Hostile Climate: The Political Economy of Atmospheric Protection
•
1 like•538 views
Examines climate negotiations: the political actors, economic interests & strategies of rival negotiating blocs. Looks at the major political roadblocks to forging consensus around an effective climate agreement. Examines the role of leadership in foraging a viable treaty.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Hostile Climate: The Political Economy of Atmospheric Protection
Similar to Hostile Climate: The Political Economy of Atmospheric Protection (20)
More from Craig Collins, Ph.D.
More from Craig Collins, Ph.D. (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Hostile Climate: The Political Economy of Atmospheric Protection
- 1. HOSTILE CLIMATE? THE POLITICAL ECONOMY of ATMOSPHERIC PROTECTION by Craig Collins, Ph.D. ©
- 2. The Global Commons • Global Common Pool Resources (CPRs): – Large, essen7al resources that defy priva7za7on & na7onal regula7on because of their: • Enormous size • Indivisible, fluid character • Examples of CPRs: – Oceans, Marine Fisheries, Biodiversity, the Ozone Layer, the Atmosphere. • Since no single government or global market can protect CPRs, only nego%ated interna7onal agreements provide the possibility of preven7ng their overuse, degrada7on & destruc7on.
- 3. • Interna7onal Agreements Have Many Poten7al Weaknesses: – They are difficult to nego7ate & reach agreement on. • Nego7a7ng a treaty that is both effec7ve & acceptable to all essen7al par7es can be almost impossible. – They are hard to monitor. – They are difficult to enforce. • The “Tragedy of the Commons” Theory Says It’s Folly.
- 4. • Holding one, big, complex interna7onal treaty nego7a7on has NOT been successful. • The most successful effort so far has used the Framework-‐Protocol nego7a7on process. – Success or failure doesn’t rest on a one-‐7me nego7a7on. – Learning & science can foster agreement, increase public concern & improve the outcome over 7me. – Public pressure has more 7me to get organized & influence successive nego7a7ons. • However this process can be VERY SLOW!
- 5. The Framework-Protocol Process • For Ozone Nego7a7ons: Framework —> Protocol(s) Vienna —> Montreal, London, Copenhagen… • For Climate Change Nego7a7ons: Framework —> Protocol Rio de Janeiro —> Kyoto —> …..
- 6. Global Warming Negotiations Have Moved at a Glacial Pace ADer a framework convenGon was adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, progress toward a substanGve protocol was not made unGl Kyoto in 1997. The KYOTO PROTOCOL commiSed countries to: (1) emission-‐reducGon targets of greenhouse gases for each of the member countries (about 5% for rich countries; less for poor). (2) a greenhouse gas emission-‐trading program. • The Kyoto Protocol wasn’t implemented unGl 2005 when it was finally raGfied by enough countries (55) to bring it into effect. The US refused to ra7fy this minimal agreement but finally agreed to resume talks in Copenhagen (2009).
- 7. The Treaty Negotiation Process SUCCESS REQUIRES: Uni%ng 3 rival coali%ons by overcoming 3 roadblocks to agreement. A Coali7on is an informal alliance of like-‐minded actors (na7ons, groups & people) who view their interests around an issue in a similar way.
- 8. WHO JOINS COALITIONS? GOVERNMENTS: naGon states are the only members that can sign & enforce treaGes. NON-‐GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS: NGOs are ciGzen-‐based, public interest, environmental, scienGfic & business organizaGons. (Greenpeace, Union of Concerned ScienGsts, the World Coal InsGtute) INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS: IGOs are created by governments to act as a forum or provide a funcGon. (the UN, UNEP, IPCC)
- 10. The Ac7vist Coali7on: CAN, UNEP, the IPCC, Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), Low-‐Lying Countries & the EU. The Blocking Coali7on: The Fossil Fuel Companies & their NGOs (GCC & Western Fuels Assn.), OPEC….& ocen, the US. The Equity Coali7on: Most Developing Na7ons minus OPEC, AOSIS & Low-‐ Lying Countries.
