate with each other, and how
1
166 Global environmental problems and politics
different power relations between states can influence agreements. But this
course also deals with how global environmental problems and the political
responses to them might be experienced or enacted on a scale smaller
than that of the nation state, and how, increasingly, political responses to
environmental problems come from a variety of non-state actors such as
businesses, NGOs and everyday citizens such as you and me. Indeed, some
of the most difficult political problems arise when trying to implement global
policy at the sub-state scale, such as the clashes between local forest users in
developing countries and international actors implementing ‘global’ climate
and biodiversity policies. Accordingly, this course is based upon a broader
political approach to environmental governance than usually associated
with the discipline of international relations. Some of these approaches are
discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, where we address what is political about
global environmental problems and how we can reach agreements.
Thirdly, this course is not a simple summary of all global environmental
problems. It focuses largely upon climate change, biodiversity loss and
debates about deforestation. All of these are linked, of course, because
changes in one may impact on the others. The course refers briefly to
other environmental debates such as the approach to ozone depletion
(Chapter 2) and worries about genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
(Chapter 8). Unfortunately, there is not enough space here to investigate
other problems such as desertification, transboundary pollution of oceans,
deterioration of wetlands or similar themes. Instead, this course aims to
summarise the key political debates about how to address global
environmental problems, especially where many countries and
societies disagree about the nature, impacts of and necessary
responses to problems. The themes of climate change, biodiversity
and forests present many important lessons for politics, and for other
global environmental problems.
I am basing this course upon some teaching I do at The London School of
Economics and Political Science (LSE) on global environmental governance.
My own background is in environmental problems and international
development and I have spent some years living in developing countries
researching these themes. I strongly believe that global action is required
to address many environmental problems but I also believe that the
international policymaking community is still learning how to incorporate
different viewpoints about environmental problems, and that many existing
approaches to global environmental governance do not yet understand the
local realities of environmental change in many developing countries.
I hope you enjoy studying this course. The rest of this introduction
describes the purpose of the course and gives some indication of how
to use this subject guide. Perhaps the best advice I have at this stage is
to read the chapters as a guide to the main objectives of the course and
then go through some of the recommended readings to learn more about
specific subjects.
Aims
The specific aims of the course are to:
• promote understanding of the political response to growing evidence of
global environmental degradation
• demonstrate some of the underlying uncertainties and controversies
about how environmental problems and explain how they should
be evaluated and responded to politically, especially concerning
differences between developed and developing countries
2
Introduction
• enhance awareness of global environmental governance as an outcome
of what different actors do by evaluating the role played by key actors
such as states, international organisations, transnational corporations
and environmental NGOs in such governance
• explain the emergence of environmental policies, including
environmental regimes and the specific challenges of different problems
with particular reference to climate change, biodiversity loss (and its
links with deforestation) and other problems such as ozone depletion
• demonstrate some of the key political problems that arise in relation
to achieving agreement between different nation states, and between
environmental policy at different spatial scales, especially when these
represent apparent challenges to economic development or local rights.
Learning outcomes
At the end of the course, and having completed the essential readings and
activities, you should be able to:
• explain the basic political dilemmas and challenges of calling
environmental problems ‘global’ and seeking ‘global’ solutions to them
• describe different approaches to constructing environmental regimes,
including approaches based on nation states in cooperation or in
conflict; or the role of so-called ‘knowledge actors’ such as scientists
and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in creating consensus
• critically discuss the manner in which the emergence of sustainable
development as a core concept of international initiative reflects and
responds to dominant political and economic interests
• describe the diverse problems of addressing climate change and
declining biodiversity through multi-faceted policy approaches such as
international treaties, national regulation and civil society activity
• explain the importance of trade in achieving international agreement of
standards and practices, and the dilemmas faced when regulating trade
in environmental goods and services that have uncertain and contested
environmental impacts
• assess the role played by key international organisations linked to the
United Nations in the promotion of global environmental regimes and
global environmental governance in general
• describe and assess the main debates surrounding the role of NGOs in
global environmental politics
• describe and assess some of the dilemmas of implementing global
environmental policy at the local level, such as in biodiversity
conservation.
Syllabus
What is political about global environmental problems?
Introduction to the role of states and non-state actors. The politics of
calling something ‘global’; global and systemic versus cumulative global
problems; a brief history of global environmental meetings and the
debates relating to sustainable development.
Environmental regimes, including the case of ozone: discussion
of regimes as a key political approach to agreement between countries;
different approaches to regimes (including knowledge regimes); ozone as
an example of how an early regime emerged.
3
166 Global environmental problems and politics
Climate change: introduction to the problem with a focus on state
actors; the early agreements; IPCC and UNFCCC; Kyoto.
Climate-change policies: analysis of flexible (trading-based)
mechanisms, links to forests and climate, vulnerability and adaptation.
Business and international environmental governance:
discussion of the role of business in the development of climate-change
policy and other governances, private-environmental governance, neoGramscian analysis.
Technology transfer and environment: the importance of
technology. How can technical solutions be extended in developing
countries; what needs to be done?
World Bank and Global Environment Facility: analysis of two key
global institutions of global environment; an analysis of what they have
done and the major criticisms.
Trade and environment: the example of genetically modified
organisms: summary of debates for and against trade; the ways in
which environment was addressed under GATT and WTO; some famous
disputes; the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
Non-governmental organisations: summary of debates about NGOs
and some examples of big NGOs in relation to climate change.
Biodiversity: biodiversity; summary of key issues and the difficulty of
measurement and control; the emergence of CITES and CBD as examples
of biodiversity policy.
Forests: why forests are different from biodiversity; timber and logging;
the problem of logging and illegal logging; the role of people’s groups in
forest politics; connections with climate-change policies.
Conclusion: rethinking global environmental politics: the role
of states, non-states, and expertise in environmental policy; which models
of global governance work best?
How to use this subject guide
The aim of this subject guide is to help you to interpret the syllabus. It
outlines what you are expected to know for each area of the syllabus and
suggests relevant readings to help you to understand the material.
This subject guide is not a substitute for reading. There are four set
essential textbooks that you will find very useful for background
information. But you will find that much of the information you need
to learn and understand is contained in examples and activities within
the subject guide itself. In addition, the subject of global environmental
problems is very topical and sometimes the best information is found on
websites or recent publications that are available online. The subject guide
lists some popular websites that you may wish to inspect from time to time.
I would recommend that you work through the guide in chapter order,
reading the essential text alongside it (you may wish to read the subject
guide before or after the textbook, or in parallel). After you have
understood the key themes and political questions, you may wish to
supplement your studies by reading further papers or specific websites in
order to get up-to-date details.
Having said this, it is important that you appreciate that different topics
are not self-contained. There is a degree of overlap between them and
you are guided in this respect by the cross-referencing between different
4
Introduction
chapters. In terms of studying this subject, the chapters of this guide are
designed as self-contained courses of study, but for examination purposes
you need to have an understanding of the subject as a whole.
At the end of each chapter you will find a checklist of your learning
outcomes, which is a list of the main points that you should understand
once you have covered the material in the guide and the associated
readings.
Study time
If you are intending to study for the examination in this course over the
course of one academic year, you need to spend, as a minimum, six to
seven hours per week studying for this course. This includes reading
the subject guide and the essential and further reading, making notes
and practising writing short and then longer answers to examination
questions.
You should appreciate that the way to do well in this course is to write
good essays in the examination. Practising writing essays and knowing
how to answer the questions by arguing your own position will be the best
preparation for this.
Structure of the guide
• Chapter 1 serves as a foundation to understanding why it is political
to call an environmental problem ‘global’, including divisions between
developed and developing countries.
• Chapter 2 presents discussion of some of the theories concerning
global environmental governance. This chapter focuses especially on
the concept of regimes, using the example of the ozone agreements.
• Chapter 3 provides an introduction to climate change and the political
conflicts before the signing of the United Nations convention on
climate change (the UNFCCC).
• Chapter 4 continues the discussion of climate change by reviewing the
Kyoto Protocol and debates about policies for climate change after the
Kyoto Protocol.
• Chapter 5 considers the role of international business in global
environmental policy, focusing in particular on the role of business as a
political force before the signing of the Kyoto Protocol.
• Chapter 6 looks at the need for international technology transfer as
a means of implementing environmental policies, and the role of
business investment.
• Chapter 7 discusses the role of international financial institutions such
as the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility. It considers the
roles that these institutions play and the ways in which they have been
reformed after criticism from NGOs.
• Chapter 8 reviews debates about trade and environment, focusing
on the ways in which environmental disputes relating to trade have
been resolved over the years. It uses the case of international trade in
genetically modified crops as an example.
• Chapter 9 provides an analysis of the role of international NGOs
in global environmental policy, especially their role in creating
knowledge about environment. It focuses on disputes concerning NGO
interventions involving conservation in developing countries.
5
166 Global environmental problems and politics
• Chapter 10 introduces the subject of biodiversity and reviews
the politics and approach to the United Nations Convention on
Biodiversity.
• Chapter 11 looks at international policies to address forest
degradation, including international trade in timber and initiatives to
link forest conservation to climate-change mitigation.
• Chapter 12 presents a concluding discussion, drawing together some of
the general themes of global environmental problems and politics, and
the trends for future agreements.
Essential reading
Axelrod, Regina S., David Leonard Downie and Norman J. Vig (eds) The global
environment: institutions, law and policy. (Washington: Congressional
Quarterly Press, 2005) second edition [ISBN 9781568028279].
Chasek, Pamela S., David L. Downie and Janet Welsh Brown Global
environmental politics. (Boulder: Westview Press, 2006) fourth edition
[ISBN 9780813343327].
Clapp, Jennifer and Peter Dauvergne Paths to a green world: the political
economy of the global environment. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005)
[ISBN 9780262532716].
Elliott, Lorraine The global politics of the environment. (New York: NYU Press,
2004) second edition [ISBN 9780333948514].
Detailed reading references in this subject guide refer to the editions of the
set textbooks listed above. New editions of one or more of these textbooks
may have been published by the time you study this course. You can use
a more recent edition of any of the books; use the detailed chapter and
section headings and the index to identify relevant readings. Also check
the virtual learning environment (VLE) regularly for updated guidance on
readings.
From journals
Carpenter, C. ‘Business, green groups and the media: the role of nongovernmental organisations in the climate change debate’, International
Affairs 77(2) 2001, pp.313–28.
Haas, P. ‘Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy
coordination’, International Organisation 46(1) 1992, pp.1–35.
Taylor, P. and F. Buttel ‘How do we know we have global environmental
problems? Science and the globalisation of environmental discourse’,
Geoforum 23(3) 1992, pp.405–16.
Turner, BL. II. et al. ‘Two types of global environmental change: definitional
and spatial scale issues in their human dimensions’, Global Environmental
Change (12) 1990, pp.14–22.
To download from the internet
Chapin, M. ‘A challenge to conservationists’, WorldWatch Magazine Dec 2004;
www.worldwatch.org/system/files/EP176A.pdf
Griffiths, T. (2007) ‘Seeing “RED”? “Avoided deforestation” and the rights of
indigenous peoples and local communities’, Forest People’s Programme;
www.forestpeoples.org/documents/ifi_igo/avoided_deforestation_red_
jun07_eng.pdf
Kanninen, M., D. Murdiyarso, F. Seymour, A. Angelsen, S. Wunder and L.
German ‘Do trees grow on money?: The implications of deforestation
research for policies to promote REDD’, Center for International Forestry
Research, 2007; www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/cop/REDD_
paper071207.pdf
6
Introduction
Each chapter of the subject guide commences by identifying the
appropriate chapters from these textbooks. In instances where these
textbooks are inadequate or simply do not cover a particular topic,
additional or supplementary reading is recommended. This subject guide
gives some suggestions for additional reading, but you may also find
interesting material on websites (also suggested), or from searching for
sources on the internet.
Unless otherwise stated, all websites in this subject guide were accessed in
April 2011. We cannot guarantee, however, that they will stay current and
you may need to perform an internet search to find the relevant pages.
Further reading
Please note that as long as you read the Essential reading you are then free
to read around the subject area in any text, paper or online resource. You
will need to support your learning by reading as widely as possible and by
thinking about how these principles apply in the real world. To help you
read extensively, you have free access to the VLE and University of London
Online Library (see below).
A full list of all Further reading referred to in the guide can be found in
Appendix 1 on page 189.
Journals
There are a number of journals which will form the basis of lists of
suggested readings and which provide useful up-to-date materials. They
are:
Global Environmental Politics
Global Environmental Change
International Environmental Agreements
Journal of Environment and Development
Environmental Politics
It is also worth checking some of the journals that look at international
development to get information about the problems of applying
environmental policies in specific countries. In particular, see:
Development and Change
World Development
Online study resources
In addition to the subject guide and the Essential reading, it is crucial that
you take advantage of the study resources that are available online for this
course, including the VLE and the Online Library.
You can access the VLE, the Online Library and your University of London
email account via the Student Portal at:
http://my.londoninternational.ac.uk
You should have received your login details for the Student Portal with
your official offer, which was emailed to the address that you gave
on your application form. You have probably already logged in to the
Student Portal in order to register! As soon as you registered, you will
automatically have been granted access to the VLE, Online Library and
your fully functional University of London email account.
If you forget your login details at any point, please email uolia.support@
london.ac.uk quoting your student number.
7
166 Global environmental problems and politics
The VLE
The VLE, which complements this subject guide, has been designed to
enhance your learning experience, providing additional support and a
sense of community. It forms an important part of your study experience
with the University of London and you should access it regularly.
The VLE provides a range of resources for EMFSS courses:
• Self-testing activities: Doing these allows you to test your own
understanding of subject material.
• Electronic study materials: The printed materials that you receive from
the University of London are available to download, including updated
reading lists and references.
• Past examination papers and Examiners’ commentaries: These provide
advice on how each examination question might best be answered.
• A student discussion forum: This is an open space for you to discuss
interests and experiences, seek support from your peers, work
collaboratively to solve problems and discuss subject material.
• Videos: There are recorded academic introductions to the subject,
interviews and debates and, for some courses, audio-visual tutorials
and conclusions.
• Recorded lectures: For some courses, where appropriate, the sessions
from previous years’ Study Weekends have been recorded and made
available.
• Study skills: Expert advice on preparing for examinations and
developing your digital literacy skills.
• Feedback forms.
Some of these resources are available for certain courses only, but we
are expanding our provision all the time and you should check the VLE
regularly for updates.
Making use of the Online Library
The Online Library contains a huge array of journal articles and other
resources to help you read widely and extensively.
To access the majority of resources via the Online Library you will either
need to use your University of London Student Portal login details, or you
will be required to register and use an Athens login:
http://tinyurl.com/ollathens
The easiest way to locate relevant content and journal articles in the
Online Library is to use the Summon search engine.
If you are having trouble finding an article listed in a reading list, try
removing any punctuation from the title, such as single quotation marks,
question marks and colons.
For further advice, please see the online help pages:
www.external.shl.lon.ac.uk/summon/about.php
8
Introduction
Websites
The following websites contain useful information and reports that you
can read as supplementary sources. They are particularly good at giving
up-to-date information about recent negotiations or controversies where
agreements are still being formed (such as in climate change).
Please note that many of these websites provide information that is either
topical (up to date) or tries to criticise some proposed policies. In the exam
you will be given extra credit for using up-to-date material or being critical
about policies or academic concepts. Please be critical of all literature and
websites.
Official websites:
www.unfccc.int
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: this site
has a vast amount of information about the history of, current challenges
for and status of climate-change negotiations.
www.cbd.int
The Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodiversity): this site has
information relating to biodiversity conservation and negotiations.
Think tanks and critical websites:
www.iisd.org
International Institute for Sustainable Development: useful summaries of
recent negotiations. Sign up for latest updates on negotiations.
www.chathamhouse.org.uk
Chatham House: this is a London-based think tank. It has some good
reports on political matters relating to global environment.
www.wri.org/climate
The World Resources Institute: a Washington DC-based think tank with
reports and information about various environmental problems.
www.cseindia.org
The Centre for Science and Environment: a Delhi-based think tank that
presents much information about environmental problems as they relate to
poor people, especially in India.
www.wrm.org.uy
A Uruguay-based NGO that is critical of many common approaches to
forest conservation and plantation forestry.
www.brettonwoodsproject.org
A British think tank that produces reports critical of the World Bank.
www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/subject/climate
A British think tank that produces various papers critically analysing some
aspects of climate-change policy.
www.ifiwatchnet.org
An international website with various reports and videos presenting
critical, or alternative, views about international development finance,
including environmental policies.
Unless otherwise stated, all websites in this subject guide were accessed in
April 2011. We cannot guarantee, however, that they will stay current and
you may need to perform an internet search to find the relevant pages.
9
166 Global environmental problems and politics
Examination advice
Important: the information and advice given here are based on the
examination structure used at the time this guide was written. Please
note that subject guides may be used for several years. Because of this
we strongly advise you to always check both the current Regulations for
relevant information about the examination, and the VLE where you
should be advised of any forthcoming changes. You should also carefully
check the rubric/instructions on the paper you actually sit and follow
those instructions.
