Climate Change and Foreign Policy

Case Studies from East to West

Paul G. Harris

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2009
• eBook ISBN: 9781134014736
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Climate Change and Foreign Policy: Case Studies from East to West and its companion volume, Environmental Change and Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice, examine and explain the role of foreign policy politics, processes and institutions in efforts to protect the environment and natural resources. They seek to highlight international efforts to address human-induced changes to the natural environment, analyze the actors and institutions that constrain and shape actions on environmental issues, show how environmental changes influence foreign policy processes, and critically assess environmental foreign policies.

This book examines the problem of global climate change and assesses the manner in which governments and other actors have attempted to deal with it. It presents a series of in-depth international case studies on climate policy in Australia, Japan, China, Turkey, Hungary, Denmark, France, the European Union and the United States. The authors demonstrate how studying environmental foreign policy can help us to better understand how governments, businesses and civil society actors address—or fail to address—the critical problem climate change.

This book will be of strong interest to scholars and students of environmental policy and politics, foreign policy, public policy, climate change and international relations.

1 Climate change in environmental foreign policy

Science, diplomacy, and politics

Paul G. Harris

Over the past three decades, climate change has moved from being a minor, mostly scientific, matter in the affairs of states to being a prominent, front-burner foreign policy priority. It is also now a major concern of international organizations, industry, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and a growing number of people around the world. As climate change has grown in prominence among other foreign policy priorities, so too have predictions of its adverse impacts on nature and societies. Indeed, many of the effects are being felt today. Governments have negotiated agreements to study climate change and, in the case of many developed states, to start limiting the pollution that causes it. However, their responses to the problem have failed to keep up with the increasing pace of climate change; they are grossly inadequate.

Why this lackluster response to what is likely the greatest problem yet faced by humanity? In this book we aim to help answer this important question by examining the policies of a variety of states from both the developed and developing worlds. Our main aims are: (1) to analyze the politics of climate change within and among states; and (2) to supplement existing knowledge of climate politics by focusing on the actors and processes of foreign policy. A premise underlying our work is that analyzing and thinking about climate change from the perspective of foreign policy — the crossovers and interactions between domestic and international politics — will help us to better understand how and why governments have responded the way that they have. Our analyses of climate change politics from the perspective of foreign policy (and other perspectives) can, we believe, reveal new explanations for what has happened in the past and possibly some new solutions to foster greater action in the future.

In this chapter I lay a foundation for subsequent chapters by first summarizing some of the recent scientific findings on the impacts of climate change. I then describe how governments have created a regime of international agreements and ongoing diplomatic negotiations aimed at tackling the problem. I begin by explaining why governments have not done more about climate change by pointing to the ideational complexity of the problem. I go on to show how the politics of climate change can be thought of in terms of foreign policy. Like many other environmental issues (and other challenges facing the world), climate change is a problem that by its nature crosses over between the domestic and international arenas of politics and policymaking. Because foreign policy analysis focuses on these crossovers, and indeed encompasses them, it is a potentially productive way of understanding the world’s responses to climate change. Finally, I summarize the chapters that follow before making some concluding remarks.¹

The science of climate change

Over the past two decades, scientists have radically improved their understanding of the causes and consequence of global warming — the warming of the Earth as a consequence of greenhouse gases (GHGs) building up in the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created by governments in 1988 to study climate change, has concluded with “very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming” (IPCC 2007: 37). Carbon dioxide, the most influential GHG in aggregate, is emitted through the burning of fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, natural gas), and when trees are felled and subsequently decay or are burned. “Climate change” refers to changes in climate and their consequences resulting from global warming, with the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) including under this rubric atmospheric changes connected directly or indirectly to human activities.² This human-induced global warming was, until recently, viewed as a future problem. But it is becoming clearer that ongoing climatic changes are consequences of global warming (New Scientist 2006). The impacts of climate change on natural ecosystems and on human society and economies are potentially severe, particularly in parts of the world where geographic vulnerability and poverty make adaptation difficult or impossible. Importantly for our understanding of the politics of climate change, the problem is intimately connected to most economic activity and modern lifestyles, thereby connecting the Earth and the natural world with human societies.

Actual effects of climate change

The most authoritative reports on the causes and consequences of climate change come from the IPCC, especially its 2007 fourth assessment report.³ According to the assessment, since 1970 anthropogenic GHG emissions have increased globally by 70 per cent, with CO₂ in particular increasing by 80 per cent, especially since 1995. The IPCC reports that “atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ and CH₄ [methane] in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years” (IPCC 2007: 37). The concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere in 2005 was 379 parts per million (ppm) compared to 280 ppm prior to the Industrial Revolution, with the annual increase being nearly 2 ppm. Importantly, although plants and the oceans absorb CO₂, global warming inhibits their ability to do so, thereby creating a feedback loop contributing to more warming and greater climate change. Perhaps seeking to counter the political influence of “climate skeptics”—who question the reality of global warming and attribute it to all manner of causes, such as sun spots — the IPCC has declared that “[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level” (ibid.: 30). What is more, in a new determination since its third assessment report in 2001, the panel found that “discernible human influences extend beyond average temperature to other aspects of climate, including temperature extremes and wind patterns” (ibid.: 40). That is, the impacts of climate change are undoubtedly attributable to human activities.

