International relation policies and climate change - Research Paper Example

INTERNATIONAL RELATION POLICIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE Introduction In the 21st Century, climate change (global warming in particular) has perhaps been the greatest challenge facing world leaders and international communities. Scientist and environmental experts have sounded louder warning of rising dangers to humanity and the environment as whole following greenhouse gases emission resulting from burning of forests and fuel fossils. A scientific reported from the United States resource and environmental conservation department indicated that in 2011, the global emissions from greenhouse gases; mainly carbon dioxide reached a decade record high. According to the report, global emissions increased by 3% in 2011 and were expected to jump further by 5.6% come 2012 (Barnett 8). The department further warned that the situation is likely to worsen in the years to come, if not attended to immediately. The figures also show a decline in the level of emissions in developed economies such as United States and Russia. This decline apparently is a reflection of economic weakness, environmental consciousness (e.g. use of renewable power sources), and transfer of manufacturing industries to developing countries (Gardiner 28). Unfortunately, the decline in the industrial emissions from the advanced economies significantly falls below the increasing rate of emissions in the developing countries, which care less for their contribution to the global warming. Low-income countries whose low income population heavily depends on carbon-intensive fuels such as coal increasingly pollutes the environment. Emissions from low-income countries alone accounts for about 80% of the greenhouse gases. The 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference Since 1945, the United Nations has been on the fore-front fighting for the restoration and conservation of the global environment. The UN has organized for a number of conferences focusing on climate change (Ikenberry 79). The fifteenth conference was held in December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark. Like the earlier conferences, the 15th Climate Change Conference failed to produce desirable, legally binding and equitable agreements (Barnett 11). Though the conference discussed ways of reducing ambitious emissions, technological advancements to the problem, and methods of financing the policies, it was in vain. In the end, The Copenhagen Accord was neither a comprehensive framework which demands effective, responsible participation from all the leading stakeholders (governments, financial institutions, and the civil society groups) nor was it a collective effort aimed at combating climate crisis in a more integrated manner. The CoP15 (The 15th Conference of the Parties) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was therefore described as a failed policy as no binding agreement was arrived at. The aim objective of the conference was to discuss and propose polices which would be essential in keeping the average world temperature rise slightly below 2oC. Partisanship and self-interest resulted into two groups of the UNFCCC: Annex I and Non-Annex I countries which represented different interests. Annex I was composed of the 40 industrialized and transitional countries non-Annex I countries was made up of developing economies (Mazo 245). As claimed by members of the non-Annex I, a twenty six “representative group of leaders” from Annex I developed the Accord in their favor through un-transparent, restrictive, and top-down had developed the policies aimed at conserving the environment with little consideration to the minor countries. The “bottom-up pledge and review” approach to reducing global emission as described in the Accord was perceived as unpractical and unfair mechanism of reducing reaching the desired goal of less than 2 percent annual increase in global temperature. So far, the ledges made under the Accord falls short of the delegates and representative call of ‘ambitious’ and ‘robust’ mechanisms and mitigation actions or commitments of the member states (Gardiner 38). On the contrary, adoption of the “non-binding” Accord seems diplomatically beneficial to the advanced developing and developed countries. Therefore, the outcomes of the Copenhagen Conference fell far much short of the expectation. Since the adoption of Bali Action Plan at the 13CoP in December 2007, countries have been represented in the 14th and 15th delegate conferences with limited outcome to cite. However, despite many differences that rose in the Copenhagen Conference, the 26-member team worked tirelessly to close on as many gaps as they could. Although climate change discussions has been among the transparent international negotiations, the 2009 Copenhagen participation was restricted to the civil society delegates despite the fact that they had valid mandate and accreditation to take part in the conference. In the final lapse of the conference, the number of participating civil society representatives significantly dropped (Barnett 16). A number of LDCs (least developed countries) and developing economies opted for the adoption of the CoP Accord; developed countries strongly opposed the Accord stating that it was “un-transparent”, “unfair” and “undemocratic”. Their fear was based on the financial burden that they would bear in case the CoP Accord was adopted, thus the reason for the collapse of the talks. However, in an informal UN negotiation attended and facilitated