The examination paper for this course is three hours in duration and you
are expected to answer three questions from a choice of nine.
The Examiner attempts to ensure that all of the topics covered in the
syllabus and subject guide are examined. Some questions could cover
more than one topic from the syllabus since the different topics are not
self-contained. A sample examination paper appears as an appendix to this
guide, along with guidance on answering the questions.
The Examiners’ commentaries (which you can download from the VLE)
contain valuable information about how to approach the examination and
so you are strongly advised to read them carefully. Past examination papers
and the associated Examiners’ commentaries are valuable resources when
preparing for the examination.
You should ensure that all three questions are answered, allowing an
approximately equal amount of time for each question, and attempting all
parts or aspects of a question.
In approaching an examination in this area, the most important thing is to
remember the following points.
• The grade you get for the examination for this course will depend on
how well you answer the three questions, so make sure you practise
writing essays in advance.
• You need to answer all three questions and allocate equal time to each.
• Please note that questions will usually be about one theme of the
subject guide, but answers should refer to other themes of the guide
as well. The chapters of the guide are not exclusive to each other and
sometimes you can refer to various environmental problems at the
same time.
• Use theoretical concepts such as regime theory.
• Do cite authors or policy institutions and refer to controversies between
different positions.
• Use examples of environmental problems and politics and try to find
your own examples from research in the literature and on the internet.
• Remember, any essay requires you to make an argument that answers
the question. If you do not argue a viewpoint, or do not answer the
question, then you will not get a good grade.
Remember, it is important to check the VLE for:
• up-to-date information on examination and assessment arrangements
for this course
• where available, past examination papers and Examiners’ commentaries
for the course which give advice on how each question might best be
answered.
10
Introduction
List of abbreviations used in this subject guide
CBD United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CITES Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species of
Flora and Fauna
COP Conference of the Parties (to a convention)
CTE Committee on Trade and Environment (of the WTO)
GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
IFI International Financial Institution
JI Joint Implementation
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
REDD Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation
TNC Transnational Corporation
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
WTO World Trade Organization
11
166 Global environmental problems and politics
Notes
12
Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems?
Chapter 1: What is political about global
environmental problems?
Aims of the chapter
The aims of this first chapter are to introduce some of the more
fundamental aspects of environmental politics at the global scale. This
forms a basic underpinning for the rest of the course by setting out key
questions about the nature of so-called ‘global’ environmental problems;
how we identify the ‘global’ scale; why these are controversial; and
how political processes may resolve – or sometimes add to – these
controversies.
Learning outcomes
By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential readings
and activities, you should be able to:
• critically evaluate different ways that environmental problems may (or
may not!) be described as ‘global’
• outline the various definitions of the word ‘globalisation’ addressing
both its economic and cultural implications (and especially how far
simply talking about global problems tends to create a common identity
and risk for people)
• identify and discuss the reasons why certain political actors might wish
to represent different environmental problems as ‘global’ or not; and
how these political actors are linked to different stages of economic
development
• describe the difference between mitigation and adaptation as responses
to environmental problems using examples of how different policies
might encourage either mitigation or adaptation to climate change.
Essential reading
From your essential textbooks
Axelrod, Regina S., David Leonard Downie and Norman J. Vig (eds) The global
environment: institutions, law and policy. (Washington: Congressional
Quarterly Press, 2005) Chapters 1, 7 and 12.
Chasek, Pamela S., David L. Downie and Janet Welsh Brown Global
environmental politics. (Boulder: Westview Press, 2006) Chapter 1.
Clapp, Jennifer and Peter Dauvergne Paths to a green world: the political
economy of the global environment. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005) Chapter 1.
Elliott, Lorraine The global politics of the environment. (New York: NYU Press,
2004) Chapters 1 and 7.
From journals
Taylor, P. and F. Buttel ‘How do we know we have global environmental
problems? Science and the globalisation of environmental discourse’,
Geoforum 23(3) 1992, pp.405–16.
Turner, B.L. II et al. ‘Two types of global environmental change: definitional
and spatial scale issues in their human dimensions’, Global Environmental
Change (12) 1990, pp.14–22.
13
166 Global environmental problems and politics
Further reading
Adams, W.M. Green development. (London: Routledge, 2004) third edition.
Agarwal, A. and S. Narain Global warming in an unequal world. (New Delhi:
Center for Science and Environment, 1991).
Boserup, Esther The conditions of agricultural growth: the economics of agrarian
change under population pressure. (London: Allen & Unwin, 1965).
Chatterjee, P. and M. Finger (eds) The earth brokers: power, politics and world
development. (London: Routledge, 1994).
Dryzek, J. The politics of the earth. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).
Layzer, Judith A. ‘Science, politics and international environmental policy’,
Global Environmental Politics 2(3) 2002, pp.118–23.
Middleton, N. and P. O’Keefe The tears of the crocodile: from Rio to reality in the
developing world. (London: Pluto, 1993).
Middleton, N. and P. O’Keefe Rio plus 10. (London: Pluto, 2002).
Redclift, M. Sustainable development: exploring the contradictions. (London:
Routledge, 1987).
Sachs, W. (ed.) Global ecology. (London: Zed, 1993).
Shiva, V. ‘The greening of the global reach’ in Sachs, W. (ed.) Global ecology:
a new arena of political conflict. (London: Zed, Halifax, Nova Scotia:
Fernwood, 1993) pp.149–56.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) Our common
future. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).
Works cited
Carson, R. Silent spring. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962, or later issue)
[ISBN 0141184949].
Giddens, A. Beyond Left and Right: the future of radical politics. (Cambridge:
Polity, 1994) [ISBN 0745614396].
Gore, A. Earth in the balance: forging a new common purpose. (London:
Earthscan, 1992; revised edition) [ISBN 1844074846].
Lovelock, J. The revenge of Gaia. (New York: Basic Books, 2006)
[ISBN 046504168X].
Meadows, D.H., J. Randers, D.L. Meadows and W. Behrens III The limits
to growth: a report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of
mankind. (New York: University Books, 1972) [ISBN 0876631650].
Nash, R. Wilderness and the American mind. (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1973) [ISBN 0300091222].
Robertson, R. Globalisation: social theory and global culture. (Thousand Oaks:
Sage, 1992) [ISBN 0803981872].
Ward, B. and R. Dubos Only one Earth. (New York: Deutsch, 1972)
[ISBN 0140216014].
WRI (World Resources Institute) A guide to the global environment. (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1990) [ISBN 0195062310].
Introduction
Global environmental problems are now on everyone’s minds. For many
people, we are living in a time of crisis: urgent action is needed.
At present, the most pressing public concern is anthropogenically induced
climate change. According to Sir John Houghton, a senior scientist
from the United Kingdom, ‘Global warming is now a weapon of mass
destruction’ (Houghton, 2003).1 The 1990s were the ‘warmest decade
for 1,000 years’. Globally, 1997, 1998 and 2002 were the hottest years
since records began in 1861. Possibly related to these trends, the US
mainland was struck by 562 tornados in May 2003, killing 41 people,
14
1
www.guardian.co.uk/
politics/2003/jul/28/
environment.greenpolitics
(accessed 15 July 2009).
Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems?
and pre-monsoon temperatures in India in 2003 reached a blistering
49˚C (120˚F) − 5˚C (9˚F) above normal, killing 1,500 people. Another
British scientist, Sir David King, said, ‘In my view, climate change is the
most severe problem that we are facing today, more serious even than the
threat of terrorism.’2 This scientist specified the United States of America
as the primary blockage for a failure to address these concerns. The USA,
he said, must take the threat of global warming more seriously.
2
www.worldviewof
globalwarming.org
Environmental problems, clearly, are a topic of major concern and have
grave implications for international politics. But what are we to do to
address them? And what form of politics might make action more effective?
This initial chapter outlines some underlying assumptions and political
challenges concerning ‘global’ environmental problems. Global
environmental problems are controversial but this does not mean we
should think they do not exist. Rather, we need to understand the
limitations we have on understanding them in their entirety, and how
some actors may seek to represent them in ways that justify different
policies. A political approach does not necessarily agree with how
problems are represented, but instead seeks to see who wins and loses by
presenting information in different ways.
In the first instance this chapter looks at how global environmentalism has
emerged as a political force, and some of the controversies that underlie
global environmental politics. These challenges then present a good
platform for analysing theoretical approaches to political agreements in
Chapter 2.
The rise of global environmentalism
Different views of environmentalism
Environmentalism is a very common concern today, yet there are many
types of environmentalism. Any discussion of environmental politics
should therefore acknowledge that there is no ‘one’ environmental
viewpoint, and instead that environmental values and priorities can vary
between different actors, countries, or social groups.
This idea is both important and controversial for this course. Much worry
about ‘global’ environmental politics can imply that the entire planet (or
‘globe’) is at risk from environmental change, and consequently that all
people and living things are also in danger. In turn, it might be implied
that environmental policies will accordingly benefit everyone. But these
ideas are also highly contested – not just by people who try to downplay
environmental problems, but also by different types of environmentalist.
Accordingly, one of the biggest themes of global environmental problems
and politics is in identifying how far global environmental changes do
present a problem for all people; and how far proposed policies do, or do
not, include the viewpoints of all.
So why is environmentalism so divided? Let’s look at some of the most
important views of environmentalism, and how these relate to global
environmental politics.
Perhaps the best known environmental position is what academics call
‘deep-green’ or ‘ecocentric’ visions of environmentalism. ‘Deep greens’
believe that the fragility of the Earth is the most important consideration
in environmental policy. Usually, they see human activities as controlled
by natural limits such as the maximum carrying capacity for human or
other populations. Deep-green environmentalists are worried that human
15
166 Global environmental problems and politics
growth – in terms of population or economic development – will threaten
these environmental limits and lead to societal collapse or political
and economic shocks such as famine and conflict. Some well-known
environmental writers and activists who fall into this group include Lester
Brown (the co-founder of the Worldwatch Institute) and Paul Ehrlich (who
has written about the potential problems of population growth).
Most deep-green environmentalists are influenced by the writings of the
British cleric Thomas Malthus, whose Essay on the principle of population
(published in two versions in 1798 and 1803) predicted that population
growth would outstrip food production. Some of the most influential
environmental writings in recent years have been Malthusian. For
example, the book entitled The limits to growth (Meadows et al.) was
published in 1972 and predicted how far reserves of natural resources
would last under current rates of economic growth. The book concluded
that – unless rapid reductions in growth were made – there would be
rapid economic decline and that ‘Short of a world effort, today’s already
explosive gaps and inequalities will continue to grow larger. The outcome
can only be disaster’ (p.195).
Similarly, many deep-green writings emphasise the global nature of
environmental problems, and the need for all human society to live
within global limits. For example, the scientist James Lovelock (2006) has
described the ‘Gaia’ concept, in which he sees the entire Earth as a single
living system that is fragile to the impacts of humans. He has argued that
unless humanity can reduce these impacts, some billions of people are likely
to die as a result of climate change and other environmental degradation.
But in contrast to this group, there are other forms of environmentalism
that place less emphasis on a notion of fragile and universal ‘nature’.
Instead, these other groups look at the ability of technological innovation
to provide ways of avoiding environmental problems, or the political and
social bias in how environmental problems are defined.
Members of the first of these groups are sometimes called ‘light greens’
because they acknowledge the existence of environmental problems,
but are more optimistic about the ability of human societies to find
ways to avoid them. For this reason, this group is sometimes also called
‘technocentric’ because it is concerned with how technological innovation
or social reorganisation could minimise pressure on ‘natural’ limits. A good
example of a writer from this group is the Danish woman, Ester Boserup,
whose book The conditions of agricultural growth (1965) argued that
Malthusian collapse was unlikely if people were able to anticipate limits,
and adopt innovations to help increase food production or decrease the
impacts of human activities. For example, irrigated rice terraces have been
introduced in many parts of the world in order to improve food production.
Other analysts have argued that market mechanisms will operate to
reduce pressure on resources by making substitute products more
attractive and accessible. For example, The limits to growth predicted that
many metals such as copper would become scarce as economic growth
continued. But copper is still mined, and many previous uses of copper
have been superseded by more efficient resources (e.g. the replacement
of much copper wiring by fibre optics). This sort of trend encouraged
technological optimists to point out that the most important determinants
of environmental scarcity were not natural limits, but the limits to human
innovation. Or, as is commonly said, the Stone Age did not end because
of a shortage of stone. Indeed, in 1980, deep-green environmentalist Paul
Ehrlich entered into a wager with the technological optimist, Julian Simon,
16
Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems?
to test this assertion. Ehrlich believed that commodity prices would be
higher by 1990 as the results of resource scarcity and population growth
began to show. Simon argued they would be cheaper. Simon won the bet.
The technocentric, light-green approach to environmentalism is
important as it is often encountered today in arguments about climate
change or other global environmental problems. Should we restrict
economic growth? Or should we redirect market growth in order to
encourage the use of new technologies? These matters are discussed in
later chapters, especially concerning technology transfer and the role
of business. In addition, the deep-green approach to environmentalism
tends to suggest that the best way of avoiding problems is through a
process of mitigation, or the reduction in the causes of problems, such
as increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. On the other hand, more
technological and optimistic approaches discuss adaptation as a way of
avoiding environmental problems or trying to make them less damaging.
Again, these themes are discussed later on.
But there is another approach to environmentalism that can be said to be
different from the deep or light green. This last group focuses instead on
the politics of sustainable development, and of the international equity
in how environmental problems are created and addressed. The views of
this group have three important implications for the discussion of global
environmental problems and politics.
First, they question how far the current understanding of environmental
change is truly ‘global’ in the sense that it presents equal challenges for
all countries or peoples. This group therefore disagrees with deep-green
descriptions of global environmentalism because they see environmental
problems as more varied, and as related to the context and values of
different people.
Secondly, this group questions how far technological or market-based
responses to environmental scarcity are available across the world. They
point out that technology adaptations are not easily accessible to everyone.
And thirdly, they argue that the incidence of environmental problems
is closely linked to the vulnerability of different countries, peoples or
individuals to the challenges posed by environmental change; and by their
own political or economic ability to develop responses to these challenges.
It is important to note that this group does not deny the existence of
environmental problems, nor do they question the role of technology.
Rather, they focus on the issue of international equity – often along North–
South lines – on which environmental problems are addressed, what
kinds of solutions are proposed, and who wins and loses as a result of
these policies. A key part of this approach is to enquire about how (and by
whom) global environmental problems are identified as ‘global’ and how
proposed solutions impact on different countries and social groups.
The rest of this chapter expands on this position, and on why calling
environmental problems ‘global’ is more political than commonly thought.
Activity 1.1
Spend a few moments thinking about your own environmental beliefs and your
own motivation for learning more about global environmental problems. Are you a
‘deep green’? Do you believe strongly about the different levels of vulnerability to
environmental problems between richer and poorer countries? How do you views differ
from other people you know?
17
166 Global environmental problems and politics
The social origins of environmentalism
This section looks at how environmentalism might vary between different
social groups and people, and how this might be relevant to ‘global’
environmental problems and politics.
Have a look at Figure 1.1. This diagram was developed by the US historian
of environmental movements, Roderick Fraser Nash (1973). Nash
conducted a historical study of environmental perceptions in the USA and
the dates when different environmental organisations emerged. His basic
argument was that environmentalism – or the perception of wilderness as
beautiful and threatened – was partly the result of other social processes
such as urbanisation and industrialisation. The diagram shows two curves.
One rises from the bottom left to the top right and represents how society
perceives ‘nature’ as beautiful, as society becomes more developed (or
industrialised and urbanised). The second curve falls downward from the
top left to the bottom right, and is meant to represent the appreciation
of ‘civilisation’ (or high levels of industry and urban life) as development
proceeds.
Marginal
value
High
Marginal value
of civilisation
Marginal value
of nature
Nature
appreciation
Medium
Low
Nature importing
Nature exporting
Degree of development/time
Figure 1.1: A proposed relationship of levels of development and the perception
of nature as beautiful.
Source: adapted from Nash (1973) p.346
Nash’s argument is that most undeveloped societies perceive more value
in an advanced life than in a relatively undeveloped lifestyle. But many
citizens in highly industrialised or urbanised societies begin to perceive
‘natural’ areas such as forests, or wilderness, as healthy antidotes to
modern life. Clearly, this argument does not work in all circumstances, and
is also a bit clumsy. Do all urban people really appreciate environment?
Do all rural people want to live in cities, being unable to appreciate the
landscape around them? These generalisations are too mechanical – not
everyone thinks this way.
But at the same time, Nash’s diagram raises some important questions
about how far some of these trends may be true at a general level. For
example, it is true that the main national environmental organisations
inside the USA such as the Sierra Club (1892) and National Audubon
Society (1905) were incorporated during the times when industrialisation
and urbanisation were reaching their peak in the USA. National parks such
as Yosemite in California were formed shortly afterwards.
18
Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems?