- 11. Merging these 3 rival coali%ons into a single UNITY COALITION that supports a strong atmospheric treaty requires ACTIVIST LEADERSHIP to overcome 3 ROADBLOCKS: 1) The Scien7fic Uncertainty Hurdle: • When does the evidence demonstrate that a serious problem (requiring interna7onal coopera7on) exists? 2) The Cost-‐Benefit Hurdle: • Will the benefits of a nego7ated solu7on outweigh the costs of ignoring the problem? 3) The Equity/Fairness Hurdle: • Can an agreement be reached that will be considered fair by all of the par7es involved?
- 13. The Blocking Coalition’s Big Advantage • VETO POWER • Since an effecGve treaty is impossible without the parGcipaGon of all essen$al parGes… • The blocking coaliGon can undermine any agreement by keeping even one of these essenGal parGes out of the consensus coaliGon. • Also, it can use this “hold-‐out” leverage to bargain for a weaker agreement.
- 14. The Blockers’ Strategy Keep the US out of the agreement by for7fying these 3 Roadblocks to Ra7fica7on: 1) Use Scien%fic Uncertainty to confuse policy-‐ makers & the public to stall nego7a7ons. 2) Use Cost Concerns to keep the US (& other countries) out of the Ac%vist Coali%on. 3) Use the Equity Issue to obstruct talks by driving a wedge between Rich & Poor countries.
- 15. Overcoming Roadblocks Requires Ac7vist Leadership • AcGvists’ want to merge all 3 coaliGons into a single “consensus coali7on” commiSed to an strong treaty. • To do this, acGvists must convince the other 2 coaliGons that: – The science is certain enough to take precau7onary ac7on. – Ac7on is less costly than doing nothing. – There are fair ways to share the burden of containing this atmospheric danger.
- 16. The Ac7vist Coali7on’s Strategy 1) Reduce the level of scien7fic uncertainty • Hopefully, this will reveal the universal dangers of stalling, weakening or blocking an effec7ve treaty. 2) Crac a treaty that all essen7al par7es consider more beneficial & less costly than no agreement. • Make it economically & poli7cally costly for blockers to veto or delay. 3) Broker equity clauses that seem fair to all essen7al par7es-‐-‐ North & South.
- 17. Roadblock #1: Scientific Uncertainty Does the Science Jus7fy Taking Ac7on? Blockers Strategy: • Disinforma7on Denial —Downplay the Dangers —Anack the Science Promote the Myth of a Divided Scien7fic Community.
- 18. The Blocker’s “Scientific Experts” • Known as “The Skep%cs” these scien7sts are clustered into 2 small groups commonly known as: The Phoenix Group The Virginia Conspiracy No more than 50 scienGsts were ever involved with either of these groups. Today, their numbers have dwindled to no more than a dozen.
- 19. Loud Voice--Poor Credibility • The skep7cs’ views have received extensive media exposure. • But their credibility is weakened by: – Extensive funding from the fossil fuel industry OPEC. – The lack of PEER-‐REVIEWED research. Dr. Robert Balling, Jr. • Research funded by: EXXON, Western Fuels Assn., Kuwait, Cyprus Coal Mining • Received $900,000 from coal oil interests between 1989 1995. • Editor: World Climate Report (funded by Western Fuels Assn.) • Research travel funded by: Edison Electric, CATO Inst., German Coal Mining Assn. Cyprus Mining. • Science Advisor: ICE Informa7on Council on the Environment (PR group for Coal Industry). Patrick J. Michaels
- 20. Who To Trust? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an IGO formed under the United Na7ons General Assembly in 1987. Composed of over 2,000 scien7sts from around the world, the IPCC’s job is to assemble analyze the best peer-‐reviewed scien7fic work on climate disrup7on.
- 21. The IPCC’s Conclusions The IPCC’s conclusions have been geung steadily more definite ominous over 7me. Today, IPCC scien7sts agree: Global Climate is warming due to human ac7vity. Faster warming increases nega7ve impacts. Governments should act immediately. The poten7al for a run-‐away greenhouse effect is becoming more likely every year. Stabilizing global climate will require a 60-‐80% drop in GHG emissions by 2050.
- 22. • Environmental groups support the work of the IPCC. • However, they believe some governments pressure the IPCC to keep its conclusions 7mid understated. • The IPCC admits that its conclusions tend to error on the side of under-‐es7ma7ng the dangers of climate change.