by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon in Copenhagen, the parties and delegates agreed to accept the CoP using the “takes note” formula to the Accord. This implied that the facilitated meeting failed to pass or approve the CoP Accord, thus referred to as “collective effort” only for combating climate change (Alberts and Czerwinski 127). Climate Change, Environment & IR Theory The early concerns on the implication of politics on the environmental degradation mainly stemmed from the appreciation of human society and the bounding ecological climates, which would be socio-economically, be depleted in case of breach. Generally environmental depletion and degradation which results into global warming, depletion of the ozone layer and drastic climate changes are results of humanity and negligence, which would have been prevented or regulated had there been a strong international relationship and political good-will among these countries of the world (Campbell and Parthemore 8). If international and diplomatic relationships between countries had been relatively stronger and stable, then solving environmental challenges through multi-lateral environmental negotiations or agreements would not be very challenging as it is today, neither would there be fallouts or collapses in the discussion and conference. These differences can be explained using primary international relation theories of liberalism, constructivism and realism. Impact of climate change The changing world climate adversely affects the agricultural and food industry of many countries, especially Northeast Asia. The rising average global temperature results into decline in agricultural production and decline in land productivity. Besides, erosion and increase in cases of pest and diseases have led to a significant decline in food production from the agricultural sector. This in turn has resulted into food insecurity. As a result of decline in foods, the prices of essential food stuffs have accelerated over the same period, forcing the world into starvation. Health-wise, incidence of malnutrition and other deficiency diseases have been on the rise amid free access to Medicare (Alberts and Czerwinski 125-6). The global climate change has had a great effect on the industrial productivity of many factories. The decline in the water level due to drought has pushed the cost of hydro-electric power up, thus, an increase in the cost of production of essential industrial products (O’Neill 39). The theory of ‘closed finite system’ asserts that the resources at our disposal are limited while the demand for these resources is unlimited. This is the onset of resource depletion as the limited resources have to be efficiently allocated among the competitive needs. It is at this point that politics and international relationship theories come in to explain the difference in the political and social ideologies of different countries of the world. Climate change focuses on the ontological question about the relationship between human nature and climate (Campbell and Parthemore 2-4). The ontological assumption that underpins industrial society and humanity is that the existence of humanity and the world are two different entities with distinct features and control over natural world and resources. Therefore, it is evidenced that human-induced environmental and climate changes alters the natural state of the world, thus a shift in the international socio-political dynamics. Therefore, this relationship can best be explained by the ontological broadband of international relation theory. It is under this approach that the international relation tries to explain and source a realistic solution to global warming and climate change. Global climate change raises specific ontological issues: nature of causality in regard to international politics, constraint versus agency of individuals with respect to structural systems, and the relationship between international systems and political systems. In the event of casualties, it is hard to pin down all these institutions because of the non-linear responsibility path and multi-partnership (Ikenberry 75-7). Thus, in such a context, it is very unclear how the international anarchy structures are the realms for developing suitable policy framework for solving climate changes. Realism Theory Realism is one of the dominant paradigm which attempts to explain the relationship between different countries of the world, especially in the modern society. This is because principally, realism offers a deeper insight into the regularity and control of international conflicts between these countries. This is a fact which cannot be refuted in the historical books of record. All the policies about realism are based on similar assumptions on how international system operations (O’Neill 39). Realists perceive sovereign states as being ten primary parties or actors in the anarchic international institutions, where there is limited power or supremacy of a country to arbitrate or adjudicate the interstate relationships. In case of lack of supreme authority, the relationship or interstate disputes are determined by military strength and material powers. As a result, such international negotiations are pervaded by insecurity which further breeds continuous power and survival struggle between countries. Realism therefore breeds insecurity and mistrust between countries in the international scene. As described by the theory of ‘security dilemma’ in the Northeast Asia, where there was great mistrust between international diversities which further