Similarly, from an international perspective, might it also be true that
many environmentalists in Europe and North America are most concerned
about loss of rainforests, and declining numbers of exotic wildlife in
developing countries than problems of environmental pollution in their
own countries? Indeed, according to one study in Germany in 1998, some
86 per cent of the German population were anxious about rainforest
destruction, more so than other national concerns.3
Some analysts also suggest that Nash’s diagram raises important class
issues. Higher- (or middle-) class people might be more likely to see
wilderness as threatened than lower- (or working-) class people. Indeed,
some theorists such as the sociologist Anthony Giddens (1994) have
argued that environmentalism in more developed societies marks a
growing sense of a loss of tradition, or the sense of displacement that
occurs as a result of new working conditions, distance from birthplaces,
and the multiple roles that modern individuals are required to perform
(such as office worker, family member, or neighbour, in various locations)
in contrast to older social roles, which tended to be less diverse and
generally in one location. Accordingly, the most powerful voices behind
environmentalism might only come from a particularly developed sector of
society rather than all classes or levels of development.
‘Germans turning
Green with anxiety’, The
Times, No. 66, 393, 29
December 1998,
p. 10 in Stott, P.
Tropical rainforest.
(London: IEA, 1999) p.8.
3
These social trends have importance for global environmental problems
and politics because they indicate that different societies and sometimes
different countries may have varying levels of environmental concern and
awareness. In turn, this variation raises some important questions:
• Do political concerns about global environmental problems reflect only
the interests of some countries and social groups, which may not relate
equally to all other societies and countries?
• Or is it the responsibility of environmental activists and leading
countries to make other countries aware of the risks coming from
global environmental problems?
Activity 1.2
Write 300 words on the different forms of environmentalism that you are aware of,
perhaps in your own country. Are there class differences? Are there clear differences
between different NGOs or other organisations in terms of who they represent?
The history of global environmental meetings
Environmentalism, of course, is not simply the result of industrialisation,
urbanisation and class formation. A growing volume of scientific research
has provided evidence of important environmental changes and the
probable impact of human activities. Yet, the focus of this research, and
the political debates concerning these findings, are always embedded in
political values and processes too.
Global environmentalism was really born during the 1960s. At this time a
number of key environmental concerns emerged in developed countries,
coupled with the publication of some important and influential books
about environment. For example, Rachel Carson’s famous book, Silent
spring (1962) focused on the use of pesticides on ecosystems. For her,
the ‘silent’ spring would occur when birds died because of a lack of food
and the impact of pesticides on birds themselves. The discovery of large
amounts of mercury poisoning in the Minamata region of Japan was
linked to rapid industrialisation. Oil and other forms of pollution in the
19
166 Global environmental problems and politics
Great Lakes of the USA/Canada and in Europe helped to inspire national
environmental movements that in turn led to an increased consciousness
of global problems and the connectivities between economic activity in
some countries and environmental impacts elsewhere.
Box 1.1 lists the most important international meetings on ‘global’
environment. There have been many other meetings, of course, but
these are the ones that most people refer to as milestones of how global
environmentalism has been addressed.
1972: United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm);
key book: Only one Earth (Dubos and Ward, 1972).
1980s: World Commission on Environment and Development (the
Brundtland Commission), reporting in Our common future (WCED,
1987).
1992: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio,
the ‘Earth Summit’), signed Framework Conventions on Climate Change
and Biodiversity, Agenda 21.
2002: United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development (the
Rio+10 Summit, Johannesburg), various discussions of poverty, health, and
new political approaches involving partnerships between states and nonstate actors.
Box 1.1: Key milestones in international environmental meetings.
The so-called Stockholm meeting in 1972 was important for many
reasons. The meeting came in the same year as the publication of The
limits to growth (see above), and consequently much debate at Stockholm
considered the possibility of resource shortage or famines. Some classic
dividing lines between richer and poorer countries were established at the
meeting. For example, the US government reflected the concerns of some
prominent conservationist NGOs by seeking a ban on whaling and other
measures to protect endangered species. However, it also resisted attempts
from some other countries to restrict industrial pollution or to start a ban
on nuclear weapons testing. The Soviet Union boycotted the conference.
Meanwhile, perhaps the most influential moment of the Stockholm
Conference occurred when the Indian prime minister, Indira Gandhi, made
a speech in which she said that ‘poverty’ was the world’s most important
environmental problem. The point of this speech was to ask the richer
countries help poorer countries such as India develop quicker in order to
have a greater ability to address environmental problems. Indira Gandhi’s
speech helped cement important principles for later discussions.
First, the principle of the ‘Right to Development’ was adopted at the
conference. This principle asserted that poorer countries should not be
penalised by environmental policy, and that economic development should
come first.
The second theme was the assumption, still held by many policymakers,
that poor people are more likely to cause environmental damage than
richer people. This belief is extremely controversial because it tends to
focus on the impacts of poor farmers or city dwellers through activities
such as agricultural expansion into forest areas, using wood fuel for
energy, or affecting air quality by burning cheap fuel. It does not give
equal consideration to the higher levels of consumption among richer
sections of society, or within richer countries. As we shall see later on in
this chapter, these disputes have emerged at other times in the analysis of
global environmental problems and politics.
20
Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems?
A final reflection of the Stockholm Conference was on how far we could
identify ‘global’ environmental problems as uniform and shared by all.
The book published by the Conference was called Only one Earth, by Rene
Dubos and Barbara Ward (1972). The title of this book reflected the wellknown concern of many environmentalists that we need to be concerned
about global limits because we live on one planet. Yet, the overriding
conclusion from the discussions at the Conference was that the world
was severely divided between rich and poor, and with strongly divided
environmental values. In social terms, if not ultimately in physical terms,
this was hardly ‘one’ Earth.
Conferences after Stockholm
By the 1980s, it was clear that a new approach to environment was
needed. Catastrophes predicted in books such as The limits to growth had
not occurred. Critics, however, suggested that smaller versions of these
possible collapses had already happened in specific locations in Africa or
Bangladesh where famine, cyclones or other disasters had overwhelmed
societies. Some ‘deep-green’ critics suggested that the ultimate collapse in
environmental quality would still occur. Other, more development-oriented
thinkers instead proposed that these smaller level crises in specific
countries indicated a need to see environmental problems as linked to
local political and economic capacities, rather than predefined ecological
limits.
Some of the pessimism of the 1970s was replaced, however, by a 1980s
faith in market forces, which influenced the two main policy events that
shaped how global environmental problems and politics were seen in
the 1980s and 1990s. The first main event in the 1980s was the World
Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), which was
also called the Brundtland Commission because it was convened under
the leadership of the Norwegian Prime Minister, Gro Brundtland. The
Brundtland Commission was a series of meetings between experts and
representatives of different countries (shared between richer and poorer
countries, as well as those under communist rule). The commission made
its report in the 1987 book, Our common future (WCED, 1987).
The book made a number of recommendations about how to integrate
economic growth and environmental protection. Unlike the outright worry
about economic growth in The limits to growth, Our common future sought
to explore ways to ensure that growth and conservation could occur at the
same time. Its most famous quotation was the definition of sustainable
development that has been widely adopted since:
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs. (WCED, 1987, p.43)
This statement reiterates the right to development, and presents economic
growth in terms of its ability to continue (or to continue to provide
livelihoods and income) rather than specifically in terms of environmental
impacts. It is a definition that allows developing countries the right to
grow, but acknowledges the concern that rapid industrialisation and
growth could do more harm than good.
At the same time, it was clear that this definition was very general and
posed many questions. Some of these questions were asked in another
influential book, Sustainable development: exploring the contradictions by
Michael Redclift (1987). He looked at this famous quotation and asked:
what are acceptable needs? Who defines them? Can we assume we all
21
166 Global environmental problems and politics
speak with the same voice and interests? Can we speak on behalf of people
in the future, and what their needs might be? Who defines what kind of
development is acceptable? Can we really understand the impact of human
activity now on complex and changing physical systems? He also pointed
out a concern about the definition of sustainable development that has been
repeated at various times since, namely that many richer countries define
it in terms of intergenerational concerns (how far development today
might impact on future generations) while many developing countries see
it in terms of current spatial inequalities (inequalities between the
vulnerability of different countries, or the ability of different countries to
adapt to changes or implement policies).
In addition, the late 1980s saw a rise in multilateral environmental
agreements (MEAs). For example, the Vienna Convention (1985) (and
later Montreal Protocol, 1987) established legally binding guidelines for
countries to deal with ozone-depleting substances (discussed in more detail
in Chapter 2).
The major policy event of the 1990s was the so-called Earth Summit in Rio
in 1992. This conference (also called the UN Conference on Environment
and Development) saw the first legally binding agreements between
countries on climate change and biodiversity. These agreements are
described in more detail in Chapter 3 (climate change) and Chapter 10
(biodiversity). Yet it is worth noting that they came in the early 1990s after
much public concern in richer countries about the impact of deforestation
and industrialisation on climate. Moreover, the planners of the Earth
Summit originally intended to have a third convention on the protection
of forests, but this suggestion was rejected by the main countries with
tropical forests (notably Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia) because it was
seen to be interfering with the rights of these countries to use their
resources in the way that richer countries had already done. Indeed, the
disagreement about how to treat forests within global environmental
policy was a classic example of how different countries have seen ‘global’
environmental problems in different ways (see Chapter 11 for more
information about forests).
After these conventions were agreed, there were meetings about each
one that produced timelines and objectives. These are discussed in later
chapters. In 2002, the United Nations held a further meeting on global
environment and development in Johannesburg. This meeting was the
World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD, or ‘Rio+10’). It did not
have to discuss climate change or biodiversity, because there were already
meetings planned to advance these agreements. But the Johannesburg
meeting broke new ground by focusing almost exclusively on the dilemmas
faced by poorer nations such as extreme poverty and insufficient drinking
water. The summit also focused on new forms of governance that would
allow states and non-state actors (such as companies and large NGOs) to
forge partnerships that would enable them to implement environmental
policies more effectively at the local level, rather than creating new treaties
addressing new topics of environmental concern.
Theorising ‘global’ environmental problems
The attention given to global environmental problems, therefore, has
changed over time, and has involved different perspectives, and the varying
involvement of different countries and actors. These views are likely to
continue to change.
22
Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems?
Moreover, it is now clear that ‘global’ environmental problems present
great complexity in how they are caused, how they impact on different
people and places and in terms of how they are evaluated. What steps can
we take to clarify global environmental problems, or classify them into
different types?
This subject guide – not just this chapter – is devoted to defining and
theorising global environmental problems and politics. But at this
early stage it is possible to suggest some underlying ways to see global
environmental problems that offer insights into them. Two themes may be
considered: the physical extent of problems, and the social perception of
them as ‘global’.
Physical extents of ‘global’ environmental problems
In an important paper in 1990, the US environmental scientist Billie Lee
Turner defined two types of global environmental problem (Turner, 1990).
Systemic environmental problems are global because they are caused
by a change in a global system. Under this approach, a change in one
location in the global system will impact upon the rest of the system. Plus,
a solution to the global system need not be located in the same place as
the cause of the disturbance to the system. For example, the release of
ozone-depleting substances in one country will impact on the entire ozone
layer. Reducing ozone-depleting substances in a different country will help
reduce the impact of the damaged ozone layer in other countries.
Cumulative environmental problems are global because they occur
globally, but are not necessarily linked to a global system. For example,
biodiversity loss might be called a cumulative problem because it is
occurring in many places simultaneously. There is no necessary physical
link between biodiversity loss in one country and in another. Consequently,
protecting biodiversity in one location will be restricted to that location.
Activity 1.3
Make a list of ways in which climate change might be considered a systemic or
cumulative global environmental problem. This is a difficult task. Many observers see
climate change only in systemic terms because it is connected to greenhouse gas
concentrations in the global atmosphere. But at the same time, climate change may be
considered cumulative because the impacts and causes of climate change vary between
places. We shall return to this theme when we look at the controversies of climate change
in Chapters 3 and 4.
The social perception of ‘global’ problems
The definition of global environmental problems as either systemic or
cumulative, however, does not account for the fact that some problems are
assumed to be global by scientific research, media, and public debate.
In another influential paper, sociologists Peter Taylor and Fred Buttel
argued that we need to understand the role of discourse in making
us believe in the reality of certain environmental problems, or in how
environmental changes might impact on society as a whole (Taylor and
Buttel, 1992). The word ‘discourse’ refers to how the language we use can
help create a sometimes controversial vision of reality in hidden ways. It
can be used to discuss various aspects of global environmental problems
and politics because it refers to how problems are framed and discussed
in ways that can sometimes shape how they are defined or addressed (see
Box 1.2).
23
166 Global environmental problems and politics
Discourses are the hidden assumptions about the world that we carry in
everyday speech. A discourse ‘creates’ (or reifies) a vision of reality when
people use this language in ways that do not question these assumptions.
For example, newspapers, politicians and environmentalists might talk of
environmental change as a global risk. This is a cognitive statement, and
is designed to make people more worried about environmental problems.
But if these statements also assume that environmental risks occur because
the world has fixed limits, or that fast-growing countries pose the greatest
environmental threats, then these less explicit meanings might be a form of
hidden discourse. The analysis of discourse within political debate aims to
make these assumptions more transparent, and consequently make political
debate more informed and less based on assumptions.
‘A discourse is a shared way of apprehending the world. Embedded
in language, it enables those who subscribe to it to interpret bits of
information and put them together into coherent studies or accounts. Each
discourse rests on assumptions, judgments, and contentions that provide
the basic terms for analysis, debates, agreements and disagreements, in the
environmental area no less than elsewhere.’ (Dryzek, 1997, p.8)
Box 1.2: Discourse.
Taylor and Buttel asked: are global environmental problems ‘global’
because they occur everywhere, or because we have grown used to talking
about them as global? Similarly, is global environmentalism building a
‘global’ community that holds up this discourse?
These authors applied these questions to the assumptions made in The
limits to growth model of 1972. They argued that this model was based
on assumptions about human behaviour that were difficult to apply to all
societies around the world. In particular, Taylor and Buttel argued that the
model assumed that each individual acts in an economically rational way –
based on the assumption that each person will always maximise economic
returns, or their personal gains from resource use, and in competition
with each other. They argued that these assumptions do not work for
all societies, and consequently the prediction of catastrophe coming
from The limits to growth could only occur if we assumed that ‘global’
society acted in a globally uniform way. Yet, despite this risky claim, The
limits to growth book and idea became very influential and is still seen
by some environmentalists as a reasonable prediction of environmental
reality. As a result, Taylor and Buttel argued that we needed to see the
role of global discourse as an important force in convincing people about
‘global’ environmental problems. They wrote: ‘We know we have global
environmental problems, in part, because we act as if we are a unitary and
not a differentiated “we”’ (Taylor and Buttel, 1992, p.406).
Taylor and Buttel’s work also highlighted the importance of globalisation
within environmental politics (see Box 1.3). Globalisation is often referred
to as the increasing economic connections between manufacturing and
investment. But it can also refer to how communication of ideas between
different locations can be affected by culture and discourse. The ‘globalisation’
of environmentalism and environmental discourse therefore might affect
how environmental problems are seen, and what political solutions are
considered acceptable. We discuss this theme more when we analyse different
approaches to environmental regimes in Chapter 2, and especially the role
of so-called ‘knowledge regimes’. Knowledge regimes are a way of building
environmental policy by gradually persuading states and citizens to adopt
new knowledge, or see the importance of certain environmental values.
24
Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems?
Some analysts of global environmental problems, however, see the role of
globalisation as crucial. The Indian writer Vandana Shiva has argued that
the increasing management of ‘global’ environmental problems by large
international organisations such as the World Bank or United Nations can
only mean that the viewpoints of poorer countries and people are ignored.
She once wrote:
The ‘local’ has disappeared from environmental concern.
Suddenly, it seems only ‘global’ environmental problems exist,
and it is taken for granted that their solution can only be
‘global’… The ‘global’ in the dominant discourse is the political
space in which a particular local seeks global control, and frees
itself of local, national and international restraints. The global
does not represent the universal human interest, it represents a
particular local and parochial interest which has been globalized
through the scope of its reach. (Shiva, 1993, p.149)
This quotation indicates an approach to globalisation that believes
the political pressure of large organisations is shaping environmental
policy in damaging ways. Globalisation, in terms of increasing private
investment and connectivity around the world, or in terms of increasingly
shared discourse, is an important theme in the political analysis of global
environmental politics. Box 1.3 summarises some of the key points about
globalisation.
Social scientists usually see two meanings of the word globalisation. Socalled ‘economic globalisation’ occurs when there is increasing connectivity
between investment and economic activity in different locations around
the globe. For example, the increasing presence of factories in developing
countries might be called globalisation if the factories are owned by
international companies, or if they provide products for different countries.
Economic changes in one country might therefore impact on another
country because of globalisation.
So-called ‘cultural globalisation’ occurs when people start talking about
the globe as a single place, or when cultural forms of expression start
co-existing in different locations. For example, the presence of Indian
clothes, dress and music in new locations might be considered cultural
globalisation, or the trend towards seeing different forms of culture coexisting in the same place.