- 23. Environmentalists Are More Worried They point out that many problems the IPCC predicted for the future are already being observed: Glacial melt-‐backs, increased severity of tropical storms, mel7ng of north pole ice flows Antarc7c Greenland ice sheets, changing ocean currents, severe droughts massive forest fires, northern movement of tropical diseases, coral bleaching, sea level rise, ocean acidifica7on CO2 loading, mel7ng tundra permafrost.
- 25. The Runaway Greenhouse Effect This would be the worst possible situa7on. Once started, there would be no way of stopping it. Huge natural forces would take over dras7cally change the climate ecosystems of our world long into the future. Biodiversity would plummet.
- 26. Global Warming could spiral out of control through poten7ally disastrous feedback loops in the biosphere: – Permafrost Melt-‐-‐ Methane Release – Snow/Ice Cover Melt-‐-‐The Albedo Effect (Reduced Sunlight Reflec7on)
- 27. Could the Skeptics be Right? • Anything is Possible… • But all of the moun7ng evidence appears to be going against them. • But wouldn’t it be wise to hope they’re right, but plan for them to be wrong? – Ader all, fossil fuels are a dwindling resource anyway. Ques7on: Since there are only a dozen skep7cs (whose research is largely not peer-‐reviewed), compared to the 2,000 scien7sts of the IPCC, why does the media go out of its way to give them equal 7me?
- 28. The Skeptics Discredited Moun7ng evidence, improved modeling, Gore’s film serious climate disrup7ons like Katrina Sandy are finally discredi7ng the shrinking pool of skep7cs. By 2007, the evidence became so strong even Exxon the Bush administra7on were forced to recognize it.
- 29. Still, There Is Big Money Pushing Climate Denial • To avoid looking ridiculous, wealthy conservatives corporations have begun to fund their anti-science position anonymously. • In 2010, this dark money amounted to $118 million distributed to 102 think-tanks action groups with a record of denying climate change or opposing environmental regulations.
- 30. One Down, Two to Go! • But today, no government opposes a climate treaty based on scien%fic uncertainty. • Yet, the Cost-‐Benefit Equity Roadblocks s7ll remain in place…
- 31. Roadblock #2: Cost Concerns The Cost-Benefit Calculus of Climate Action While NOBODY benefited from ozone deple7on… • This calcula7on is less obvious with global warming. Will there be winners losers? • The skep7cs say everyone may benefit! • Ac7vists say: Rapid change with no clear endpoint means there are NO clear winners.
- 32. The Cost-Benefit Calculus is Shifting in Favor of Action • The environmental dangers are becoming evermore costly obvious: – Ice caps glaciers are mel7ng rapidly. – Storms are increasing in power frequency. – Ocean acidifica7on coral bleaching has become widespread. – The risk of a runaway greenhouse effect increases daily.
- 33. The Demand for Action is Growing • Media coverage ci7zen concern is on the rise. • Poli7cal leaders candidates are addressing the issue. • Deep cracks are opening in the blocking coali7on. – Australia jumps ship – The insurance industry joins the ac7vist coali7on. – Even some sectors of big business support GHG reduc7ons; • BCSEF (Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future)
- 34. But Fossil Fuels Are a Hard Habit To Kick! • Rich na7ons need fossil fuels to remain rich powerful. • Poor na7ons want fossil fuels to develop. • Corpora7ons (especially oil coal) need fossil fuels to maximize profit. • Fossil fuels are the energy base of modern civiliza7on. – Food water – Light, heat shelter – Transporta7on – Communica7on – Produc7on Trade • CEOs, poli7cians, mass media many everyday people remain in deep denial about this dilemma.
- 35. Roadblock #3) Equity-‐-‐What’s Fair? • Are poor countries obliged to cut emissions even without any assistance from rich countries? • Are rich na7ons obliged to to help developing na7ons abate adapt to atmospheric disrup7on? • How much what kind of assistance should be given? • What ins7tu7ons decision-‐making procedures should manage North-‐South technology resource transfers?
- 36. The Ethical Case for Carbon Justice is Strong… Worldwide, the Richest Sixth Emit 18 Times More CO2 Per Person than the Poorest Sixth.
