Environmental Politics - Essay Example

Environmental Politics as a Test of Global Governance Introduction This paper discusses the influence of environmental politics on global governance. Global governance may be described as the phenomenon where political and economic systems around the world are undergoing closer integration to form a global economic and political system. However, such a form of global governance is sustainable as long as there is collaboration and goal congruence between member states. Environmental politics—which refers to the political impact of environmental issues such as global warming, climate control, energy sources and freshwater supplies—has often witnessed a lack of such collaboration and consensus. As a result, there has been little success in shaping and implementing global environmental policies to address the issues identified above. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the implications of environmental politics for sustained global governance and how it can serve as a test of effective global governance. How Environmental Politics Acts as a Test of Global Governance One of the ways in which environmental politics can be a test of global governance is in the accounting of emissions at the national and international level. In this regard, Turner (2014) presents an interesting conceptualization of the role played by carbon footprint measurement in determining the responsibility of various states for environmental impact. Turner (2014) explains that since the introduction of carbon footprint measurement in measuring pollutant emissions, the scope of monitoring and control at the national and international level has broadened. With the help of carbon footprint measurement, the polluting activities of various states can be measured not only through the emissions from the production of electricity and other forms of fossil fuel consumption, but also by measuring product consumption behaviours and trade practices between nations (Turner, 2014). Environmental politics can also play an important role in global governance by finding new ways to hold individual governments responsible for their polluting activities. Turner (2014) explains this phenomenon in his article on measuring the carbon footprint. He argues that recent approaches towards measuring carbon footprints can be a useful means to assessing the responsibility of each state for reducing and controlling carbon emissions within their jurisdiction. Furthermore, the new measures also provide greater opportunity for deeper engagement and collaboration between states to develop strategies for reducing carbon emissions in various countries (Turner, 2014). Through such collaborative efforts, global governance regimes can find new ways to structure carbon control measures and develop new policies to address emission control on a global scale. Despite the promises of environmental politics bringing about greater cooperation, the reality also presents a picture characterized by disagreement and conflict. These fears are described by Skjaerseth, Bang and Schreurs (2013). The authors chart the course of environmental protection negotiations between the United States and the European Union and highlight the obstacles which have prevented a global consensus on emission reduction and climate change. Their findings show that environmental politics can only be an effective test of global governance to the extent that there is congruity or integration between the legislative organs and environmental bodies of the member states. If there is a contradiction between the ideals of environmental politics and what global environmental organizations are empowered to do, then productive results cannot be achieved. Skjaerseth, Bang and Schreurs (2013) further state that environmental politics has failed to bring about more effective global governance because of the differences between key players in global governance and environmental politics. For instance, the contrast in the authority vested in environment policy makers in the United States and the European Union prevents effective collaboration and policy implementation by the two major industrial regions of the globe (Skjaerseth, Bang and Schreurs, 2013). Secondly, the tendency to link diverse environmental issues such as energy consumption and climate control has failed to achieve uniform benefits for the two main industrialized regions of the world. Skjaerseth, Bang and Schreurs (2013) argue that for global governance to deal respond to environmental politics effectively, changes in legislation, negotiation procedures and norms should be brought about. Haass (2013) presents an interesting prognosis of the challenges that environmental politics can pose to the future of global governance. Haass (2013) notes that international mitigating efforts to reduce carbon emissions and other forms of pollutants into the atmosphere have been failing for a long time. This is a major test of the global governance regime as the growth of global governance rests upon climate as well as other factors including trade and technological integration. Haass (2013) also notes that there is a growing disparity between the changes that need to be implemented and the changes that are eventually put in place. This is another present failure of global governance as it has failed to arrive at an international consensus about what changes need to be made in terms of environmental policy and who should assume responsibility for implementing those changes. In the light of the arguments made by Haass (2013) it may be interpreted that global governance can succeed if it is able to commit global actors to adopt a multi-pronged strategy. Haass (2013) explains that such a strategy should simultaneously focus on curbing of environmental depredation such as excessive deforestation as well as developing alternative energy sources. Haass (2013) also explains that technology development needs to move hand in hand with better strategies to adapt to climate change. It may thus be argued that environmental politics is a significant challenge to global governance and needs to be addressed from multiple fronts so that the objectives of global governance can be