Globalisation is important for global environmental problems and
politics because the economic form might explain the growth of certain
environmental risks such as pollution. The cultural form might also
influence how environmental problems are seen in different locations, or
which policy approaches are considered relevant. We discuss this more
when we look at environmental regimes in Chapter 2.
‘Globalisation as a concept refers both to the compression of the world and
the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole.’
(Robertson, 1992, p.8)
Box 1.3: Globalisation.
Activity 1.4
Write a few words about one example of a global environmental problem where there
are controversies about how it occurs, or how it is evaluated by different countries. Then
consider how far these controversies are affected by media or information distributed by
NGOs or other actors.
25
166 Global environmental problems and politics
North versus South?
As Vandana Shiva’s statement suggests, many disagreements about global
environmental problems are often described in terms of richer versus
poorer countries, or North versus the global South.
It is, of course, too simple to reduce all environmental controversies to
the differences between richer and poorer countries. But, that said, there
are some general trends that occur frequently in global environmental
politics. These trends have been discussed earlier in terms of the diagram
from Nash (1973), or the conflicts between countries at the Stockholm
Conference.
In simple terms, some of the classic differences between North and South
may be summarised as follows.
For many environmentalists in richer countries, the rapid growth of
developing countries such as Brazil, India and China represents severe
risks to the planet. These countries have immense populations, and will
demand more and more food, electricity, fuel and other commodities.
Many of them have some of the most important tropical forests,
biodiversity or areas of wilderness but comparatively low levels of
environmental awareness about global problems such as climate change.
The political capacity of states or other actors to implement environmental
policies is also low but there is an urgent need to transfer environmentally
sound technologies to rapidly developing countries, and to create
environmental regulations that work in these challenging conditions.
Yet, for many developing countries, the current worries about global
environmental problems from richer countries raise some important
additional concerns. Why should developing countries, which are
poorer, and have immense developmental problems, take responsibility
for addressing environmental problems? Why should they not develop
first, and worry about environment second? In some cases, such as
deforestation or industrialisation, richer countries have been contributing
to problems longer than many developing countries, so it seems unfair that
poorer countries should take responsibility. Furthermore, many developing
countries have not received levels of aid that were promised some years
back, and consequently any additional help relating to environment should
not replace existing commitments to assistance. Indeed, some aspects of
climate change might impact most on developing countries and hence it
is only right that they should get assistance. Richer countries have not
yet transferred technologies to developing countries and many resist
the access of poorer countries to international trade. Most importantly,
environmental worries should not be used as reasons to prevent poorer
countries gaining access to the wealth that has been enjoyed by richer
countries for years.
Many of these debates are discussed later in this subject guide (e.g.
technology transfer is described in Chapter 7). But it is fair to say that
many political controversies about global environmental problems occur
between North and South.
Sometimes the origins of controversies lie in the very definition of
problems, and how these definitions reflect different environmental
values. A famous example of this occurred in the dispute between the
Washington DC-based think tank, the World Resources Institute (WRI) and
the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a Delhi-based NGO, in the
early 1990s.
26
Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems?
In 1990, WRI published one of the first reports that allocated potential
national responsibilities for greenhouse gas emissions, in the build-up
to the Rio Earth Summit (WRI, 1990). This report was politically astute.
Many citizens of the USA were concerned about the loss of tropical forest
and possible climate change. WRI used an index later published in 1991
that gave substantial weight to current deforestation rates and to the
predicted release of methane from wet rice and livestock. As a result, the
report put Brazil, India and China among the top six emitting countries.
The publication of this report created much resentment among
developing countries. In particular, the CSE (and especially the activists
Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain, 1991) pointed out that the WRI report
referred to national statistics but not to per capita emissions, which, of
course, were much smaller in developing countries than in developed
countries. Secondly, the index used simplistic estimates for deforestation
and methane emissions. For example, wet-rice methane estimates were
extrapolated globally from studies in Italian rice fields. There was no
acknowledgement of the diverse ways in which deforestation may occur.
Deforestation might occur because food production for poor people had
increased, which is ethically different to other forms of deforestation.
There was also no accurate guide to the kinds of ecosystem (including new
forests) that could replace forests that were cut. Perhaps most importantly,
the index did not acknowledge the historical importance of deforestation
or industrialisation in developed countries (greenhouse gases exist in the
atmosphere for many years).
These questions are important for global environmental probes and
politics. In one sense, the WRI report was entirely accurate in looking
at current sources of greenhouse gases and relating these to national
states. In another sense, it made many culpable assumptions that gave
a highly simplistic explanation of how greenhouse gas concentrations or
deforestation arose. At worst it might be portrayed by some as a document
that seeks to support policies that overlook poverty in developing countries,
and wants to restrict the right of developing countries to use resources.
Some later proposals for governing climate change and biodiversity loss
have been criticised in the same way.
Adaptation and mitigation
The implications of these disputes about global environmental problems
are that there are still important disagreements about how to address
environmental problems in effective ways. One important division is in
how much emphasis is given to the mitigation of environmental problems,
compared with adaptation to them.
• Mitigation refers to policies or actions that reduce the size of
an environmental change. For example, any action that reduces
greenhouse gas concentrations might be called mitigation because it
is reducing the physical process that creates anthropogenic climate
change. Mitigation is considered by many people to be the most
effective means of addressing environmental problems because it
reduces their cause. It should also be clear that mitigation tends to
work best when environmental problems are considered to be systemic.
If climate change is considered to be systemic, then mitigating climate
change can be achieved through acts that reduce greenhouse gas
concentrations at any point in the world.
27
166 Global environmental problems and politics
• Adaptation, however, is any response that reduces the impact of an
environmental change. Analysts generally see two forms of adaptation.
The first refers to physical actions or technologies that can reduce the
impact of physical environmental changes. For example, a storm shelter
or a system of water storage tanks can help reduce the impacts of a
flood, storm or drought. The second form of adaptation is to diversify
social, economic and cultural behaviour that might make the impacts
of change less damaging to people’s ways of life. For example, the
potential impacts of rising sea levels might be less if it were possible
for people to depend on the sea for incomes instead of agricultural
land. Most policymakers, however, agree that adaptation can be hard to
achieve in many developing countries where technological capacity is
low, or where poverty makes it hard to diversify options.
Of course, most environmental policymakers agree that both mitigation
and adaptation should be adopted at the same time. But there are still
many barriers to both. For example, some deep-green activists see any
form of adaptation as a way of avoiding dealing with the underlying cause
of change, which is dangerous interference with the earth’s natural limits.
Ex-US Vice President Al Gore even took this view in his first book about
environment, Earth in the balance. He wrote:
believing that we can adapt to just about anything is ultimately
a kind of laziness, an arrogant faith in our ability to react in time
to save our skin. (Gore, 1992, p.240)
Gore now adopts a more positive approach to the role of adaptation. In
an interview in 2008, he said: ‘I used to think adaptation subtracted from
our efforts on prevention. But I’ve changed my mind... Poor countries are
vulnerable and need our help.’4
But the tensions between mitigation and adaptation raise various
important questions for global environmental policy. In philosophical
terms, if a society is infinitely adaptable to environmental change, it
radically reduces the extent to which an environmental problem is actually
‘problematic’. Of course, very few environmentalists or policymakers
suggest that societies should try to become immune to environmental
change. There are many ethical, economic or cultural reasons to conserve
environments or avoid risks. But the point is that many environmental
problems are considered problematic because of assumptions we make
about their impact. If we can reduce their impact, or re-evaluate how we
see them, then the nature of environmental problems changes too.
We return to these themes when we discuss responses to climate change in
Chapter 4, and the diverse ways in which we can try to address problems
of deforestation in poor countries in Chapter 11.
Summary of this chapter/Conclusion
This initial chapter has introduced the subject guide by reviewing some
basic reasons why the discussion of global environmental problems is
political.
• Worry about global environmental problems has increased markedly
since the 1960s. Yet, calling environmental problems ‘global’ is also a
political act because it makes assumptions about the global extent of a
problem and the vulnerability of different societies to the problem.
• Many deep-green thinkers believe environmental problems are
‘global’ because they believe the world has fixed limits, which we are
dangerously close to testing.
28
‘Adapt or die’,
Economist, 13 September 2008,
www.economist.com/world/
international/displaystory.
cfm?story_id=12208005
4
Chapter 1: What is political about global environmental problems?
• Many historians and sociologists, however, argue that perceptions of
global environmental problems reflect social and cultural changes in
the more advanced economies that have tended to make people value
wilderness and feel uneasy about modern life.
• Many development-oriented thinkers, however, believe that we need
to see how far different societies are vulnerable to environmental
problems before saying any problem is ‘global’.
• Historic international negotiations about the global environment have
shown a strong division between developed and developing countries,
especially concerning the fear that environmentalism might be used as
a request for poorer countries not to industrialise.
• And in turn, these divisions have led to arguments between different
analysts concerning the need to address environmental problems
through mitigation (lessening physical changes) and/or adaptation
(reducing people’s vulnerability to them).
• All of these concerns are relevant to other chapters in this subject
guide, and especially global responses to climate change, biodiversity
loss and deforestation.
A reminder of your learning outcomes
Having completed this chapter, and the Essential readings and activities,
you should be able to:
• critically evaluate different ways that environmental problems may (or
may not!) be described as ‘global’
• outline the various definitions of the word ‘globalisation’ addressing
both its economic and cultural implications (and especially how far
simply talking about global problems tends to create a common identity
and risk for people)
• identify and discuss the reasons why certain political actors might wish
to represent different environmental problems as ‘global’ or not; and
how these political actors are linked to different stages of economic
development
• describe the difference between mitigation and adaptation as responses
to environmental problems using examples of how different policies
might encourage either mitigation or adaptation to climate change.
Sample examination questions
1. Why is it controversial to refer to environmental problems as ‘global’?
(See Question 1 in Appendix 3 for guidance on answering this
question.)
2. With reference to examples, explain how tensions between North
and South have influenced negotiations on global environmental
change. (See Question 2 in Appendix 3 for guidance on answering this
question.)
29
166 Global environmental problems and politics
Notes
30
Chapter 2: Environmental regimes
Chapter 2: Environmental regimes
Aims of the chapter
This second chapter presents some theoretical groundwork for understanding
how international agreements on environmental policy and new approaches
to dealing with environmental problems might emerge. The chapter
particularly focuses on the concept of ‘regimes’, which are shared forms
of responses to environmental problems between different countries and
societies. In turn, the chapter also discusses the relative roles of states and
non-state actors in the formation of regimes. The chapter ends by describing
the emergence of the regime to regulate ozone-depleting substances in the
1980s, which was originally considered by some policymakers to be a good
model for making international environmental regimes.
Learning outcomes
By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential readings
and activities, you should be able to:
• explain the importance of states to international agreements, and the
growing and complementary role of non-state actors such as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and businesses
• define the concept of ‘regime’ and what this means in political science
• summarise the three main approaches to creating regimes, namely
power-based; liberal, interests-based; and knowledge-based
• explain the concept of epistemic community (or communities of
expertise), and how these contribute to expertise and knowledge about
environmental problems
• describe the evolution of the ozone regime with reference to the 1985
Vienna Convention and 1987 Montreal Protocol
• discuss how the experience with ozone became a model for other
environmental regimes, and how this model was then criticised (i.e. the
problems of this model, and the increasing role of sub-state actors in
regime theory, will also be discussed in later chapters).
Essential reading
From your essential textbooks
Axelrod, Regina S., David Leonard Downie and Norman J. Vig (eds) The global
environment: institutions, law and policy. (Washington: Congressional
Quarterly Press, 2005) Chapters 2 and especially 4.
Chasek, Pamela S., David L. Downie and Janet Welsh Brown Global
environmental politics. (Boulder: Westview Press, 2006) Chapter 2 (and
Chapter 3 pp.106–14 for ozone).
Clapp, Jennifer and Peter Dauvergne Paths to a green world: the political
economy of the global environment. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005).
Elliott, Lorraine The global politics of the environment. (New York: NYU Press,
2004) Chapter 4 (and Chapter 3 regarding ozone).
From journals
Haas, P. ‘Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy
coordination’, International Organisation 46(1) 1992, pp.1–35.
31
166 Global environmental problems and politics
Further reading
Falkner, Robert ‘American hegemony and the global environment’, International
Studies Review 7(4) 2005, pp.585–99.
Haas, Peter M. ‘Addressing the global governance deficit’, Global Environmental
Politics 4(4) 2004, pp.1–15.
Haas, Peter M., Robert O. Keohane and Marc A. Levy (eds) Institutions for
the earth: sources of effective international environmental protection.
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993).
Jasanoff, S. ‘Science and norms in global environmental regimes’ in Hampson,
F. and J. Reppy (eds) Earthly goods: environmental change and social justice.
(Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1996) pp.173–97.
Keck, M. and K. Sikkink Activists beyond borders: advocacy networks in
international politics. (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1998).
Keohane R. and Marc A. Levy (eds) Institutions for environmental aid.
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996).
Lahsen, M. ‘Transnational locals: Brazilian epistemes in the climate regime’ in
Jasanoff, S. and M. Long-Martello (eds) Earthly politics: local and global in
environmental politics. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004).
Levy, M.A., O.R. Young and M. Zürn ‘The study of international regimes’,
European Journal of International Relations 1(3) 1995, pp.267–330.
Paterson, M. ‘Institutions for global environmental change’, Global
Environmental Change 7(2) 1997, pp.175–77.
Sand, Peter H. ‘Sovereignty bounded: public trusteeship for common pool
resources?’, Global Environmental Politics 4(1) 2004, pp.47–71.
Vogler, John ‘Taking institutions seriously: how regime analysis can be relevant
to multilevel environmental governance’, Global Environmental Politics 3(2)
2003, pp.25–40.
Young, Oran R. ‘Rights, rules, and resources in world affairs’ in Oran R. Young
(ed.) Global governance: drawing insights from the environmental experience.
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997) pp.1–23.
Concerning the ozone regime
Compare the following approaches:
Benedick, R. Ozone diplomacy: new directions in safeguarding the planet.
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991).
Litfin, K. Ozone discourses: science and politics in global environmental
cooperation. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994).
Works cited
Falkner, Robert ‘The global politics of precaution: explaining international
cooperation on biosafety’ in Brem, Stefan and Ken Stiles (eds) Cooperating
without America: theories and case studies of non-hegemonic regimes.
(London: Routledge, 2009) [ISBN 9780415777278] pp.105–22.
List, M. and V. Rittberger ‘Regime theory and international environmental
management’ in Hurrell, A. and B. Kingsbury (eds) The international politics of
the environment. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992) [ISBN 90198273657] pp.85–109.
States and non-state actors
States
The political analysis of global environmental problems focuses on how
different actors agree and disagree about matters of global environmental
change. In terms of reaching environmental agreements, the most
important international actors are states. The most common form of state
is the nation state, or the state associated with one country or nation such
as the USA, France, Senegal or Brazil.
32
Chapter 2: Environmental regimes
In technical language, states are political associations that claim authority
over a country. They perform the main duties of government such as
running the economy, deciding on foreign policy, as well as forming
military or other forces, the judicial (or legal) frameworks of a country,
and its administrative apparatuses such as the civil service.
States perform two key functions in terms of global environmental
problems and politics. First, they are key actors in negotiating international
agreements about global environmental problems. Any international
agreement such as a convention requires the signature of states. States
then have to ratify these agreements within their own government system.1
The second key function performed by states is to formulate and
implement new policy approaches to addressing environmental problems
domestically. For example, a state might be able to coordinate or encourage
activities among the citizens or businesses located within one country that
can contribute to achieving the objectives of policy. A state might also take
a proactive role in formulating new ideas for environmental policy, such
as by working with business partners to develop new technologies, or new
means of communicating ideas about environmental problems. The state
might then use this approach to address its own population, or take the
innovation and propose it to the international community of other states.
1
Ratification
means passing
any international
agreement through the
domestic parliament
or government system
to gain the support of
the wider government
and to make any
international agreement
legally binding within a
national legal system.
States therefore perform crucial roles in conducting global environmental
politics. But, clearly, there is much diversity between different states
in both their international influence and in their domestic capacity to
formulate and implement policy. For example, the most powerful state
in the world is clearly the USA, and the USA is a key influence on many
global environmental problems and their associated politics. Smaller
states, with smaller populations, gross domestic products, or contribution
to world trade, will have less influence. Similarly, larger states might also
have greater domestic capacity (through, for example, domestic industries)
to implement policies (see the discussion of non-state actors below).
Some theoretical concepts
Academic debates about international relations have adopted various
terms to discuss the influence of states in international negotiations and
governance. It is worth describing some of these terms now as they will be
referred to later in the subject guide.
Larger states with the ability to influence international negotiations are
known as hegemons because they have the ability to instil hegemony,
or dominance, over these agreements. For example, the USA is a good
example of a hegemon in climate-change politics because it is so important
in terms of influencing global greenhouse-gas emissions and international
investment that might be related to climate-change policy. But in terms
of tropical forests, the USA has less influence. Brazil might be considered
hegemonic in this respect because it has so much tropical forest (such as
the Amazon), and consequently more ability to control what happens to
the world’s tropical forests than many other countries. In these cases, a
hegemon is defined as a single power with a predominant position in the
international system. If there are various countries with importance, these
are generally referred to as great powers, rather than hegemons.