Among many ongoing adverse impacts of climate change, the proportion of Earth affected by drought has increased, as has the frequency of extreme weather events, heavy precipitation, incidence of intense tropical cyclones, extreme high sea levels in a wide range of locations, and heat waves (in most regions). Meanwhile, the frequency of cool days and nights has declined. These changes are having noticeable effects on both physical and biological systems, as demonstrated by melting glaciers and sea ice; warming of lakes and rivers; the early advent of spring and associated changes to plants and wildlife, such as earlier greening of vegetation and impacts on bird migration and egg laying; and major impacts on marine ecosystems, including changes in salinity and currents, changes in ranges of marine life and timing and locations of fish migrations, likely adverse impacts on reefs, and losses of coastal wetlands and mangroves (both crucial for healthy fisheries). The IPCC reports adverse changes to agriculture and harm to forests from more fires and pests. Human health has also been affected by heat stresses and expanding ranges of disease vectors (e.g., mosquitoes), among other effects.

Future effects of climate change

The IPCC has considered the influence of planned and likely national sustainable development policies and efforts to mitigate climate change. Its findings are not optimistic; even following the adoption of anticipated proactive policies, GHG emissions will climb. The panel projected out two decades, anticipating about 0.2 degree C increase per decade under most emissions scenarios, with future temperature increases of course depending on how the world responds. Global average temperature is predicted to rise by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees C, with the highest increase more likely without additional mitigation policies. With continued warming, expected manifestations of climate change in this century will be “larger” (i.e., usually more adverse) than those seen in the last century (IPCC 2007: 45). Changes expected this century include generally higher temperatures over land and at high northern latitudes, reduced snow cover, thawing permafrost, shrinking sea ice, sea-level rise, more frequent heat waves, heavy precipitation events and more intense tropical cyclones. As a consequence,

the resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, overexploitation of resources).

(ibid.: 48)

Positive feedbacks will increase as carbon uptake by plants reaches saturation, the risk of extinction for 20–30 per cent of plant and animal species will increase (based on only 2.5 degrees of warming), and changes in biodiversity and ecosystems seen in the last century will be exacerbated — adversely affecting human needs, such as water and food supplies. Coastal erosion and flooding due to sea-level rise will increase. Extreme weather events are expected to become more frequent and intense, with “mostly adverse effects on natural and human systems” (ibid.: 53).

The health of millions of people will be adversely affected

through, for example, increases in malnutrition; increased deaths, diseases and injury due to extreme weather events; increased burden of diarrhoeal diseases; increased frequency of cardio-respiratory diseases due to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone in urban areas related to climate change; and the altered spatial distribution of some infectious diseases.

(ibid.: 48)

Even in affluent parts of the world, which have a greater aggregate capacity to adapt, some groups of people, notably the poor and the elderly, will suffer the risks of climate change. The upshot is that, around the world, “[m]ore people are projected to be harmed than benefited by climate change,” even if temperature increases are somehow mitigated (Working Group II (IPCC) 2001: para. 2.8).

Regional effects will vary, ranging from up to hundreds of millions of people exposed to water stress in Africa, increased flooding in the coastal and delta regions of Asia, significant loss of biodiversity in Australia, retreat of glaciers in the mountains of Europe and water shortages in southern Europe, loss of tropical forests and biodiversity in Latin America, water shortages and heat waves in North America, detrimental changes to natural ecosystems in polar regions, and inundations and storm surges in small islands — to list only a few of the anticipated changes in coming decades. Later in the century, the likelihood of abrupt or irreversible environmental changes increases, with some of them considered inevitable. These could include rapid sea-level rise, significant extinctions (40 to 70 per cent of species if temperature increases exceed 3.5 degrees C), large-scale, persistent changes to marine systems and fisheries, and yet more positive (i.e., harmful) feedback loops as oceans absorb less CO₂. In future centuries, impacts of climate change could be truly monumental.

The diplomacy of climate change

Scientific assessments by the IPCC and other scientists provided the stimulus for international agreements to address climate change. However, because the science has been intimately wrapped up with politics, climate diplomacy has often taken on a life of its own, one that is partly divorced from science. One of the earliest important international events was the 1979 First World Climate Conference, a gathering of scientists interested in climate change and its relationship with human activities. From that conference a program of scientific research was established, leading to the creation of the IPCC in 1988. The IPCC’s first assessment report and the Second World Climate Conference in 1990 added stimulus to initial concerns about climate change among governments. In December 1990, therefore, the UN General Assembly established the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change. The goal of the committee was to negotiate a framework convention that would be the basis for subsequent international protocols dealing with climate change.

