The Symbolic Politics of Climate Diplomacy, Stephen Cohen .Executive Director, Columbia Universitys Earth Institute Last week, the European Union began the process of setting the agenda for the climate negotiations scheduled for Paris in late 2015. They agreed that by 2030 Europe would cut emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels. Writing in the New York Times, James Kanter reported that environmental advocates believed the agreement: ...amounted to a weak compromise reflecting the complexity of managing a bloc of 28 member nations with widely varying energy systems. Elements of the deal were watered down to account for countries like Poland that rely on carbon-heavy coal, and for countries like Britain that were unwilling to accept binding targets on such other measures as the percentage of energy that comes from renewable sources and energy efficiency. As long as nation-states have distinctly different levels of energy-dependent economic development, and their self-interests are so varied, there is really no basis for the mutuality of interest required for a meaningful treaty. This is not to say there is no hope of addressing the climate crisis, just that the conditions for effective global diplomacy do not seem to be present. The actions that will address the climate crisis will largely take place within nation-states, and for reasons that are only indirectly related to climate change. In China, the extreme dependence on coal for energy was a necessity if that country was to develop as quickly as it wanted and needed to develop. But the result has been some of the worst air quality in modern history. Chinas air quality crisis is similar to Americas at the time we enacted national ambient air quality standards in 1970. In many respects, it is worse than the air pollution we experienced. A massive national effort to reduce air pollution is inevitable in China. That will require reductions in the use of coal as a primary fuel. The coming reduction in air pollution may well have the side-effect of reducing the projected growth of greenhouse gases in China. These efforts to modernize the American energy system -- to reduce costs and increase reliability and resiliency -- have the effect of reducing fossil fuel use and the release of greenhouse gases. While reducing our carbon footprint is often given as one of the rationales for these actions, in truth, these carbon reductions are a byproduct of the accomplishment of other goals. I am coming to the conclusion that the climate problem will be addressed indirectly, largely by modernizing our energy system. The positive value of a lower cost, renewable, less polluting, more reliable and decentralized energy system is an easier sell than the negative politics of carbon reduction. One argument focuses on what we get, the other on what we must give up. Its not hard to figure out which argument is more attractive to politicos. At the risk of redundancy, Ill repeat my basic analysis of the politics of climate change and the American policy direction I consider feasible: 1. Energy is the central element of economic growth in the developed and developing world. The drive for reliable, low-cost and plentiful energy is central to modern economic life. 2. Economic growth is required for political stability and, therefore, energy is required for political stability and for political regimes to remain in power. 3. No national leader will risk economic decline by significantly raising the price of energy. 4. While short-term energy prices are volatile and can come down for a variety of reasons (such as fracking), fossil fuels are finite and therefore over the long run are subject to shortages and rising prices. Even in a global economy, some nations have easier access to fossil fuels than others. 5. It is in Americas long-term national political and economic interest to develop a renewable alternative to fossil fuels. 6. An energy policy that created a low-priced, convenient and reliable alternative to fossil fuels could drive fossil fuels from the market, reduce energy prices, stimulate economic growth, increase the popularity of elected leaders and end the climate crisis. 7. One way to develop new renewable energy technology is to fund the basic science and applied engineering of energy production, transmission and storage, and to also fund the infrastructure needed to efficiently deliver this energy. In other words, the climate crisis requires a technological fix, not a diplomatic one. When new transformative technologies are developed, there will be a role for diplomacy in ensuring effective transfer of this technology to the developing world. huffingtonpost/steven-cohen/the-symbolic-politics-of_b_6053620.html?utm_hp_ref=green
Posted on: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 05:49:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015