achieved. Khagram and Ali (2008) also describe some of the ways in which environmental politics can pose a challenge to global governance. Some of the challenges identified by Khagram and Ali (2008) are similar to what has been stated by Haass (2013). Specifically, the nature of environmental politics is such that it is associated with changes and phenomena that can be addressed over the long term. In contrast, state governments and policymakers tend to be focused on short-term policies that can help them gain electoral power for the next elections. In general, a lack of perceived congruence between national objectives and the goals of global governance in areas of environmental protection is a major reason for its failure. Khagram and Ali (2008) also note that there is a gap between the seriousness of trans-national problems such as climate control and the information that state governments possess to deal with those problems. In other words, global governance is hampered because of the state governments’ failure to attain a long-term orientation as well as insufficient knowledge to address the issues raised by environmental politics. Citing the example of projects such as the construction of dams which affect international waters, Khagram and Ali (2008) explain that global or transnational bodies are rarely able to arrive at a consensus about the legitimacy of any transnational environmental body to develop policy or propose recommendations. Hence, the fate of global governance rests to a great extent on the ability of transnational organizations to develop credible structures and relationships with stakeholders. Najam, Papa and Taiyab (2006) identify the lack of coordination among environmental bodies as the main challenge to effective global governance. By citing the experience of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) the authors state that the challenge to global governance arises when the member states possess more financial and political power than is vested in the transnational or global body. Due to this power imbalance, environmental policies are difficult to draft and implement on a global scale. Najam, Papa and Taiyab (2006) note that while member states pay lip service to authorizing the transnational bodies to take up global environmental issues, they fail to back up their words with tangible endowments and support. As a result, environment politics becomes a meeting of talking heads which fails to achieve much in concrete terms. Najam, Papa and Taiyab (2006) go to the extent of suggesting that the important and powerful member states in global environmental organizations undertake actions that set up these bodies for failure. In addition, global governance is adversely affected when environmental politics fails to unite states and international environmental organizations and leads to turf wars and distrust between environmental agencies. In such an environment, it is unwise to expect that the aims of global governance can be realized if the obstacles and barriers to the resolution of environmental challenges cannot be removed. The test of global governance is whether it can facilitate the emergence of competent leadership in environmental politics. In addition, environment politics needs to develop a robust and credible information bank to facilitate the creation of consensus in global governance. Environmental politics play a decisive role for the future of global governance because it highlights the need for state governments to act in coordination with one another to bring about meaningful results. Cooper (2004) states that the realization of environmental issues at a global level began during the 1990s in a trend whereby national and state governments had to accommodate the global nature of these issues with the local mechanisms and structures of policymaking. If this line of reasoning is followed, then environmental politics is a relatively recent trend in global governance and political integration. However, the implications of environmental politics are severe because of the far-reaching consequences spatially as well as temporally of any environmental changes. By citing the example of Canada, Cooper (2004) explains that the Canadian state experienced a phase of adaptation to the UN world conference on environment and climate related issues. However, the adaptation process tends to be sporadic and bumpy as was evidenced in the example of Canada and its integration into the global governance structures shaped over the years. Cooper (2004) states that despite the convergence of political and financial systems, there is a greater role to be performed by individual states and governments. Cooper (2004) explains that diplomacy has a vital role to play in bringing about effective global governance. This appears to be particularly relevant to the needs of environmental politics where, as has been discussed earlier in this paper, identifying the responsible party and placing the duty to act is not always easy. In addition to leadership and power challenges, environmental politics can emerge as a veritable test of global governance in other ways. Andonova and Mitchell (2010) explain some of the factors in the evolving sphere of environmental politics that make it extremely important for global governance to adapt to. Among these factors, the most notable one is the phenomenon of greater opportunity for linkages. Andonova and Mitchell (2010) explain that over the years there has been a proliferation of transnational environmental bodies that have attempted to deal with environmental challenges in their own way. Andonova and Mitchell (2010) argue that this proliferation can present an attractive opportunity for global governance in the shape of a greater potential to form linkages, share information and resources, and collaborate on policymaking. The success of global governance rests on its ability to facilitate such coordination between various environmental bodies and between the bodies and the member governments. While this development presents an opportunity to global governance, a challenge is also presented by the diversity of issues that environmental politics has come to be associated with. Andonova and Mitchell (2010) identify