The climate change regime

From that point until the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (“Earth Summit”), representatives of over 150 states negotiated the FCCC. The stated aim of the FCCC is:

Stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

(UNFCCC 1992: Art. 2)

The FCCC called on the world’s most economically developed states to reduce their emissions of GHGs to 1990 levels by 2000; this objective was not achieved. The FCCC came into force in 1994, after ratification by 50 states. Particular responsibility was also laid on the developed states to provide “new and additional” resources to developing countries to help them with their efforts to limit GHG emissions. While negotiation of the FCCC was fraught, and characterized by tensions between developed and developing states, negotiations after 1992 were even more contentious.

In 1995, parties to the FCCC established the Conference of the Parties (COP), which became the convention’s overriding authority. Many COP meetings were held to negotiate the details of how GHG emissions limitations would be achieved. At COP1 (Berlin, 1995), developed states acknowledged that they had a greater share of the responsibility for causing climate change and would act to address it first. Central to the resulting Berlin Mandate was the demand by developing countries that the industrialized states take on greater commitments to reduce their GHG emissions and assist the poor countries with sustainable development. Thus COP1 affirmed the notion of “common but differentiated responsibility,” meaning that, while all states have a common responsibility to address climate change, the developed states have greater (“differentiated”) obligation to do so. At COP2 (Geneva, 1996), states called for a legally binding protocol with specific targets and timetables for reductions of GHG emissions by developed states. The resulting Geneva Declaration served as the negotiating basis for the Kyoto Protocol, which was agreed in December 1997 at the COP3 in Kyoto. The protocol requires most developed country parties to reduce their aggregate GHG emissions by 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. However, not all developed states agreed to be bound by the protocol.

The Kyoto conference proved to be especially contentious, not least because the United States seemed to be reneging on the Berlin Mandate when President Bill Clinton called for the “meaningful participation” of developing countries. Nevertheless, diplomats at the conference managed to agree to the Kyoto Protocol, which established specific emissions goals for developed states without requiring significant commitments from developing states. The protocol also endorsed emissions-trading programs that would allow developed states to buy and sell emissions credits among themselves. Other so-called flexible mechanisms included in the protocol were “joint implementation,” whereby developed states could earn emissions credits when investing in one another’s emissions-reduction projects, and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which allows developed country entities to pay for — and receive emissions credits for — emissions-reduction projects in developing states.

Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol

Some of the means by which the Kyoto Protocol’s 5 per cent goal would be reached were codified at COP4 (Buenos Aires, November 1998). At COP5 in Bonn in October 1999, parties agreed to a timetable for completing outstanding details of the Kyoto Protocol by COP6 and, in an effort to speed up negotiations, gave the conference president the power to “take all necessary steps to intensify the negotiating process on all issues during the coming year” (FCCC 1999). The sixth COP began in November 2000 in The Hague, but the talks broke down due to disagreements among delegates, particularly on the question of carbon sinks, which are processes, such as planting trees (afforestation) that can remove GHGs from the atmosphere. The Kyoto Protocol’s ratification was put into doubt with the advent of President George W. Bush in the United States, who withdrew all US support for it. The sixth COP resumed in Bonn during July 2001. The resulting Bonn Agreement clarified plans for emissions trading, carbon sinks, compliance mechanisms and aid to developing countries. At COP7 (Marrakech, 2001) parties to the FCC agreed to a long list of ways to meet the Kyoto commitments. The result was the Marrakech Accords, a complicated mix of proposals for implementing the Kyoto Protocol, largely designed to garner ratification from enough states to allow the protocol to enter into force. Parties agreed to increase funding for the FCCC’s financial mechanism, the Global Environmental Facility, as well as to establish three new funds that would provide additional aid to poor countries: the Least Developed Countries Fund, the Special Climate Change Fund, and the Adaptation Fund.

A milestone of sorts was reached at the October 2002 COP8 in New Delhi. A tacit agreement between the United States, a few other developed states and several large developing countries, notably China and India, emerged that shifted much of the focus away from mitigating climate change and toward adaptation — wealthy countries agreeing to help developing countries adapt to climate change, rather than the former having to reduce their GHG pollution. ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• List of illustrations
• List of contributors
• Preface
• List of abbreviations
• 1 Climate change in environmental foreign policy: science, diplomacy, and politics
• 2 Australia at a discursive crossroads: climate change and foreign policy
• 3 Japanese foreign policy on climate change: diplomacy and domestic politics
• 4 Climate change in Chinese foreign policy: internal and external responses
• 5 Turkey’s foreign policy on global atmospheric commons: climate change and ozone depletion
• 6 Understanding Hungary’s environmental foreign policy: the cases of the climate change and biodiversity regimes
• 7 Climate change and Danish foreign policy: options for greater integration
• 8 Environmental foreign policy in France: national interests, nuclear power, and climate protection
• 9 Who decides EU foreign policy on climate change? Actors, alliances, and institutions
• 10 Exceptionalism as foreign policy: US climate change policy and an emerging norm of compliance
• 11 Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change in official development assistance: challenges to foreign policy integration