- 37. Per Capita Emissions Indian woman forms fuel from goat dung
- 38. Equity Atmospheric Coopera7on The Equity Coali7on has made par7cipa7on in atmospheric agreements con7ngent upon 3 basic condi7ons: • Rich countries must bear the primary responsibility for fixing these problems. They must take the 1st step. • Poor countries’ GHG cuts are con7ngent on adequate assistance from the North. • The South should have as much say in, control over, these assistance programs as possible. • But…Will rich countries agree to these condi7ons?
- 39. Will Rich Countries Take These Equity Condi7ons Seriously? Four factors determine how seriously the North takes these equity concerns: • How seriously all rich naGons take this atmospheric threat. • How essenGal the North thinks the South’s parGcipaGon is to fixing the problem. • How credible the South’s threat to free ride is if their concerns aren’t addressed. • How willing the North is to assume the costs of assisGng Southern parGcipaGon.
- 40. The South’s Limited Leverage • The South’s unity ability to free ride made their hold-‐out threat credible forced the North to take their concerns seriously. • This bargaining leverage forced the North to agree to an ozone fund to transfer CFC-‐free technologies to poor na7ons. In 1990, this fund was nego7ated in London (acer the ozone agreement was signed in Montreal). During Ozone Nego7a7ons, the Equity Coali7on: • Held the developed naGons responsible for causing the problem benefiGng from CFCs for over 50 years. • Did not feel it had the resources to adopt CFC alternaGves without assistance. They had LEVERAGE because they were: • Not threatened by ozone depleGon as much as the North. • Capable of rapidly expanding its CFC-‐based refrigeraGon air condiGoning industries.
- 41. But Overcoming the Climate Equity Roadblock is Difficult The South is divided over its commitment to hold-‐ out for its equity demands. – The Small Island States many low-‐lying countries are part of the Ac7vist Coali7on. – The OPEC na7ons are part of the Blocking Coali7on.
- 42. The Rich Countries are Less Desperate than the Poor Countries for Climate Relief Unlike ozone deple7on… Climate Disrup7on will harm poor countries more than rich ones. Rich countries are not as unified in their desire to take effec7ve ac7on on climate change.
- 43. The Costs of Helping the South Cut Carbon… Steep, But Worth It? • The cost of assis7ng the South’s leap to carbon-‐free energy technologies will be steep. – However, it could produce vast lucra7ve new markets for cuung-‐ edge, carbon-‐free energy technologies.
- 44. Can Equity Be Profitable? • The Chemical industry profited from the Ozone Fund. – It helped them sell the South new CFC-‐free technologies. • BUT the Fossil Fuel industry will NOT profit from a Climate Fund. – Oil coal companies don’t control the carbon-‐free alterna7ves market. – They have enormous investments in fossil fuels.
- 45. Global Gridlock: Cost Equity Conflicts • Oil coal industries the most carbon dependent na7ons resist effec7ve ac7on. They are more concerned with a profitable, rather than an effec7ve, agreement: – US, OPEC, etc. • Large developing na7ons are most concerned with the equitability of any agreement. [“Polluter Pays”] – India, China, Brazil, South Africa. • The countries people with the least to gain the most to lose want to an effec7ve agreement immediately, but they have limited power. – Those who use linle fossil fuels but are most threatened by climate disrup7on: small island na7ons, low-‐lying states, plus many vulnerable African, Asian La7n American countries. • Some countries remain almost paralyzed by conflic7ng interests. – The EU, Australia, Russia, Canada.
- 46. Behind the Impasse--Addiction • The interna7onal system is divided into highly compe77ve, growth-‐obsessed corpora7ons na7on states. • The growth/profit impera7ve drives the en7re global economy. • Carbon-‐based energy fuels economic growth profits.
- 47. Formal Nego7a7ons Are Just “The Tip of the Iceberg” Consensus-‐building is a constant, complex, ongoing process. – It includes many types of ac7vity from scien7fic experimenta7on, computer modeling inven7on, to public rela7ons, lobbying, vo7ng nego7a7on, persuasion large-‐scale protest. It takes place on several levels involves many kinds of people. – Ci7zen-‐ac7vists, educators, voters, diplomats, scien7sts, lawyers, policymakers, journalists, businessmen bureaucrats.