some of the non-environmental issues that have become part of discussions on environmental policy such as trade, energy, and technology. The authors argue that while global governance has affected the scope of environmental issues by globalizing them as well as localizing them, it will be challenging for the future of global governance to shape an effective response to long-term environmental issues. Dauvergne (2005) traces the development of global environmental politics and explores some of the challenges it has posed to scholars and policymakers over the last six decades. He argues that environmental politics has assumed a global dimension after the vast amount of research conducted on global environmental phenomena during the 1980s and 1990s. Phenomena such as climate change, global warming and alternate energy resources gained popularity and have shaped the discourse of environmental politics to the present times. Dauvergne (2005) also explains how environmental politics and global trade intersect and create unique challenges for local communities. Of particular note is the phenomenon where developing countries are unable to raise the standards and regulations of environmental protection in order to retain their status of low cost production centres. On the other hand, developed countries are also likely to fall into the trap of lowering environmental protection standards to attract foreign investment and capital to their shores. This growing interrelationship between environmental issues and other spheres of global activity such as trade pose a unique test for global governance. In an environment where economies are achieving greater integration and interdependence, true global governance cannot be achieved unless the interdependence between local and global environmental issues as well as the interdependence between environmental issues and political or economic issues is recognized. It can thus be argued that the global bodies cannot afford to sit on the sidelines with respect to environmental issues and expect that global political and economic integration can be achieved smoothly. Another important challenge that is posed by environmental politics to global governance is the failure to come up with a set of values and standards that are acceptable to most of the members of the global governance community. Hempel (1996) takes special note of this challenge and argues for the urgent need to develop a set of environmental values and ethics that are acceptable across the board by the member states. He acknowledges the fact that it is highly unlikely for a common set of standards to be acceptable to all members of transnational environmental bodies. At the same time, Hempel (1996) argues for developing a set of basic values and ethics that can be acceptable to the diverse cultures and societies that are represented by the member states on global environmental bodies. Hempel (1996) hopes that through these common values one of the most significant challenges of global governance—that of encouraging member states to give up some portion of their sovereignty for the development of sound global environmental policies—can be met. Hempel (1996) states that by stressing on the concepts of “common equity” and “common heritage (p. 46)”, member states can be encouraged to acknowledge the importance of cooperation on global environmental issues. Conclusion On the basis of the foregoing discussion, it can be concluded that environmental issues have assumed a global political influence as a result of greater research and awareness of environmental issues. In an environment where there is a greater push towards global governance through integration of political and economic systems, the influence of environmental politics on the viability of global governance cannot be ignored. This paper identifies some of the important challenges through which environmental politics can serve as a stringent test of global governance. The absence of any agreement on the global scope of environmental issues as well as the limited resources and authority of transnational environmental bodies such as the UNEP are a challenge to global governance. In order to realize the fruits of global governance, it is vital to make efforts at developing consensus on environmental values and ethics on a global level. References Andonova, L. B., & Mitchell, R. B., 2010. The rescaling of global environmental politics. [online]. Available at: http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/sites/iheid/files/sites/cies/shared/header/recent%20papers/Andonova%20et%20al_Rescaling%20Global%20Enviro%20Pol.pdf [Accessed 2 March 2014]. Cooper, A. F., 2004. Tests of global governance: Canadian diplomacy and United Nations World Conferences. New York, NY: United Nations University Press. Dauvergne, P., 2005. Handbook of global environmental politics. [online]. Available at: http://www.politics.ubc.ca/fileadmin/user_upload/poli_sci/Faculty/dauvergne/Hbk_Global_Environ_Politics_Ch2.pdf [Accessed 2 March 2014]. Hass, R. N., 2013. Challenges for global governance. [online]. Available at: http://www.cfr.org/global-governance/challenges-global-governance-2013/p29742 [Accessed 2 March 2014]. Hempel, L. C., 1996. Environmental governance: The global challenge. Island Press. Khagram, S., & Ali, S. H., 2008. Transnational transformation: From government-centric interstate regimes to cross-sectoral multi-level networks of global governance. In: J. Park, K. Conca & M. Finger, eds. The Crisis of Global Environmental Governance: Towards a New Political Economy of Sustainability (pp. 132-162). New York, NY: Routledge Publishing. Najam, A., Papa, M., & Taiyab, N., 2006. Global environmental governance: A reform agenda. [online]. Available at: http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2006/geg.pdf [Accessed 2 March 2014]. Skjaerseth, J. B., Bang, G., & Schreurs, M. A., 2013. Explaining growing climate policy differences between the European Union and the United States Global Environmental Politics 13(4), pp. 61-80. Turner, J. M., 2014. Counting carbon: The politics of carbon footprints and climate governance from the individual to the global. Global Environmental Politics 14(1), pp. 59-78. Read More