stems from historic animosities, political and social differences, building of hostile alliances, and military coups, realism is a defensively motivated security theory. Under this international theory, building of trade block and international negotiations takes an offensive-defensive mechanisms and counter threats. This result into the creation self-fulfilling prophesies and counter-attacks as the conflicting sides intend to secure their environments, thus, raising tension between the sides (Alberts and Czerwinski 124). Realism theory of international relationship provides a fundamental reasoning for the collapse of the global climate conference of Copenhagen as different representatives and delegates were after serving personal interest in the CoP Accord. Similarly the mistrust among the congress members with resulted into the collapse of the talk can also be explained using realism theory. In theory, it is the inevitable desire for power maximization which created the resistance of the hegemonic aspiration of the rivalry enflamed by security dilemma plus consolidation of strong alliance blocks (Mazo 245). Liberalism Theory As opposed to realists, liberals perceive international relationship as an optimistic move in the global climate change and restoration sanity in the environmental arena. Though they also concurred with the realism position that international systems as being more of anarchic, it is possible for the international community to escape the threatening security dilemma. They opposed the position held by realists that the interstate warfare were inevitable, and instead asserted that mankind had the ability to transcend these conflicts through use of specifying influences on the economic variables and interdependence or by using liberal democratic and international institutions to negotiate for peace and understanding among the conflicting countries. As argues O’Neal and Russett (35), economic interdependence, democracy, and international institutions acts as "virtuous circle," of reinforcing positive feedback which makes international systems and institutions more stable and specific. Therefore, it is these systematic interventions that eliminates or subdue the security dilemma, thus, a dramatic decrease in the interstate international conflicts. Liberal international theory of relation lies on three pillars; institutional, economic interdependence, and democratization. These fundamental liberalistic pillars are likely to be diluted by the impact of the global climate change predicted by the IPCC. Besides, liberal version of international relations is also founded on political and economic transformative power of the developed and the public accountability moderation effects on policy changes (Russett and Oneal. 158-9). Liberals therefore, alludes that capitalism can effectively operate in an economy characterized by political stability, sound legal institutions, and transparency in the entire economic process (O’Neill 34-7). Countries with limited political freedom and controlled information dissemination are restrained economically given the competitive nature of the global markets. Democratic accountability reduces the chance of expansionist military adventures or civil wars. Interstate dependency theory is therefore a critical step in promoting unity and relation between countries. It is this theory that non-Annex I members delegates of the 15th climate conference of Copenhagen, founded their reasoning when they advocated for the adoption of the CoP Accord on climate change. Conclusion The UNDP analysis of the Cop15 held in December 2009 in Copenhagen fell short of the comprehensive for finding reasonable and realistic solutions to global warming. This was because different parties to the conference were after serving their personal interests, thus, differences in political and social ideologies. The differences represented in the conference between the Annex I and non-Annex I was based on the international theories of relations; realism and liberalism. However, notably, a deal would have reached had not for differences in the political ideologies and philosophies among the attending delegates. Nevertheless, the subsequent Climate Change and Environmental Conferences offered little break through under the negotiations such as AWG LCA and AWG–KP. Works Cited Alberts, D. and T. Czerwinski. Complexity, Global Politics and National Security. Washington DC, National Defence University, 2007:124-7. Barnett, J. 'Security and Climate Change.' Global Environmental Change, 2010, 13(1): 7-17. Campbell, K. and C. Parthemore. 'National Security and Climate Change in Perspective'. Climatic Cataclysm: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Climate Change. K. Campbell. Washington DC, Brookings Institution Press, 2008: 1-25 Gardiner, S. 'A Perfect Moral Storm: Climate Change, Intergenerational Ethics, and the Problem of Corruption'. Political Theory and Global Climate Change. S. Vanderheiden. Boston, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010:25-42. Ikenberry, G. J. 'Liberal Internationalism 3.0: America and the Dilemmas of Liberal World Order.' Perspectives on Politics, 2009, 7(1): 71-87. Mazo, J. Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it. London, International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2010:245. O’Neill, K. The Environment and International Relations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009:34-9. Russett, B. and J. Oneal. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York, WW Norton & Company, 2010:156-165. Read More