- 48. The 4 Faces of Leadership Overcoming each Roadblock requires different types of leadership. • Leadership takes 4 basic forms: – Structural – Diploma7c – Scien7fic/Intellectual – Grassroots
- 49. Structural Leadership “The Carrot the Stick” The US: Ozone Ac7vist, Climate Blocker. – By threatening to embargo CFC products the US used its structural power to push for a strong ozone treaty. • This clearly demonstrates the deep poliGcal economic differences between ozone depleGon climate change. • The EU has not provided strong climate leadership either.
- 50. Diplomatic Leadership “Let’s Make A Deal” • Diploma7c leadership is vital for organizing nego7a7ons coming up with inven7ve ways to crac deals that sa7sfy all sides. – These leaders can be diplomats from different countries or members of IGOs (like UNEP) that are in charge of organizing the nego7a7ons. – UNEP’s use of the Framework-‐ Protocol Approach was a nego7a7ng innova7on that improved the possibility of building unity around a stronger treaty.
- 51. Scientific-Intellectual Leadership • Scien7fic-‐Intellectual Leadership plays a central role in: – Discovering studying environmental threats – Overcoming the uncertainty roadblock. • IGOs like UNEP the IPCC are the hub of this process. • Well known intellectual leaders popularize scien7fic conclusions. – Gore’s film
- 52. Grassroots Leadership--Citizen Action • Grassroots leaders are ci7zen ac7vists who mobilize public pressure for a strong treaty. • Grassroots leadership comes mainly from ac7vist NGOs. • Effec7ve grassroots leadership raises public awareness, concern ac7vism. • It can also help discredit blockers expose their narrow self-‐ interests. • Without it, the public remains ignorant passive policymakers rarely act.
- 53. Grassroots Leadership Precautionary Action • NGOs take the science to the people pressure policymakers to act on it. • Grassroots pressure uses all the avenues of domesGc internaGonal acGvism to educate keep the heat on. – Direct acGon – The legal system – The electoral system – The media
- 54. Climate Ac7on: Inside-‐Outside Strategy A global climate jus7ce movement is applying “street heat” to demand: – A place at the table for NGOs vic7ms of climate chaos. – A fair effec7ve climate treaty-‐-‐NOW – A systemic shic away from economies based on petroleum profit toward socie7es based on equity, democracy, renewable energy ecological sustainability.
- 55. The Goal--350 ppm--Can We Make It? The IPCC says we must keep C02 below 350 ppm to stabilize climate within tolerable limits. (2© rise) • We’re now at 400 ppm of CO2 rising fast. At the current rate of emissions, the global temperature will rise 6© by 2100. Acer 20 years of haggling, world leaders haven’t commined to any significant cuts.
- 56. Business-as-Usual vs. the 350 Pathway
- 57. The red line shows a global 350 pathway, the blue line shows developed country emissions declining more than 50% below 1990 levels by 2020, to zero by 2050. The green line shows, by subtracGon, the severely restricted emissions path that would remain for the developing countries. Getting to 350 ppm—The Pathway
- 58. No Pressure, No Change Concerned, educated, involved ci7zens, consumers voters are essenGal for winning over, pressuring, dividing neutralizing blocking coaliGon opposiGon. Public opinion, ci7zen pressure ac7vism are the most effec7ve counter-‐weight to the influence of money powerful business interests over policymakers poli7cians.
- 59. Citizen Pressure Has Some Impact • Obama has directed EPA to cut power plant CO2 emissions 30% (from 2005 levels) by 2030. – This comes to a 2% cut per year. • It will achieve a 7% drop in overall CO2 emitted by the US by 2030. • This comes after years of climate activism from many groups like Beyond Coal, 350.org, Greenpeace, Sierra Club many, many others. • The coal lobby says this is part of Obama’s “War on Coal”.
- 60. Copenhagen--Disastrous Deadlock • Two outcomes from Copenhagen (2009): – Na7onal leaders remained divided deadlocked over how to confront climate disrup7on. – The grassroots climate jus7ce movement gained trac7on, depth, maturity strength. • Can petro-‐powered capitalism solve the climate crisis?