It is commonly thought that environmental regimes can only come into
existence if a hegemon agrees. However, there is increasing evidence that
agreements can still be negotiated even if a hegemon is reluctant to be
included. For example, in 2001 the US government withdrew from the
UN’s Kyoto Protocol, but this agreement was still ratified in 2005 because
33
166 Global environmental problems and politics
a sufficient number of other countries agreed. Consequently, the role
of hegemons might not be as powerful as commonly thought. There is
a growing literature on the emergence of non-hegemonic regimes (e.g.
Falkner, 2009). However, of course, if a regime comes into existence
without the involvement of a hegemon, then it is much less able to change
things in the short term.
A related term is sovereignty. All states have sovereignty over their own
jurisdictions and national territories. A sovereign state has the unlimited
right to control everything and every kind of activity in its territory, and
therefore cannot have these rights removed by an international agreement
unless the state agrees to this. This is important for global environmental
politics because any agreement about international environment is limited
to whatever any one state can agree to. Many countries and environmental
activists, for example, would like to influence how the USA regulates its
greenhouse gas emissions or how Brazil treats its forests. But as these
countries have sovereign rights over their domestic policies and territories,
no international actors can influence what happens in these countries unless
they agree to these requests (see Paterson, 1997). Indeed, sovereignty and
the right to develop were enshrined at the Stockholm conference of 1972
(see Chapter 1). Article 21 of the Stockholm Declaration confirmed that
states have ‘sovereign right to exploit [their] own resources and to ensure
that activities… [do] not cause damage to the environment of other states.’
In turn, the ability to influence states through international negotiations
leads to two opposing approaches to understanding how states relate to
each other. Academics use the term realism to refer to the belief that
international politics will be governed by the influence of hegemons
and the principle of self interest between states. If an analyst believes in
realism, they will assume that international agreements can only be made
through acknowledging that hegemons will always get their way. States
may come together to negotiate, but they will do so through a process of
conflicting demands.
In contrast, analysts who take a liberal approach to regimes believe that
cooperation is possible without a hegemon, and that cooperation between
states is still possible despite differing interests. This approach, or specific
varieties of it, is sometimes also called neo-liberal institutionalism. Liberal
approaches to regime theory argue that realists over-simplify the nature
of cooperation and competition between states, and that it is possible for
states to focus on developing rules that can govern international activities
even if individual states are in competition.
The study of global environmental problems and politics is full of
different analysts who adopt either realist or liberal positions. Moreover,
the political responses to environmental problems have varied between
different cases. As this subject guide will show, the global response to the
ozone crisis in the 1980s has been considered by some analysts to be an
example of a successful liberal negotiation between different states (see
later in this chapter). Yet, this approach has been difficult to apply to
climate change (see Chapters 3 and 4).
Activity 2.1
Take a few moments to consider who are the great powers concerning climate change,
biodiversity and forests, and whether these are the same as the usual list of the world’s
most powerful nations. Do any qualify as hegemons? When did different countries
become powerful in each of these areas, and which other states might become important
in the future?
34
Chapter 2: Environmental regimes
Non-state actors
Global environmental politics is not simply a function of states alone.
In recent years the role of non-state actors, political actors that are not
directly linked to a specific state, has been increasing significantly. They
are usually divided into two groups: civil-society actors such as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), and private businesses such as
transnational corporations (TNCs). Some famous environmental NGOs
include Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and Friends of the Earth
(FOE). Some influential TNCs include oil companies such as Exxon and
BP-Amoco, or food production companies such as Monsanto. But non-state
actors do not have to be large corporations or organisations. They can
include smaller social groupings and even individuals such as you and me.
Many academic analysts in recent years have become more optimistic
about the role of non-state actors in global environmental politics. The role
of the state (in activities such as investment or providing infrastructure)
has been shrinking globally since the 1980s, while private businesses
often have more ability to perform economic activities at a local level –
especially in poorer countries. Moreover, NGOs have an important role
in lobbying governments and in educating citizens about environmental
problems, and consequently influencing states.
Yet, at the same time, some other analysts have proposed that states
and non-state actors might be more aligned than commonly thought.
For example, some businesses might influence state policy in ways that
lead to an alliance between states and specific industries. This claim has
been made concerning the oil and coal industries in the USA and the
US participation in climate-change policy in the 1990s (a theme that is
discussed further in Chapter 5). Also, some NGOs might reflect the interests
of certain parts of society or social classes more than others. As discussed
in Chapter 1, some critical social scientists have argued that certain
environmental values linked to wilderness or environmental conservation
might be connected to long-term changes in urbanisation, industrialisation
and overall development. Consequently, the agendas of some NGOs
might be based mainly upon the views of some social classes rather than
all sectors of society, and indeed there might be conflicts between social
groups. For example, critics have suggested that large conservationist NGOs
such as the WWF have promoted policies about forests in countries such as
Indonesia, Tanzania and Brazil that have not always reflected the interests
of poorer people living on forest margins. NGOs are key actors in liberal
approaches to global environmental politics because they seek to share
ideas and bring states together to make new agreements. But critics worry
that the more powerful NGOs might in effect become hegemons within civil
society, and crowd out voices from less powerful NGOs and citizens. (This
theme is discussed more below in regard to knowledge regimes, and the
role of NGOs as actors in environmental regimes is discussed in Chapter 9.)
International organisations
International, or intergovernmental, organisations can also play an
important role in global environmental politics. They include organisations
such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the World Trade
Organization. They perform important duties in overseeing areas of
international activities such as trade, aid, economic monitoring, and in
creating the arenas for international environmental agreements to be
negotiated and then implemented. This subject guide discusses the role of
international financial institutions (the World Bank and Global Environment
Facility) in Chapter 7, and the World Trade Organization in Chapter 8.
35
166 Global environmental problems and politics
Activity 2.2
Write 300 words on the relative importance of different political actors for environmental
politics in your own country. For example, how involved is the state? Are there different
state agencies and ministries with different areas of responsibility? Are international
organisations involved? What kind of environmental civil society is there, and how far
is this controlled by domestic or international organisations? Are there any conflicts
between local and international actors? What kind of business sector is there, and is this
controlled by transnational or domestic investors?
What is a regime?
Most global environmental problems are addressed through regimes.
A regime is a name given to unified behaviour across different states that
can address a political problem. The political theorist Oran Young defines
regimes as:
Social institutions that consist of agreed upon norms, rules,
decision-making procedures, and programs that govern the
interactions of actors in specific issue areas. (Young, 1997, pp.5–6)
And two earlier writers wrote:
[a regime is] a form of collective action by states, based on
shared principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures,
which constrain the behaviour of individual states in specific
issues areas. (List and Rittberger, 1992, p.86)
There are various themes here that need to be explained.
• A regime is a form of institution. An institution is a concept in political
science that refers to shared behaviours or norms that regulate social
activity. They can be composed of formal rules (such as official statebased legislation), or informal behaviour (such as activities that people
adopt, but which are not enforced by law). The Nobel-prize winning
theorist, Douglass C. North defined institutions as follows:
Institutions are the framework that humans create to structure
human interaction. They are made up of formal rules
(constitutions, laws, and regulations) and informal constraints
(conventions and norms of behavior) and the way both are
enforced. (North, 2000)2
• An environmental regime may therefore be comprised of principles,
norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which actors
can converge where there is a given environmental problem or issue.
At times this might mean sharing the same behaviour, or adopting
different means of achieving the same end point.
• They can be state-based activities, such as the adherence to an
international agreement on an environmental problem.
• They can also be comprised of informal activities that are not regulated
by international agreements, but which nonetheless help address
environmental problems.
• These informal activities in particular might involve non-state actors
such as businesses, civil society organisations and citizens. These
actors might be involved by following state-based rules or guidelines
in accordance with domestic or international legislation; or on a more
voluntary, non-coerced basis. For example, many states might regulate
the sale of ozone-depleting substances following the Montreal Protocol
(1987), which is a formal interstate agreement. This treaty makes
36
2
www.hoover.org/
pubaffairs/dailyreport/
archive/2866156.html
(accessed 15 July 2009).
Chapter 2: Environmental regimes
it illegal to buy or sell products that damage the ozone layer. But
many citizens might choose voluntarily to perform environmentally
friendly tasks where there is no international agreement, such as in the
recycling of household waste. In this case, states or NGOs might assist
this process by providing information and guidelines, but there are still
relatively few laws concerning recycling of everyday items.
• The creation of an environmental regime, therefore, need not
necessarily require the signing of an international agreement, if actors
within different states can be persuaded to behave in certain ways.
But sometimes an international agreement is the most effective way to
create change in how societies and actors operate within states.
• Regimes, by definition, challenge the sovereignty of individual
states but they also imply a step towards cooperative behaviour. The
international-relations theorists Levy, Keohane and Haas (1993) wrote
that ‘environmental regimes may limit the scope of governments to act
unilaterally, [but] they also facilitate collective state-based problem
solving’.
• Regimes may be reached by various routes, and can be agreed even if
there are disagreements or competition between states. The next section
discusses different approaches to creating environmental regimes.
Three routes to regimes
Analysts usually argue that there are three main ways of achieving
environmental regimes, which reflect different emphases on realism,
liberalism, and the role of generating knowledge (such as by NGOs). These
are called power-based, interests-based and knowledge-based approaches
to regime formation.
Power-based approach
The power-based approach adopts a realist vision of international relations
under which any possibility of reaching environmental agreements
has to acknowledge the reality that all states will focus on their own
interest. In particular, it will be difficult to persuade hegemons to change
their behaviour if there are no strong pressures upon them to do so.
Alternatively, a hegemon might coerce other states to agree to a regime
the hegemon itself is proposing by using techniques such as threatening to
withdraw assistance, market access, or other benefits that smaller states
might enjoy from the more powerful state.
Academics within international relations might use further specific terms
to refer to power-based regimes. For example, the concept of ‘Hegemonic
Stability Theory’ (HST) assumes that interstate agreement is only possible
if a single actor (the hegemon) has a preponderance of power. Some
hegemons might be considered ‘benign’ if they are facilitators for regimes
(for example, by bearing costs of agreements, or offering technical
assistance). Hegemons might be considered ‘malign’ if they consider
only their own short-term interests, or if they use their influence to resist
the construction of a regime. For example, some analysts have debated
whether the USA might be considered a hegemon in global climate-change
policy. The USA withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 citing that it
was not in its interests to be a party to it. If the treaty failed as a result of
this action, the USA might be called a hegemon, but other states were able
to ratify the agreement. Consequently, some other authors have argued
that the USA might not be called a hegemon in this respect (see Falkner,
2005 and see discussions in Chapters 3 and 4).
37
166 Global environmental problems and politics
These approaches to power-based regimes are influenced by the realist
perspective, which assumes that states will inevitably compete and protect
their own interests. A different approach stems from neo-Marxist thinking
about global capitalism and the relationship between developed and
developing countries.
Under the neo-Marxist approach to regime formation, the most important
source of power is not the willingness of states to protect their own
interests, but the influence of global capitalism as a key factor in deciding
the location of economic power. This approach to regime theory has been
influenced by Dependency Theory, which was an approach to international
development proposed in the late 1950s and 1960s. Dependency Theory
argued that economic growth in the richer, northern countries took place
at a cost to the poorer, southern countries. Consequently, as countries in
Europe and North America grew rich by trade with countries supplying
raw materials, the developing countries that supplied resources became
progressively ‘under-developed’. Proponents of this neo-Marxist theory
therefore argue that the Northern great powers (such as in Europe and
North America) are linked closely to the forces of global capitalism, and
that they will always act to protect their control over trade and economic
production. We discuss some of these arguments in Chapter 5 (about
business) and Chapter 7 (about trade).
Interests-based approach
The interests-based approach to regime formation is influenced by
liberal perspectives on international relations, and the ability of states
to create new regimes despite competition and unequal power relations.
Sometimes, these regimes might be based on the belief that collective
action is necessary in order to avoid a communal disaster. For example,
some theorists of climate-change policy have suggested that a regime
has emerged because states appreciate that not responding to scientific
information will result in damage to all.
Academics sometimes use different terms to refer to behaviour by states
acting in cooperative ways. For example, ‘rational-egoistic’ behaviour by one
state might occur if it acts to persuade other states of the need to follow its
advice about environmental problems. For example, the European Union
has adopted a position of demonstrating international leadership on matters
of climate change by setting itself higher targets to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions than the USA, Japan, or other states. ‘Rational-harmonic’
behaviour might occur when a state and others negotiate and act to reach
mutual agreement on certain matters. Sometimes, international-relations
scholars use the terms ‘neoliberal institutionalism’ and ‘cooperation under
anarchy’ in order to indicate occasions when states can come together
to maximise their collective interests, even when there are incentives for
individual states not to act this way (Keohane and Levy, 1996).
Knowledge-based approach
The third approach refers to the generation and communication of
knowledge about environment as a means to achieve regimes. This
approach moves away from the concerns of traditional interstate
politics and instead emphasises the role of global consensus and social
movements. In turn, this approach also refers more to non-state actors
than the preceding theories about regimes.
A knowledge-based theory of regimes argues that the production of
scientific or environmental knowledge is most important in creating
regimes because it can influence actors’ responses to problems. For
38
Chapter 2: Environmental regimes
example, the production of scientific reports, or the communication of
ideas through media, NGO activism, or social movements can result in
making people more aware of environmental problems. In turn, this can
have one or two practical effects on creating an environmental regime.
First, it might influence a state to take action, perhaps to acknowledge the
growing public support for action about environmental problems. Second,
it might persuade various non-state actors such as citizens and businesses
to take action regardless of an interstate agreement. Both of these results
are, in effect, the creation of an environmental regime.
There are many advantages to understanding regimes through a
knowledge-based approach. First, it stresses the increasing role of nonstate actors such as pressure groups in defining and communicating
concern about environmental problems. Second, it gives welcome
attention to domestic politics as a key influence on international politics.
Third, it shows that the understanding of environmental problems is
often dynamic and evolutionary: regimes usually do not occur because
of government reports and decisions; more often they result from public
debate and worry.
One of the most important questions about knowledge-based explanations
of regimes is ‘where does the knowledge come from?’ This, in turn, leads
to two further concepts that are important for global environmental
problems and politics.
First, the term epistemic communities is used to refer to sources of
authoritative knowledge that can drive knowledge-based regimes. The
term is often attributed to the international-relations theorist Peter Haas,
who wrote:
An epistemic community is a network of professionals with
recognised experience and competence in a particular domain
and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge
within that domain or issue area… What bonds members of an
epistemic community is their shared belief or faith in the verity
and the applicability of particular forms of knowledge or specific
truths. (1992, p.3)
Many political analysts assume that epistemic communities refer to
formal scientific bodies or networks, such as the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). Moreover, bodies such as these regulate
membership, perhaps by stipulating that members be invited to join, or by
insisting that members have a widely recognised reputation as a publisher
of scientific research. Yet some social scientists have also suggested that
this interpretation of epistemic communities is too narrow, and should
include all sources of knowledge that are de facto taken as authoritative
(e.g. Jasanoff, 1996). For example, many officially recognised scientists or
scientific bodies can still make claims that are criticised. And many NGOs
or activist groups can also make claims that influence policy. In other
words, epistemic communities do create knowledge that influences policy.
But it is not always clear what is, and isn’t, an epistemic community, and
different actors sometimes make strong claims as to who should (and
should not!) be respected as authoritative sources of knowledge.
The second concept related to knowledge regimes is advocacy
coalitions, or the extension of knowledge via networks and coalitions,
often by larger NGOs in collaboration with smaller NGOs or citizen groups.
According to the writers Keck and Sikkink (1998, p.215): international
advocacy coalitions allow ‘ecological values to be placed above narrow
definitions of national interest’. Accordingly, the extension of environmental
39
166 Global environmental problems and politics
or scientific knowledge to new societies or countries might be used to
indicate growing support for an environmental regime. But sometimes the
advocacy coalitions communicating this knowledge are NGOs and activists
(rather than formal scientific bodies); and sometimes these coalitions might
reflect environmental values in one location rather than be thoroughly
agreed locally (this point was discussed in Chapter 1). See Lahsen (2004)
for one illustration of this problem in Brazil; we return to these dilemmas
in regards to biodiversity, forests and conservation in Chapters 10 and 11.
Activity 2.3
Write 300 words defining and giving examples of epistemic communities in any
environmental field of your choice. Who are the experts? Are they based in government,
or universities? Or in NGOs or international organisations? Are they foreign? This exercise
might indicate how it is sometimes difficult to make firm rules for who might belong to an
epistemic community.
