|
|
Impotence at Global Climate Change
Environmental issues have finally caught the attention of politicians. Can they find solutions?
Автор: Preslava Stoeva | 06 юли 2008, 15:59
The scale of the expected environmental degradation as a result of climate change far exceeds the entirety of human impact upon nature so far. It will not only exacerbate existing conflicts (access to fresh water, natural resources, oil, diamonds, timber) but will also create new ones, as a recent report by Javier Solana indicates. These conflicts will be associated with the scarcity of food as well as other vital resources, and also with deteriorating public health. Melting glaciers will open up new areas of conflict over access to natural resources, as was the case with Russia and the ocean bed of the Antarctic (on August 2, 2007, Russia staked its national flag on the sea bottom 4,200m under the North Pole and claimed sovereignty over the underwater territory rich in natural resources). As a result of these changes, the number of environmental and economic migrants will increase, creating conditions for ethnic conflicts. Therefore, much more solid measures are needed to reduce the effects of climate change. Is the conventional approach to intergovernmental foreign policy likely to succeed in tackling this problem?
A number of indicators suggest clearly that global climate change is a problem which politicians cannot resolve at the internaitonal level. Alternative players have appeared who can offer successful moves in the effort to combat this global problem.
For years, scientists have been trying to draw the attention of politicians around the world to climate change on the planet. As early as in the 80s both researchers and politicians agreed that human activity causes climate change on earth and that carbon dioxide emissions into the athmosphere must be reduced in order to avert a global catastrophe. It took a long time, however, until this consensus was carried over to the global level: as late as 1995. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in its report that global warming is a real problem. Two more years went by before consensus was reached among the governments of the UN member countries to reduce harmful emissions, known as the Kyoto Protocol, and another seven years, before it came into force after the last ratification required, made by Russia (2005). In 2007, former candidate for US President Al Gore and the IPCC received the Nobel Peace Prize, which was a clear indication that there is a broad political and social consensus over the gravity of the problem of global climate change. These slow social processes are accompanied by a constant debate in which the so called "grey lobby" defends the position that global warming is a scientific figment. The "grey lobby" includes primarily producers and major consumers of oil, not only oil and automotive companies, but also the OPEC countries and the United States. Since these are among the major pollutants as well as among the richest countries and companies, the global climate change issue faces strong opposition.
Another major reason the traditional state and intergovernmental approach to this international problem would not be very successful, is that democratically elected governments have one key interest: to win re-election. Implementing draconian measures to reduce harmful emissions reduces their support not only among businesses, but also among the public, i.e the consumers. In other words, short democratic terms stand in the way of long-term solutions.
The problem with reducing harmful emissions and cleaning up the atmosphere of excess greenhouse gas raises questions of equity and responsibility. How can harmful emissions be reduced in the developing countries without impeding their ability to escape the vicious cycle of poverty and economic backwardness? According to the authors of the book, "A Climate of Injustice", Timmons Roberts and Bradley Parks, a solution to the climate problem starts with an equitable distribution of responsibility and finding ways for the developed North and the developing South to work constructively together.
Even the countries which have laid the foundations of a working economy and are on their way to successful economic development and wealth creation, encounter difficulties as they try to curb harmful effects on the environment. It is difficult to convince those on their path to wealth in the East, West or South, that they must reduce demand and not avail themselves of all the amenities they can now afford: domestic appliances, which consume a huge amount of electricity (airconditioners, dishwashers, washing machines, driers, etc.), powerful and fast cars, an unrestricted basket of goods, round-the-world air travel, among others. Not a single national government would take on this task.
The last two arguments to prove that governments around the world cannot tackle climate change successfully, are related to the traditional channels for intergovernmental decision-making. First, the measures which may be agreed to on the international level are by default watered down, since they are the result of the search for the lowest common denominator, as the Kyoto Protocol demonstrated. This is so since the agrement of 194 sovereign states is being sought for the establishment of legal measures which could potentially hamper their own economic development and can impact their strategic security. Countries around the world face a vast array of problems, and they prompt differing foreign policy choices. As an example, according to data from the Alliance of Small Island States, many of them will cease to exists as they will likely be submerged under water. The British Isles may turn into the new Spain: a country of warmer climate and the opportunity to develop seaside tourism. The fate of Bangladesh is unclear: a country of 147 million, among the most densely populated in the world, located in an area of explosive ethnic and religious tension. Second, the measures so agreed, must be transposed into national law and here we return to the reluctance of national governments to implement unpopular restrictions upon producers and consumers.
In other words, the problem facing humanity is not a conventional one: it is a long-term, all-encompassing, problem which requires a new global approach. An approach which does not revolve around the sovereign state, but hinges upon action at the individual level, including businesses, citizens, non-governmental organizations, local and regional governmental institutions.
The campaign to avert a catastrophic degree of global warming is primarily being waged by scientists and non-governmental organizations such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the US, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Earth First!, Oxfam, and many others. According to some sources, as early as in the 90s of the past century there were over 4,000 environmental non-governmental organizations in the world. Various businesses whose interests are directed towards alternative energy sources and insurance, have also become part of the movement to reduce the harmful emissions of greenhouse gas. These are precisely the players who have proven their ability to act a driving force: to develop scientific studies, mobilize public opinion, disseminate new research on this vitally important problem. Humanity cannot rely on governments: they can help, but they will not be the major driver to reduce emissions. Individuals can rely on their own capabilities – leading by example, exerting political pressure on their own governments, international organizations and business corporations – for greater responsibility at all levels of public and policial activity. We do not have much choice with respect to the outcome humanity must reach. We can only choose the methods to apply. Time is running out.
Would you like to learn more?
The argument that environmental degradation and access to strategic natural resources can cause regional and intra-national conflicts and that there is a direct link between glimate change and national security, is key to the following articles: Thomas Homer-Dixon, "On the Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict", International Security, 16 (2), Fall 1991; Robert Kaplan, "The Coming Anarchy", Atlantic Monthly, Feb 1994; Michael Klare, "The New Geography of Conflict", Foreign Affairs, June 2001.
On the solid support for the "grey lobby" by the business coalition Global Climate Coalition, see: http://www.globalclimate.org/index.htm.
www.savebiogems.org/polar/map_popup.html The disappearance of the polar icecap.
http://www.darfurwatch.com/2007/09/ban_kimoon_and_the_evershrinki.html Lake Chad – once the sixth largest in the world, is disappearing faster than cartographers can record.
http://www.blog.thesietch.org/2007/05/04/ipcc-world-has-8-years-to-act-to-save-itself-from-global-warming/ According to the IPCC, the world has 8 years to act to avert a catastrophic climate change. |
|
Коментарът беше изтрит от модераторите.