- 61. Why Copenhagen Went Nowhere • Obama wanted a largely cosme7c agreement with binding cuts from China. – Congress will block any agreement that doesn’t require binding reduc7ons from major developing na7ons. • China wanted substan7al firm commitments from the US before considering binding commitments itself. – Like the US, China uses the equity impasse to slow down weaken the agreement. They both blame each other for inac7on.
- 62. Stuck Between a Rock a Hard Place China vs. US: A Convenient Conflict? • The US is, by far, the largest historical per capita consumer of fossil fuels. • The US has the most powerful petro-‐auto-‐military-‐industrial complex in the world. – It dominates American poliGcs lobbies against a strong treaty. • Americans are fairly ignorant misinformed about climate change. – They aren’t sure it’s real. – They believe even modest GHG cuts will harm living standards. • China is the world’s largest fastest growing consumer of fossil fuels. • 80% of China’s energy comes from coal-‐fired power plants. • China’s per capita use of fossil fuels is only 1/5th of the US, but it has 5 Gmes as many people. – A per capita doubling of GHGs would be disastrous. • China has no significant grassroots environmental movement to pressure for change.
- 63. China-‐-‐The Wild Card • Chinese leaders are commined to rapid economic growth. – 80% of power comes from coal; 2 new plants built each week. • China’s fossil fuel use soars higher every year. – Oil use doubled: 1996-‐2006 BUT… • China’s oil reserves are small. • Climate disrupGon is already having a serious impact. • China is aggressively inves7ng in clean energy low-‐carbon technologies. – China Germany lead the world in low carbon energy technologies.
- 64. Who’s Responsible? In 2004, China’s net exports accounted for 23% of its CO2 emissions. Thus, much of “China’s” emissions go to producing products consumed in the US other developed countries. Who is responsible for this polluGon-‐-‐the producer or the consumer?
- 65. Holding the Planet Hostage • The US lags far behind China, Europe Japan in clean renewable energy technologies. • America’s domes7c foreign policies are geared toward maintaining dependence on, control over, fossil fuels. • Oil, coal, auto arms lobbies block poli7cal progress. • Congress the President use China as an excuse for inac7on. – They resist ambi7ous GHG cuts. – They dismiss any climate debt to poor na7ons.
- 66. Beware of False Solutions Scams The Obama administra7on’s efforts to appease Republicans cater to the nuclear, coal, auto ethanol lobbies have produced many dead-‐ end solu7ons to climate change: – Clean Coal – Ethanol/Biodiesel – Nuclear Power
- 67. The Nuclear Boondoggle • Obama has called for federal support for a “new genera$on of safe nuclear power plants” to address climate change. This is a DANGEROUS DIVERSION. • Nuclear power is a perilous expensive waste of taxpayer dollars that could be much bener spent on solar, wind energy conserva7on. – In addiGon, the nuclear fuel cycle generates plenty of GHGs.
- 68. Nukes Are Expensive • From 1947-‐1999 the nuclear industry received over $115 billion in direct taxpayer subsidies. Including Price Anderson liability limita7ons, these subsidies reach $145.4 billion. – This is 25 7mes more than wind solar subsidies over the same period. – No private company, anywhere in the world, is willing to build a nuclear plant without huge government subsidies. – Waste management, reactor decommissioning, pollu7on from uranium mining, risks from nuclear weapons prolifera7on, dangers of Fukushima-‐type reactor accidents the legacy of radioac7ve waste are further hidden costs. – GHG reduc7ons from energy conserva7on solar are much cheaper, safer quicker to implement.
- 69. Nuclear Power Is Dangerous • Acer 65 years, no country in the world has found a safe way to deal with nuclear waste disposal. – High-‐level radioac7ve waste remains dangerous for several hundred thousand years! • Building new nuclear plants would mean the produc7on of much more of this dangerous waste with nowhere for it to go. – 2,000 metric tons of high-‐level radioac7ve waste 12 million cubic feet of low level radioac7ve waste are produced annually by 103 nuclear reactors in the US.
- 70. The Ways Forward… • Build renewable energy infrastructure (by cuung military spending): —Wind, solar, high-‐speed mass transit. • Plan build energy efficient communi7es. – Short commutes, energy collecGng homes buildings, etc. • Tax carboniferous energy, not labor. – Tax financial transacGons • Reduce global transport – Promote local organic farming economic ac7vity. • Help poor na7ons respond to climate change.