The case of the ozone regime
The ‘ozone model’
The international environmental regime to counter ozone depletion is a
good example of how an environmental regime came into being. Indeed,
the relative speed and success of this regime at the end of the 1980s gave
the impression to many policymakers that these events could present a
‘model’ for regime formation in the future (Benedick, 1991). The climatechange negotiations tended to follow this model during the early 1990s
(see Chapter 3). However, events proved that the so-called ‘ozone model’
was not as applicable as policymakers had hoped.
The model, of course, is a simplified version of real events. But the essence
of it can be summarised in the steps outlined in Box 2.1. Figure 2.1 also
summarises this model.
Stage 1: Forward-thinking scientists produce information about
an environmental problem [first step towards making an epistemic
community].
Stage 2: Interested politicians and NGOs take this knowledge further
and communicate it to the policy process [strengthening of the epistemic
community]. Sometimes this stage experiences strong resistance from some
actors (such as businesses) who fear that environmental reform might affect
profits or encourage inflexible regulation.
Stage 3: International organisations take on the role of facilitating
meetings and the first steps towards an environmental agreement.
Stage 4: An international conference occurs, in which a Framework
Convention is signed by different states [the Framework Convention has
no fixed targets, but acknowledges the existence of a problem and commits
states to take further steps eventually].
Stage 5: A further conference produces a Protocol to the Framework
Convention that specifies hard targets for states [a ‘Protocol’ is an
amendment to a ‘Framework Convention’].
Stage 6: Business actors respond by changing products to comply with the
Protocol.
Stage 7: Further interstate meetings lead to a strengthening of the targets,
and an increase in countries that are Parties to the Convention [this is the
principle of incrementalism].
40
Chapter 2: Environmental regimes
Stage 8: A fund is created to assist developing countries to implement the
agreement.
Stage 9: Adherence to the targets, and increased membership, mean
that the environmental regime has been created and that environmental
behaviour has been changed.
Box 2.1: The classic ‘ozone model’ of environmental regime formation.
In the case of the agreements about ozone, the initial Framework
Convention was the Vienna Convention of 1985. The Montreal Protocol of
1987 provided the first hard targets for states. The London Agreement of
1990 then added to these targets and allowed more countries to join.
But before we discuss this model further, let’s review the events leading
to the ozone regime in more detail. We shall then discuss how far analysts
agree this model really works.
The ozone hole and the global response
Most discussions of the ozone hole start with the work of two inspired
scientists in California: Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina.
These gifted men conducted research in 1973 to study the impact
of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) on the earth’s atmosphere. CFCs are
particles used in various household and industrial uses, usually to act as a
propellant for other chemicals (such as in the use of aerosol sprays). The
scientists discovered that CFC molecules would remain in the atmosphere,
typically for 50–100 years before being broken down by ultraviolet
radiation to release a chlorine atom. These chlorine atoms would then
attach themselves to ozone (O3) in the stratosphere, thereby reducing
the amounts of ozone. Molina and Rowland, and another scientist, Paul J.
Crutzen, were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for their work.
Ozone in the stratosphere has the effect of absorbing solar radiation.
Reducing the layer of ozone therefore exposes the earth to more solar
radiation, which might bring increased risks of skin cancer, as well as
potential impacts on crops and sea organisms such as phytoplankton.
Facing initial opposition from industry leaders, Rowland and
Molina published a key paper, and then testified at the US House of
Representatives in 1974. Further scientific research then supported their
findings. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) started
issuing bulletins about ozone. In 1985 Antarctic researchers published
evidence of a growing ozone ‘hole’ around the southern pole. This hole
was partly the result of the lack of global circulation in the atmosphere
above Antarctica (most ozone is created at the earth’s equator where
solar radiation is strongest; it then circulates around the world, but less
in Antarctica where the cold land mass slows circulation down). But the
evidence suggested the ‘hole’ was getting bigger.
The publicity about the ozone hole greatly increased public concern about
ozone depletion. In 1985, 20 nations signed the Vienna Convention,
which established a framework for negotiating international regulations
on ozone-depleting substances. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol gave the
first target for Member States to reduce CFCs by 50 per cent of 1986
levels by 1990. The Toronto meeting in 1988 launched an NGO ‘action
plan’ to reduce CFCs. The London Agreement of 1990 then consented to
phase out CFCs, halons and carbon tetrachloride by 2000, and methyl
chloroform by 2005. In 1991, the EU regulation 594/91 brought forward
this requirement by banning CFCs in the EU by 1997. And in 1992, a
41
166 Global environmental problems and politics
further meeting in Copenhagen brought forward these dates again. This
process, in which targets are improved with each meeting, and the number
of countries joining also increases, has been called incrementalism.
Financial
assistance
Activism by
NGOs and
leading
intellectuals,
politicians
Scientific
research
[epistemic
community]
Initial
blocking
moves by
business
Inter-state
negotiations
Framework
convention
Further
agreements
increase
members
and
targets
Complementary
business
interests
Figure 2.1: The ‘ozone model’ of environmental regime formation, specifying
different roles for actors, and the incremental nature of agreements.
Meanwhile, two other factors also helped the emerging regime.
Developing countries were assisted in implementing the Montreal Protocol
by the Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol. And business actors –
initially hostile to the concerns about regulating CFCs – had developed
new products that did not deplete the ozone layer. These products were
attractive to businesses for two reasons. The products could be patented,
and hence guarantee profits to the manufacturer if used widely. And they
could also be used with an eco-label, or labelling on the packaging of
the product that communicated to consumers that the product had an
environmental benefit; it could also therefore command a higher price.
Reassessing the ‘ozone model’
Together, these steps leading to the ozone regime have been called a
model for constructing environmental regimes. UN Secretary-General Kofi
Annan called the ozone regime ‘perhaps the most successful environmental
agreement to date’. In a book published in collaboration with the WWF
called Ozone diplomacy, Richard Benedick (1991) argued that the
experience of negotiating this regime carried important lessons for how
regimes could be formed, based upon the complementary role of actors such
as scientists, NGOs, concerned politicians, states, and eventually businesses.
In particular, Bendick emphasised the role of an influential epistemic
community to guide political action, and the principle of incrementalism
as a way to take small steps first. These small steps could then be followed
by more serious action when international organisations, states, public
opinion, and business responses had set up funds and information, and
when a knowledge regime had been established to convince people of the
need for action.
This view has been influential in global environmental politics, and
has been used especially by NGOs to indicate the need to communicate
scientific findings into an epistemic community. (Chapter 9 discusses
the role of NGOs and knowledge regimes.) Indeed, similar steps were
intended to negotiate a climate-change regime in the early 1990s (see
Chapter 3).
42
Chapter 2: Environmental regimes
However, this view has also been questioned as somewhat simplistic
compared with what actually happened in the build up to the ozone
regime. Indeed, it is possible that this representation of the ‘ozone model’
is a rather convenient summary of various events that presents roles for
actors such as scientists, states and NGOs that may not necessarily be the
only way to achieve agreements.
In another influential book, entitled Ozone discourses, Karen Litfin
(1994) proposed that the ozone agreements should be seen as a series of
linked events, rather than as one ‘model’ of how to achieve a successful
environmental regime. In particular, she also argued that the role of the
epistemic community was overstated.
Litfin confirmed that scientists played an important role in facilitating
political agreement. But she claimed that the role of science was
mediated by two key factors. First, negotiations were facilitated by a
group of ecologically minded knowledge brokers associated with the
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NASA and UNEP. Second,
negotiations were highly influenced by the publicity surrounding the
discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole. Before 1987, the scientific evidence
coming from computer models or other environmental assessments was not
as conclusive as it was claimed after the event. But the ‘discovery’ of the
ozone hole provided a political impetus for states, businesses and citizens
to see the need for an ozone agreement as legitimate. The image of a ‘hole’,
after all, is very emotive: it suggests something is missing, or that there
is a risk of further damage. The presentation of all the various concerns
about ozone into a single image of a ‘hole’ therefore helped to facilitate the
agreed ‘solution’ of reducing the use of CFCs and related chemicals.
Litfin’s arguments emphasise that context and discourse are important in
regime formation, rather than the wisdom and certainty of environmental
activists such as NGOs. In simpler language, the ‘ozone model’ gives the
impression of a relay team passing the baton between each other on
the way to a known destination (in this case, the ‘baton’ is the message
that CFCs cause ozone depletion, and members of the relay team
include scientists, NGOs, policymakers, international organisations and
businesses). Instead, Litfin described the ozone regime as less organised,
like a creative soccer team passing the ball between each other until a goal
is scored. Indeed, one important factor in the emergence of the regime was
an increasing adoption of the ‘precautionary principle’3 in environmental
politics rather than clear-cut scientific proof that reducing CFCs would
decrease the ozone hole. She wrote:
Without taking into account the political implications of
scientific discourse, an interest group approach alone does not
contribute much to an understanding of the evolution of the
ozone regime… epistemic community approaches underestimate
the extent to which scientific information simply rationalises or
reinforces existing political conflicts. (Litfin, 1994, pp.184, 186)
The debate about the ozone model is important. The ozone model
influenced attempts to create a similar regime for climate change. Yet
there are various important differences between the nature of ozone
depletion and climate change in terms of the variability of the problem,
the number and nature of actors involved, and the cost of controls.
Moreover, the roles given to different actors under the ozone model may
not always achieve the same outcomes as for ozone. For example, there
are strong divisions between different NGOs concerning climate change
(see Chapter 9).
The precautionary
principle is an approach
to environmental politics
that seeks to introduce
environmental protection
on the basis of precaution
in the face of negative
scenarios rather than
on the ability to achieve
consensus that these
negative trends will
indeed occur. The principle
is based on the belief that
it is better to be cautious
and wrong than to take
no action when damaging
environmental changes
might be occurring.
3
43
166 Global environmental problems and politics
The rest of this subject guide discusses the problems of creating
environmental regimes, and the complexity of addressing climate change,
biodiversity and deforestation.
Characteristic
Ozone
Climate
Scientific uncertainty
High
Varied
Distribution of costs and benefits
Fairly even
Uneven
Cost of controls
Moderate
Very high
Major actors
North
North and South
Visible crisis
Yes
1990: no... but increasing...?
Table 2.1: A simple comparison of ozone and climate regimes.
Source: adapted from Litfin (1994)
Summary of this chapter/Conclusion
This chapter has summarised debates about the creation of environmental
regimes. It acts as a theoretical background for the rest of the subject
guide. It also summarised the emergence of the ozone regime, which is
considered by some to be a good model for building regimes.
• An environmental regime is a shared policy or environmental
behaviour between different states and societies.
• Classically, international relations scholars have theorised regimes in
terms of interstate agreements. Increasingly, however, the role of nonstate actors such as NGOs and businesses is increasing.
• Many scholars identify three approaches to explaining regimes:
power-based (based on a position of realism, or acknowledging the
power that some states hold); interests-based (reflecting liberal beliefs
about how states might sacrifice short-term interests in order to build
regimes); and knowledge-based theories (focusing on achieving shared
knowledge about problems, often resulting from the actions of states
and non-state actors such as NGOs).
• An epistemic community is an important component of a knowledge
regime, as it is composed of a body of experts such as scientists who
can advise policymakers. However, the definition and breadth of this
term is debated, and might include NGO workers or lay experts who
are not considered sufficiently expert or separate from politics for some
observers.
• The evolution of the ozone regime in the late 1980s and early
1990s is considered by some analysts to be a good ‘model’ of how to
build an environmental regime because it was apparently based on
good cooperation between willing states, and concerned epistemic
communities and NGOs. This initial intent then led to a process of
incrementalism, in which the targets and extent of the regime increased
over time. However, some analysts have criticised this model, suggesting
that the real events were less coordinated and more haphazard, and that
the role of epistemic communities was exaggerated.
• These themes are relevant for other chapters, and can be discussed for
the evolution of all other environmental policies.
44
Chapter 2: Environmental regimes
A reminder of your learning outcomes
Having completed this chapter, and the Essential readings and activities,
you should be able to:
• explain the importance of states to international agreements, and the
growing and complementary role of non-state actors such as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and businesses
• define the concept of ‘regime’ and what this means in political science
• summarise the three main approaches to creating regimes, namely
power-based; liberal, interests-based; and knowledge-based
• explain the concept of epistemic community (or communities of
expertise), and how these contribute to expertise and knowledge about
environmental problems
• describe the evolution of the ozone regime with reference to the 1985
Vienna Convention and 1987 Montreal Protocol
• discuss how the experience with ozone became a model for other
environmental regimes, and how this model was then criticised (i.e. the
problems of this model, and the increasing role of sub-state actors in
regime theory, will also be discussed in later chapters).
Sample examination questions
1. With reference to examples, how have approaches to environmental
regimes changed over the years?
2. What are epistemic communities, and what role do they play in
creating environmental regimes? (See Question 3 in Appendix 3 for
guidance on answering this question.)
45
166 Global environmental problems and politics
Notes
46
Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC
Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction
and the UNFCCC
Aims of the chapter
Anthropogenic climate change is the most important and widely discussed
global environmental problem. This chapter summarises some of the basic
political dilemmas concerning international agreements about climate
change, and some of the history of the negotiations leading up to the
signing of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) in 1992. The next chapter then takes the discussion of climate
change further by focusing on the Kyoto Protocol and current dilemmas of
climate-change policy.
Learning outcomes
By the end of this chapter, and having completed the Essential readings
and activities, you should be able to:
• explain why climate change raises so many important political
dilemmas and uncertainties
• describe the history of climate-change policy until the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992
• explain why the discussions about climate-change policy are so
controversial with regards to economic development and North–South
relations.
Essential reading
From your essential textbooks
Axelrod, Regina S., David Leonard Downie and Norman J. Vig (eds) The global
environment: institutions, law and policy. (Washington: Congressional
Quarterly Press, 2005) Chapter 6.
Chasek, Pamela S., David L. Downie and Janet Welsh Brown Global
environmental politics. (Boulder: Westview Press, 2006) Chapter 3,
pp.115–27.
Clapp, Jennifer and Peter Dauvergne Paths to a green world: the political
economy of the global environment. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005).
Elliott, Lorraine The global politics of the environment. (New York: NYU Press,
2004) Chapter 3.
Further reading
Cullet, P. and P. Kameri-Mbote ‘Joint implementation and forestry projects:
conceptual and operational fallacies’, International Affairs 74(2) 1998,
pp.393–408.
Demeritt, D. ‘The construction of global warming and the politics of science’,
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91(2) 2001, pp.307–37.
Depledge, Joanna ‘The opposite of learning: ossification in the climate change
regime’, Global Environmental Politics 6(1) 2006, pp.1–22.
Grubb, M. et al. (eds) The ‘Earth Summit’ agreements: a guide and assessment.
(London: Earthscan for the RIIA, 1993).
47
166 Global environmental problems and politics
Ha-Duong, M., Rob Swart, Lenny Bernstein and Arthur Petersen ‘Uncertainty
management in the IPCC: agreeing to disagree’, Global Environmental
Change 17(2) 2007, pp.8–11.
Harris, P. (ed.) Global warming and East Asia: the domestic and international
politics of climate change. (New York, London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003).
Harris, P. (ed.) Confronting environmental change in East and Southeast Asia: ecopolitics, foreign policy and sustainable development. (London: Earthscan, 2005).
Harrison, K. and L. Sundstrom ‘The comparative politics of climate change’,
Global Environmental Politics 7(4) 2007, pp.1–18.
Liverman, D. ‘Assessing impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: reflections on
the Working Group II Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change’, Global Environmental Change 18(1) 2008, pp.4–7.
Lohmann, L. ‘The Dyson effect: carbon “offset” forestry and the privatisation
of the atmosphere’, Briefing number 15, The Corner House. (Sturminster
Newton, UK, 1999) www.cornerhouse.org.uk
Miller, C. and P. Edwards (eds) Changing the atmosphere: expert knowledge and
environmental governance. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001).
Risbey, J. ‘The new climate discourse: alarmist or alarming?’, Global
Environmental Change 18(1) 2008, pp.26–37.
Wuebbles, D. and N. Rosenberg ‘The natural science of global climate change’ in
Rayner, S. and E. Malone (eds) Human choice and climate change. Volume 2:
Resources and technology. (The Hague: Springer, 1998) Chapter 1, pp.1–78.
Additional resources
International Human Dimensions of Global change guide to climate change
science: www.aag.org/HDGC/www/intro/toc.html
Tiempo: an online resource considering global warming and developing
countries: www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/
International Institute for Sustainable Development resource on Climate
Change: www.iisd.ca/process/climate_atm.htm
What is climate change?
Climate change is integral to most of the other problems discussed in
this guide, including degradation of forests and loss of biodiversity. The
policies used to address it are also influential as they are closely linked to
economic growth, social vulnerability and agricultural development. All of
these are hugely controversial.
This subject guide has two chapters dedicated to climate change. This
first chapter introduces the basic controversies, and provides a history of
climate-change politics until the late 1990s.
First, what is climate change? And why is it so problematic?
Climate change itself is not new. The Earth is some 4.5 billion years old
and during this time there have been significant changes in climate. The
most recent dramatic changes were the end of the so-called Ice Ages at
the end of the Pleistocene age, some 10,000 years ago. The causes of
these climate changes were decidedly not caused by humans because
the influence of early people at that stage was so small. Scientists are
uncertain about the exact cause of climate change then, but many attribute
it to the so-called Milankovitch cycle, which is when the earth tilts on its
axis, causing shifts in how the Earth receives solar radiation.
Anthropogenic (or human-induced) climate change is different. It is
caused by the release of so-called greenhouse gases, such as carbon
dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane, which act as insulation around the
earth’s atmosphere. Again, the greenhouse effect is not new. During the
early stages of the earth’s formation, many gases such as carbon dioxide
48
Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC
were released through volcanoes or the decomposition of vegetal matter
on the earth’s surface. These gases then settled in the atmosphere around
the earth and had the effect of preventing much of the earth’s heat from
escaping. Indeed, this level of the greenhouse effect has been beneficial,
allowing temperatures to remain high enough for the earth’s current life
forms to develop. But if there are too many of these greenhouse gases, the
earth’s temperature is likely to rise further.
Human activities impact on climate change by releasing greenhouse
gases. The most common of these activities is the conversion of fossil
fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas to energy. These fuels contain large
quantities of carbon stored from previous geological periods, which when
released as carbon dioxide will increase atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations. Other sources of greenhouse gases include deforestation
(which has the impact of releasing carbon dioxide, as well as reducing the
ability of landscapes to recover – or sequester – carbon dioxide), land-use
changes and construction work (which releases nitrous oxide), and the
decomposition of organic matter and fermentation in rice fields (which
releases methane). Indeed, nitrous oxide and methane have significantly
higher levels of impact on heating the atmosphere (also known as global
warming potential) than carbon dioxide. Figure 3.1 indicates the basic
model of carbon circulation in the earth and shows some key greenhouse
gases. Table 3.2 shows their comparative global warming potential.
Changes in the Atmosphere:
Composition, Circulation
Changes in
Solar Inputs
Figure removed due to copyright restrictions
Changes in the
Hydrological Cycle
Clouds
Atmosphere
Air–Ice
Coupling
Heat
Wind
Exchange Stress
Precipitation–
Evaporation
Air–Biomass
Coupling
Terrestrial
Radiation
Human Influences
Sea Ice
Ice–Ocean
Coupling
Rivers
Lakes
Ocean
Land
Changes in the Ocean:
Circulation, Biogeochemistry
Biomass
Land–Biomass
Coupling
Changes in/on the Land Surface;
Orography, Land Use, Vegetation, Ecosystems
Figure 3.1: The earth’s climate system.
Source: IPCC, 1988
Rising temperatures are the most obvious impact of anthropogenic
climate change. But climate change is more than just ‘global warming’ –
and indeed, that term is now no longer used in official scientific reports.
‘Global warming’ implies a gradual heating up of the earth’s temperatures,
possibly in a uniform way across space. This image is now considered to be
too simple. Rather, scientists represented on the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) have reported that climate change is most
likely to result in a more erratic pattern. This prediction means that there
may be more storms and more unpredictable, higher-magnitude weather
events such as cyclones and droughts. Some climatic zones will shift in
geographical location over a gradual period. Yet, to achieve this change
there may be associated events such as fires in landscapes that used to
have trees and shrubs, but which are gradually becoming drier. These fires
49
166 Global environmental problems and politics
will also cause damage and disturbance to other ecosystems. Indeed, some
observers claim that recent forest fires in Indonesia, or bush fires in places
such as Australia and California are most likely evidence of long-term
shifts in climate-vegetation zones taking place.
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Fossil-fuel burning, wood fuel, deforestation, land-use change, cement
manufacture
Methane (CH4)
Gas/oil/coal production, enteric from ruminants (cows etc.), wetland rice
cultivation, landfill waste, burning/decay of biomass
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
Solvents, refrigerants, aerosols etc.
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Fertilisers, fossil-fuel burning, deforestation, new agriculture Also: nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide (fossil-fuel and biomass burning),
non-methane hydrocarbons (solvents etc.)
Box 3.1: Some key greenhouse gases.
Gas
Lifetime (years)
20 years
100 years
Carbon dioxide
variable
1
1
Methane
12
72
25
Nitrous oxide
114
310
298
HFC-23
270
12,000
14,800
HFC-134a
14
3,830
1,430
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
3,200
16,300
22,800
Table 3.1: Global warming potential (examples).
Source: IPCC, 2007
Another concern is that climate change might raise sea levels by melting
polar and land-based ice, or by heating the water and increasing its
volume accordingly. These are serious concerns, and they might impact
on coastal communities in various ways. For example, in Bangladesh,
agricultural land near the coast will become more saline (salty) as the
sea level rises. This requires local farmers to adapt by using crops that are
tolerant of sea water. Coastal zones might also experience higher levels
of tidal surges (the short-term rise in water) during storms. These events
might impact on vulnerable populations in developing countries, as well
as richer cities such as in Florida. Longer-term inundation of currently dry
land on a permanent basis might take longer.
Changed climate patterns could impact on the distribution of disease
vectors such as mosquitoes. They could also lead to a relatively rapid
decline in biodiversity if living conditions and habitats for some species
have insufficient time for adjustments to take place.
The main source of information about climate change comes from the
IPCC, which was set up in 1988. Its objectives were not to conduct research
itself, but to bring together all research and analytical discussions about
climate change within academic and applied scientific bodies in order to
reach a consensus about trends. Its first report in 1990 proposed that the
global economy should reduce emissions by 60 per cent in order to avoid
climate change. Follow-up reports were published in 1996, 2001 and 2007.
50
Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC
Box 3.3 presents a brief summary of the predicted impacts of climate change,
according to the UNFCCC, based on the 2007 IPCC report and updates shortly
afterwards. Check the website at the base of the Box to see further updates.
•• Even minimum predicted shifts in climate will be significant: the
minimum warming forecast until 2100 is more than twice the 0.6
degree increase observed since 1900.
•• Extreme weather events are increasing and sea levels have risen by
10–20 centimetres over pre-industrial levels. Extra tropical storm
tracks are projected to move towards the poles of the earth, changing
historic wind, rain and temperature patterns.
•• Large food producing areas are more likely to be drier in the future,
including the US crop belt and food-producing areas of Asia.
•• Salt-water intrusion will be a problem in many productive deltas such
as the Mekong in Vietnam and Yangtze in China.
•• Endangered species will be under further threat because of changes
to habitats and changes to migration patterns.
•• It is likely that vector-borne diseases such as malaria will also change
in incidence.
Box 3.2: Future effects of climate change.
Source: http://unfccc.int/essential_background/feeling_the_heat/items/2905.php
Activity 3.1
Write 300 words on any one country (possibly your own) to identify: (i) the key
contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, including which industries or activities
contribute most heavily, (ii) the key ‘sinks’ or sources of sequestration such as forests or
water bodies, (iii) the key areas of vulnerability, such as low-lying land close to the sea, or
specific ecosystems or climates that might be affected by climate change.
Political disagreements about climate change
Uncertainties about climate change
This subject guide is not intended to be a thorough guide to the physical
science of environmental change (see the IPCC website for summaries).
It is worth noting, however, that there are controversies and uncertainties
about projected climate change. Indeed, some critics still refer to ‘climate
change’ as a ‘theory’ to indicate that it is still unproven, and that the basic
proposed cause (of human-induced releases of greenhouse gases) might
not be the cause of observed changes to date.
For example, some climate change ‘sceptics’ have argued that the major
changes in historic climates have not been driven by carbon dioxide,
and that according to historic trends over geological time periods, the
Earth is more likely to cool down from current levels than become
warmer. Another concern is that possible current changes in climate
might result from Milankovitch cycles, rather than human activities. A
further contention is that changes in solar radiation are still too poorly
understood to be discounted as a cause of current trends. Some debate
about this refers to the so-called Little Ice Age in the northern hemisphere
in approximately 1600, which was when Europe suffered years of frozen
winters, recorded in the paintings of artists such as Breughel. According
to some analysts, historical records show that the sun during this period
had very few sunspots or signs of activity on its surface. This compares
51
166 Global environmental problems and politics
with the late twentieth century, when the number of sunspots had risen
markedly. Of course, records of solar activity from the earlier period are
not very reliable, and some contemporary scientists have argued that there
is still no proven link between sunspots and trends in climate change.
More controversially, some critics have suggested that the evidence for
climate change has been represented in ways that minimise attention to
uncertainty. For example, much worry about climate change has come
from the so-called ‘hockey stick’ graph that shows global temperatures
more or less constant until the twentieth century, and then rising sharply
in the manner of a hockey stick. Some critics argued that this chart does
not indicate the extent of variation in records.
At the same time, some critics (such as prominent US Senator Chuck Hagel
during the late 1990s) have criticised the IPCC for not having scientific
or political neutrality. The IPCC, for its part, has tried to emphasise
that its work is not connected to politics and it has sought to increase
its membership to include more social scientists and representatives of
developing countries in recent years.
On the other side, many environmentalists argue that sceptics are simply
acting on behalf of oil or coal companies who are funding research and
publicity to discount scientific research about climate change. We discuss
this further in Chapter 5.
These questions about climate change are worth considering. Yet it is
also worth noting that the IPCC report in 2007 claimed 90 per cent
certainty that recent trends in climate change are indeed caused by
human activities, and that this level of certainty has risen since the first
report in 1990. Indeed, some scientists are worried that the IPCC is
underestimating rates of climate change.
This course on global environmental problems and politics does not expect
you to answer questions about scientific analysis of whether climate
change is occurring or not. But you are encouraged to consider how far
climate change might give rise to different forms of environmental risk
(such as discussed in Chapter 1), and which countries or people might be
more or less vulnerable to these risks. This is important for considering
which policy responses might be appropriate, and for whom.
Similarly, you are encouraged to consider how disagreements or different
experiences of the problems posed by climate change might influence the
kinds of policies proposed. For example, people who are most convinced
about the speed with which climate change is happening might propose
policies that achieve rapid mitigation, such as reforestation in tropical areas,
or reductions in energy use. People who are more cautious might propose
a more gradual transition to technologies and land uses that emit fewer
greenhouse gases, but also allow a more general process of sustainable
development at the same time. Both groups might represent scientific debates
about climate change in ways that support their preferred policy options.
Activity 3.2
Take a few moments to summarise what you have learned about climate change so
far. Have you noticed any disagreements about climate change or policies relating to
the issue? What policies have been proposed to deal with climate change in your own
country, and who (if anyone) has resisted these? This information might indicate how
many debates about the scientific knowledge underlying climate change are connected to
debates about policy options, and vice versa.
52
Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC
Is climate change a systemic or cumulative global environmental
problem?
Some of the biggest controversies about how to manage climate change
relate to whether it is considered to be a ‘systemic’ or ‘cumulative’
problem.
In Chapter 1 we reviewed the suggestion of Turner (1990) that global
environmental problems could be called either systemic or cumulative. A
systemic problem is one that is linked to an interconnected physical system
that means causes and solutions might be applied in different places. A
cumulative problem is one that is global only because it is happening in
many places around the world, but not necessarily connected to a physical
system.
Climate change is usually considered to be a systemic problem because the
global climate and carbon cycles are systems and the process is induced
through increased concentrations of greenhouse gases at the atmospheric
level. Consequently, any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions anywhere
in the world would reduce the rate of concentrations and any act to
sequester (or store) carbon at the earth’s surface (through activities such
as planting trees) would have a global impact.
Yet despite the simple logic of this argument, many social scientists have
suggested that we need to see climate change as more than a simple
system.
First, it is clear that there are ethical and developmental dimensions to
the way in which we view some emissions. Agarwal and Narain’s (1991)
influential book, Global warming in an unequal world (see Chapter 1)
argued that we need to differentiate between emissions coming from
‘livelihoods’ (such as food production, or from subsistence economies) and
‘lifestyles’ (such as from luxury consumption, or high standards of living).
In the same way, some forms of carbon sequestration (such as plantation
forestry) might be considered to be of different value to local people in
different locations around the world.
Second, the level of risk arising from increased atmospheric concentrations
of greenhouse gases differs between different places and contexts. Climate
change might indeed result from changes in the atmospheric system. But
the risks to people, ecosystems and property resulting from these systemic
changes will vary according to the concentrations of people; the nature
of storms, droughts or other physical hazards; and the vulnerability of
different populations to any of these. Climate change will not result in one
single risk applying to different locations. Rather, there are numerous risks
that will affect diverse places in different ways. Indeed, this diversity of
risk is one important way in which climate change is a different physical
threat to the risk posed by the deterioration of the ozone layer (see
Chapter 2).
Together, these points have caused some social scientists to argue that
climate change ought to lead to a more diverse and locally relevant
approach to risk. Demeritt (2001), for example, has put forward the view
that rather than simply predicting changes in temperature or increases in
events such as storms, modellers of climate change may need to address
the risk arising from it by trying to understand the changes that are likely
to impact on local people and how those people are vulnerable.
53
166 Global environmental problems and politics
Mitigation and adaptation
A related question is the emphasis given to mitigation and adaptation.
In Chapter 1, mitigation was defined as reducing the physical causes of
an environmental problem. Adaptation was defined as taking steps to
make the impacts of the change less problematic. Or, in the words of the
IPCC, mitigation is any ‘anthropogenic intervention to reduce the sources
or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gasses’ (IPCC, 2001, p.379), and
adaptation is the ‘adjustment in natural or human systems in response to
actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm
or exploits beneficial opportunities’ (IPCC, 2001, p.365).
Climate-change mitigation means reducing the core cause of climate
change by reducing greenhouse gas concentrations – either by reducing
emissions at source (by actions such as increasing fuel efficiency, or
replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, etc.) or by sequestering
greenhouse gases through activities such as planting trees or storing
carbon. If we see climate change as a systemic problem, it does not
really matter where these acts of mitigation take place. Accordingly,
many climate-change policy analysts have proposed that the most costefficient way of mitigating climate change is to adopt practices that reduce
emissions or increase sequestration in the cheapest locations worldwide,
even if these locations are not the same places as the origins of the
emissions. Indeed, this suggestion is the origin of the debate about flexible
mechanisms of climate change that we shall look at more in Chapter 4.
A systemic approach to climate-change policy, however, is controversial
because it implies that some countries might be allowed to continue
emitting greenhouse gases if they can undertake acts of mitigation in other
locations, including other countries. As we shall see, some developing
countries have accused richer countries of avoiding responsibility for
reducing emissions, and of imposing policies such as plantation forestry in
other countries.
Adaptation to climate change, however, is a response that makes the
changes arising from increased greenhouse gas concentrations less
damaging. As discussed in Chapter 1, adaptation has usually taken two
routes. The first route is to build engineering solutions such as sea walls
or storm shelters, or to find ways of managing irrigation that allow people
to continue pursuing economic activities despite climate change. The
second route is more influenced by international development and poverty
alleviation, and aims to increase people’s economic opportunities under
conditions of climate change, and hence make societies less economically
vulnerable to rapid environmental change. Both approaches can be seen
in Bangladesh, for example, where some coastal villages have sea walls,
fresh-water tanks and storm shelters to help them withstand tidal surges
and storms. At the same time, development workers are also encouraging
long-term change by increasing the options for villagers to earn livelihoods
from non-agricultural sources (such as working in cities); or helping
farmers to switch to sea-water friendly land uses such as fattening crabs
for market.
Adaptation, however, by definition is not a uniform process and only
works when people in specific localities can reduce their vulnerability
to climate change. Accordingly, adaptation is effectively a cumulative
response to climate change because it addresses various forms of climatechange risk in many contexts worldwide. This is a different approach to
climate-change mitigation, which – again by definition – aims to reduce
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmospheric system. Consequently,
54
Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC
as discussed in Chapter 1, putting adaptation first might appeal to more
‘development’ minded policymakers than the kinds of environmental
activists who see the world as a fragile system with hard physical limits.
Of course, most analysts propose that forms of mitigation and adaptation
should be undertaken at the same time. But it is worth noting that there
are some deep disagreements about how to integrate mitigation and
adaptation, For example, at an international conference on climate change
in Tokyo in 1997, I witnessed a representative of China say that climatechange policy should include more direct assistance to help industrialising
countries such as China adapt faster to climate change and that developed
countries should provide greater technological assistance to poorer
countries. In response to this statement, a representative of the USA stood
up and urged delegates to remember that the climate-change convention
was about ‘climate change’ and not ‘development’. Accordingly, he urged
all discussions to see the main objectives of climate-change policy as
reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. In other words, the
USA at that time was urging mitigation through any means possible, rather
than adaptation.
In addition, some critics have argued that some forms of mitigation might
prevent adaptation if it damages people’s overall access to development.
For example, some radical environmentalists have suggested reducing
economic growth, which would impact on less developed countries’ ‘right
to development’ (Chapter 1). Some forms of reforestation for climatechange mitigation have also been criticised for taking up agricultural land,
which might provide food and employment for people. We discuss this
theme further below concerning the question of offsetting emissions.
What kind of targets?
Most scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is caused by
increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Consequently, climate-change policy should try to reduce these
concentrations. It is useful to measure these concentrations, and the ways
that different states and actors can contribute to reducing them. Similarly,
there is no point reducing concentrations without some idea of what kind
of level is needed. Much climate-change policy, therefore, is based on the
idea of having targets to reduce concentrations.
But how can we define these targets? And should there be different targets
for different countries?
As we discussed in Chapter 1, many early climate-change policymakers
looked at the national contributions to greenhouse gas emissions through
activities such as industrial use and deforestation. Yet, as shown by the
controversy between WRI and CSE (in Chapter 1), some critics suggest
that it is unfair to ask developing countries to be measured on the same
basis as richer countries. They say it is unfair because many greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere were put there by richer countries many decades
ago; there is no accounting for historic deforestation in richer countries;
and many uses of fossil fuels or forest land by poorer people are for
reasons of subsistence rather than luxury lifestyles. Tables 3.2 and 3.3
show some examples of per capita greenhouse gas emissions for different
countries. This table shows that some of the highest per capita uses come
from countries with high levels of resource-based industry and extreme
weather (e.g. the Middle Eastern oil states and Canada). But there are
important differences between these countries, many European states such
as the UK and Germany, and then the poorest countries such as in SubSaharan Africa.
55
166 Global environmental problems and politics
Accordingly, three questions about targets have been posed:
• National targets or per capita targets?
• How to set targets? (How large, and for what time period?)
• Should there be ‘differentiation’? (i.e. different targets for different
countries)
• Or (most recently) should targets focus on overall greenhouse gas
emissions, or on the means of achieving reductions, such as through
commitments to renewable energy technologies?
Most analysts agree that it is currently too difficult to impose per capita
targets. National targets are more achievable, but for which countries? In the
1990s, many developing countries insisted that they should not be expected to
achieve targets to reduce greenhouse gas emission. As we discuss in relation
to the UNFCCC, the initial viewpoint was that the richer, more developed
countries should have targets, but it was hoped that developing countries
should gradually start to have targets in time (see next section on UNFCCC).
Why should developing countries not have targets for reducing greenhouse
gases? Various reasons have been proposed, which are summarised in
Box 3.3. Most importantly, it was considered unfair to expect the poorest
developing countries to have targets when their per capita emissions
were so much smaller than those of developed countries, and when the
problems of climate change were largely caused by historic emissions by
richer countries. As discussed in Chapter 1, the Stockholm Conference in
1972 enshrined the principle of the Right to Development. No developing
countries wish to support an international agreement on climate change
without this right. In practical terms too, reducing emissions requires
technical capacity to measure emissions and implement policies; many
poorer countries do not yet have this capacity.
Despite these arguments, it is worth noting that the question of targets –
and the lack of targets for many poorer countries – was one of the reasons
the USA later pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. We discuss this
more fully in Chapter 4.
1980
2003
Australia
13.9
18.0
USA
20.1
19.8
Canada
17.2
17.9
UK
10.5
9.4
Norway
8.2
9.9
France
9.0
6.2
Germany
…
9.8
Italy
6.6
7.7
Greece
5.4
8.7
Russia
…
10.3
Ukraine
…
6.6
Poland
12.8
7.9
Table 3.2: Per capita greenhouse gas emissions for middle-income and
transitional economies, 1980 and 2003.1
Source: UNDP figures, average consumption of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels, gas flaring and the
production of cement, tons per capita per year
56
http://hdr.undp.org/
hdr2006/statistics/
indicators/202.html
(accessed 15 July 2009).
1
Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC
1980
2003
Saudi
17.3
13.0
Bahrain
22.6
31.8
China
1.5
3.2 (excl Hong Kong)
India
0.5
1.2
Thailand
0.9
3.9
Jamaica
4.0
4.2
Argentina
3.8
3.4
Mexico
4.2
4.0
Brazil
1.5
1.6
Egypt
1.0
2.0
Congo
0.2
0.4
Tanzania
0.1
0.1
Table 3.3: Per capita greenhouse gas emissions for some Middle-Eastern, African,
Latin American and Asian economies, 1980 and 2003.2
Source: UNDP figures, average consumption of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels, gas flaring and the
production of cement, tons per capita per year
http://hdr.undp.org/
hdr2006/statistics/
indicators/202.html
(accessed 15 July 2009).
2
For updates to these tables, see:
http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/items/4146.php
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/data/climatechange
•• Per capita argument: emissions per capita in developing countries
are approx. <2 t C pa; in USA approx. 20 t C pa
•• History argument: climate change is the result of historic as well
as current greenhouse gases, therefore older industrial powers are
responsible
•• Industrial maturity argument: one of the reasons for choosing
1990 as the baseline is that many countries were judged to be at
economic maturity from this time (defined as GDP growth without
growth in energy consumption)
•• Right to development argument: are emissions reduction
targets designed to stop future competitors?
•• Technology argument: the responsibility should be how to avoid
further problems now, such as through technological change, rather
than arguing over levels of economic growth
Box 3.3: Why should developing countries not have emissions reduction
targets?
Activity 3.3
Look at the statistics above and write 300 words on general trends in the per capita rates
of different countries. What factors might underlie the differences between countries?
How important are technologies; levels of development; dominant fuel sources; and the
social interest in environmental problems?
57
166 Global environmental problems and politics
Market mechanisms and carbon offsetting
The accumulation of these various controversies has also led to the debate
about how far specific countries can achieve their own targets for reducing
greenhouse gases through market mechanisms, or via undertaking
activities in other countries.
If we define climate change as a systemic environmental problem, it does
not matter where climate-change mitigation takes place: it could occur in
any place in the world as long as there are net reductions in greenhouse
gas concentrations. Accordingly, many policymakers have proposed that
it is faster and more efficient to mitigate climate change in locations
where it is cheaper to do so. In other words, it is cheaper to undertake
climate-friendly activities such as changing fuel sources, or planting
forests, in many developing countries rather than in richer countries where
technologies are already in place and land and labour are more expensive.
In turn, the idea of one country achieving a target by acting in a different
location has become known as ‘offsetting’.
We discuss offsetting in more detail in Chapter 4. But at this stage it is
worth noting that the ability to offset, or achieve climate-change policy
through investing or trading with another country, has been one of the
most controversial aspects of climate-change policy. Many richer countries
support this kind of activity because it gives them the means to take some
kind of action without locking them into long-term and costly changes
to their economies. But many developing countries have resisted these
policies because of what they see as the unwillingness of richer countries
to reduce emissions within their own territories. Moreover, critics have
claimed that some forms of offsetting impact badly on local populations,
and might even decrease their own ability to adapt to climate change. We
discuss this theme further in Chapter 4, and in the section on forests in
Chapter 11. The possible ways to integrate climate-change policies with
industrial technology transfer is discussed in Chapter 6.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC)
The UNFCCC was signed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. The early stages
of this convention were similar to the ‘ozone model’ discussed in Chapter
2. In other words, there was a belief among many policymakers that the
climate-change convention should follow a process of achieving scientific
consensus; creating political leadership; signing an initial framework
convention to establish some basic objectives; signing later protocols
and agreements to increase adherence to these objectives; and gradually
getting non-state businesses and citizens to follow the agreement as well.
The initial stages of the climate-change policy process were indeed similar
to the ozone model, the first uniform scientific monitoring of climate
change started in the 1960s. The First World Climate Conference took place
in 1979. In 1988, the main epistemic community for climate was created in
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), under the auspices
of the WMO (World Meteorological Organisation). The remit of the IPCC
was to prepare information in order to create international agreements. In
1990, the first IPCC report called for a 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions, and the second World Climate Conference in Geneva
allowed 137 states to sign a declaration urging action. The scene was
therefore set for the signing of the UNFCCC at Rio in 1992.
58
Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC
But climate change is not like the depletion of the ozone layer. The causes
of climate change, and the risks associated with it, are more diverse. The
range of countries involved is far broader. There was no obvious visual
prompt to climate change in the manner of the ozone ‘hole’. Unlike with the
ozone problem, many important businesses were opposed to taking action.
The implications of these dilemmas were important problems in making
the UNFCCC operational. We discuss these mainly in the last section of this
chapter, and in Chapter 4. But for now, what did the UNFCCC say?
First, the UNFCCC was a classic framework convention. It brought states
together to agree on the need to do something about climate change, but it
did not specifically identify hard targets or policies. It was agreed that these
targets and policies would be agreed at the Third Conference to the Parties
of the Convention, which turned out to be at Kyoto in 1997 (the term
‘Conference of the Parties’ is referred to as COP).
Secondly, it indicated that not all countries would be expected to have
greenhouse gas reduction targets. The world was divided into two parts,
known as Annex I and non-Annex I. Annex I countries were richer and were
considered capable of achieving targets to reduce emissions. It was expected
that these countries should achieve their targets and therefore prepare the
way for developing countries to sign up for later targets in the future. This is
the principle of incrementalism, which was demonstrated successfully under
the ozone agreements.
The richer Annex I countries were defined as: Australia, Austria, Belarus,
Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan,
Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Russian Federation,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the UK
and the USA. It should be noted that some larger developing countries were
not included, notably South Korea, China, India, Brazil and Taiwan.
Some aspects of the UNFCCC were still unclear or controversial.
Perhaps most importantly, many green activists worried that the convention
did not go far enough to stop anthropogenic influences on climate change
in themselves, but instead sought to make these influences less damaging.
(Of course, it is debatable whether it is possible to stop climate change
anyway.) Article 2 of the UNFCCC (regarding objectives) stated:
The ultimate aim... is to achieve... stabilisation of greenhouse
gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a
level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow
ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure
that food production is not threatened and to enable economic
development to proceed in a sustainable manner.
This statement was controversial because it was not yet clear what was
‘dangerous anthropogenic interference’. The statement implied that some
change was inevitable. It was also not clear what ‘adapt naturally’ meant.
Article 3 (concerning principles) stated that targets for greenhouse gas
reductions should be set:
on the basis of equity and in accordance with [states’] common
but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities.
Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead...
59
166 Global environmental problems and politics
This statement implied that all countries should take action eventually,
but that some countries should take more responsibility than others in
the short term. Clearly, some countries have contributed more to climate
change through past and present actions but the statement was to prove
very controversial and contributed to the withdrawal of the USA in 2001.
Article 4.2(a) (concerning implementation of the UNFCCC) reiterated
the ability to achieve some proportion of targets by investing in other
countries. It stated:
… developed country Parties and other Parties included in
Annex I may implement… policies and measures jointly with
other Parties and may assist other Parties in contributing to the
objective of the Convention…
Other sections of the UNFCCC described potential roles for the World
Bank, the need for environmentally sound technology, and the possibility
for carbon offsetting (although these were not specified at the time).
Ultimately, 153 states (including the EU) signed the UNFCCC in 1992.
It was an impressive achievement in a short time. It also indicated a
cooperative style of regime by indicating that developing countries were
only bound if the richer countries fulfilled their commitments. But it did
not yet have hard targets, and it also relied on the willingness and ability
of richer countries to take action.
The first hard targets for climate-change policy came under the Kyoto
Protocol in 1997. We discuss this specifically in Chapter 4. But first, what
steps were taken in between the UNFCCC and Kyoto?
Activity 3.4
Go to the UNFCCC website http://unfccc.int/ and spend some minutes answering these
questions: how many countries have now ratified the UNFCCC and associated Kyoto
Protocol? What was the most recent Conference of the Parties (COP), and what did it
discuss? What are the most important themes for the next COP? This website is a useful
source of official information about climate change.
The road to Kyoto
The UNFCCC was signed in 1992. But legally binding targets to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions were only agreed under the Kyoto Protocol
in 1997 (the third COP to the UNFCCC). Yet two important areas of
controversy emerged between North and South during this period.
First, many developing countries argued that they were not benefiting
enough from investment that sought to encourage climate-change
mitigation in developing countries. Under the first COP in 1995 in
Berlin, countries agreed that emissions targets could be achieved by
investing or trading in different countries. This theme is discussed in
more detail in Chapter 4. But the pilot phase for this investment (known
as Activities Implemented Jointly, AIJ) was criticised for only being
focused on countries that attracted a lot of foreign investment (such as
Mexico) rather than the poorer developing countries that needed new
climate-friendly investment. Some NGOs also thought that these projects
focused excessively on so-called carbon ‘sinks’ such as forest protection
and reforestation, rather than the transfer of environmental technologies.
These controversies set the tone for later debates about technology
transfer and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) (to be discussed in
Chapters 4 and 6).
60
Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC
The second theme of controversy related to the calculation of targets for
different countries. The UNFCCC had stated that countries had a ‘common
but differentiated responsibility’ to mitigate climate change. But how to do
this?
In 1997, the EU developed a collective climate policy known as the EU
Bubble. The Bubble was a way for the entire EU (which in 1997 had 15
members) to commit to a collective target of a 15 per cent reduction
in emissions below 1990 levels by the year 2010. The EU hoped that
this relatively high commitment would be able to convince other states,
such as the USA, that other countries were willing and able to take
action. Table 3.4 shows the agreed targets under the EU Bubble. The UK
government later unilaterally increased its own unofficial target to 20 per
cent.
Luxembourg
-30 %
Sweden
+5
Austria, Denmark, Germany
-25
Ireland
+15
Belgium, NL, UK
-10
Spain
+17
Italy
-7
Greece
+30
Finland, France
0
Portugal
+40
Table 3.4: The EU climate-change Bubble, agreed in 1997. Targets based on 1990
levels to be achieved by 2010, using a basket of three greenhouse gases: carbon
dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.
Yet, as we discuss in Chapter 4, the Bubble sent the message that it was
possible for some countries to have radically higher targets than others.
As Table 3.4 shows, Portugal and Greece were initially allocated increases
in emissions of some 40 and 30 per cent. Some countries, such as France,
received a relatively generous target of zero per cent because it had
already made the transition from coal-powered electricity to nuclear
power. And the UK was already in the process of changing its dependency
on coal to gas and nuclear.
Partly as a result of these debates, Brazil made two controversial proposals
in 1997 before the Kyoto Summit.
The first proposal was that targets for greenhouse gas reductions should
be based on historical emissions. The index used by Brazil was based
partly on the year when a country first went through the industrial
revolution. Unsurprisingly, the United Kingdom achieved the highest
proposed target of more than 60 per cent. Developing countries, clearly,
had much smaller targets. This proposal was not accepted in the interstate
negotiations.
The second proposal was for a ‘Clean Development Fund’ that would be
collected from penalty fines imposed on any Annex I country that did not
reach its target. These fines would then be spent on installing cleaner
technologies in developing countries. This suggestion was not accepted,
although a similarly named Clean Development Mechanism was accepted
at Kyoto as a means for Annex I countries to achieve their targets (see
Chapter 4).
And again, around the same time in 1997, the US Senate passed the ByrdHagel Resolution, which proposed that the USA should not sign a climatechange treaty without the active participation of developing countries. It
was passed 95 votes to zero in the Senate. As we shall see in Chapter 4,
61
166 Global environmental problems and politics
this resolution made it very difficult for the USA to ratify any agreement
that was based on giving targets to richer countries alone (as indeed
happened). Moreover, as we shall see in Chapter 5, some of the beliefs
underlying this resolution were influenced by clever advertising campaigns
and lobbying by private businesses.
Consequently, the approach to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 was full of
important disagreements between North and South, and about the levels
of targets and means of achieving them.
Summary of this chapter/Conclusion
This chapter has summarised the key problems posed by climate change
and the main political barriers to agreement. It has also described the
UNFCCC in 1992 and negotiations before the signing of the Kyoto Protocol
in 1997.
• Climate change is a global problem, but difficult to classify simply as
either systemic or cumulative.
• From a physical science perspective, changes in climate occur from
systemic changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
Mitigation of climate change might therefore be achieved through
climate-friendly activities in any location worldwide.
• Yet, from a developmental viewpoint, different localities and people
are vulnerable because of social and economic circumstances, and
there is variability in the nature of physical risks. Addressing these
risks by mitigation therefore might not deal with these underlying
vulnerabilities, and some form of adaptation is also required.
• The UNFCCC attempted to address this wide range of concerns
by proposing that richer countries should have targets to reduce
greenhouse gases first, and then poorer countries should follow once
these targets have been met.
• But discussions before the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 were increasingly
divided between North and South, with many developing countries
claiming that richer countries were not willing to reduce emissions at
source, or to assist developing countries. The main richer countries
such as the EU and the USA, however, were already making plans to
achieve targets by thinking systemically about how one country might
be able to achieve targets in collaboration with others.
A reminder of your learning outcomes
Having completed this chapter, and the Essential readings and activities,
you should be able to:
• explain why climate change raises so many important political
dilemmas and uncertainties
• describe the history of climate-change policy until the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992
• explain why the discussions about climate-change policy are so
controversial with regards to economic development and North–South
relations.
62
Chapter 3: Climate change: introduction and the UNFCCC
Sample examination questions
1. Why is climate change such a difficult problem to address through
political solutions? (See Question 4 in Appendix 3 for guidance on
answering this question.)
2. What were the key political barriers before signing the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change?
63
166 Global environmental problems and politics
Notes
64