Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
POL2 revision - Coggle Diagram
POL2 revision
Climate change
Intro and spacetime frame
“The doomsday device is real” said Prime Minister Boris Johnson during his opening address to the 26th Conference of Parties (COP) held just last year in Glasgow.
Johnson was not referring to a device in a “James Bond movie,” but climate change, a threat that is a reality to some and a political bargaining tool for others.
Just ahead of the COP26, natural disaster swept across the world, from wildfires in the United States or Turkey, to floods in China or Scotland — the heart of the summit.
These disasters are among the few that the world will be facing if climate change is not tackled promptly and decisively.
While climate change might be a global issue, it would be a mistake to think that everyone will suffer the same consequences.
There will be an inevitable, unequal, and disproportionate impact on different levels, whether it be age, gender, social conditions, financial resources, geographical regions, or nations.
while there have been different periods of climate variations such as the medieval warm period (950-1350) or the Little Ice Age (1303-1860), humans are now in a new geological era, the Anthropocene
man’s action is now the main factor of climate change.
This period of contemporary climate change has been highlighted by various scientific works on environmental problems, particularly surrounding climate related questions.
Glaciologists, climatologists, and historians the likes of J. Jouzel and E. Le Roy Ladurie have observed a warming in the Northern hemisphere since the 1860s
It is in this context that the first Earth Summit was held in 1972 in Stockholm. The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment placed, for the first time, ecological concerns in the international political agenda.
the Stockholm conference was unprecedented insofar as it highlighted man’s fundamental rights in the face of climate change, which prompted global leaders to commit to having a summit every decade to assess the situation of the Earth.
The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), responsible for managing and coordinating environmental issues within the United Nations (UN), was also the direct result of this conference.
Climate justice
Distributive
Retributive
Generational
Isn't a single definition but still related to the upholding of the fundamental rights of every citizen, a right that was underlined in the Stockholm declaration of 1972 during the first Earth Summit that stated that everyone is entitled to a healthy environment that respects their health and well-being.
What we've done right
Internationally
the institutions of international politics could be defined as the different organisations that create and enforce a set of formal rules or informal norms that regulate the social, economic, and political relations between global actors (countries, transnational companies, individuals).
the Montreal protocol was also an example of a successful enterprise taken by international institutions.
The protocol targeted the substances that damage the ozone layer such as chlorofluorocarbons and it was eventually ratified by every single country in the world.
global climate initiatives, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an internationally recognised authority on climate that is responsible for publishing assessments on anthropogenic climate change...
...AND the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the first global treaty, ratified by 197 countries, to explicitly mention climate change and the limitation of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) by underlining the “dangerous human interference with the climate system.”
This landmark accord also set the framework for the COPs that could be considered today as the biggest multilateral forum for countries to work together in the face of climate change.
COP26 specific tings
In order to keep the 1.5C target alive, the COP26 decided to accelerate the turn of the NDC ratchet, pushing the countries to submit their 2030 goals by 2022 (not the 2025-deadline that was set at Paris) and their 2035 goals by 2025.
an event that John Kerry dubbed as the “world’s last best chance.”
As a matter of fact, in 2021, 79% of the present countries indicated that they have adopted at least one “national instrument for planning measures against the effects of climate change,” 7% more than in 2020
Glasgow also demonstrated the continuous progression from COP to COP since it is the first time in 26 years that fossil fuels were mentioned in the final climate agreement.
For decades, the COPs have failed to address the historic role of fossil fuels in the climate crisis, such as coal, the single biggest source of GHG, so the phasing-out of fossil fuel and the transition towards greener alternatives were a priority at the COP26.
Despite a last-minute amendment pushed by India and China — a subject which will be discussed later — the Glasgow Climate Pact (GCP) still managed to unprecedently put into writing the impact of fossil fuels, thanks to the NDCs of over 40 that pledged a phasing out of coal, such as Germany by 2038, or Poland and Vietnam by 2040 — the latter two being among the biggest consumer of coal powered energy.
the COP26 also managed to prioritise climate justice by facilitating cash flows towards impacted countries.
One particular area that will be beneficial for poorer countries is the concession around the building and financing of sea walls, doubling the money that was promised in 2019 by 2025.
The COP26 also demonstrated the willingness of developed and rich countries (historic polluters) to band up and help other countries that are suffering the consequences of climate change.
For instance, the US, UK, France, and Germany “agreed to mobilise a pot of 8.5bn$ over the next three to five years” for South Africa.
This sum is intended to facilitate the country’s decarbonisation from coal, all while protecting “the livelihoods of the 100.000 or so people” who depend on this fossil fuel for a living, again underlining the need to fight against climate inequalities and to leave no one behind.
Ahead of the COP26 the G20 have agreed to stop financing coal plants abroad, a much-welcomed initiative to kick-off the Glasgow talks.
If COP26 was about countries making promises to avoid catastrophic climate change, COP27 will be about raising money so developing nations can do their part.
the COPs are an illustration of an ever-growing and effective global governance in the pursuit of climate justice.
While the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 only targeted developed countries and countries in transition towards a market economy (annex 1), thus neglecting major carbon polluters such as China and India, the Paris Agreements compelled all 196 countries in the fight against carbon emission.
from one COP to another, there is a clear emphasis on the global nature of climate change.
Tried different approaches
the Kyoto Protocol followed a top-down approach that involved a legally binding commitment from countries to reduce their GHGs by 5.2% between 1990 and 2008-2012.
the Paris Agreement attempted a bottom-up approach under the form of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to discuss the results obtained from the 5-year projections and new individual commitments
Regionally
EU
with Europe being the historic polluter, the European Union (EU) has taken drastic measures to curb the continent’s emissions.
The EU carbon market (EU ETS) proved to be an effective incentive to limit carbon emission since the EU’s GHGs were reduced by 24% between 1990 and 2019, according to the European Commission, with sectors in the EU ETS being the spearhead.
Being the first and biggest carbon market, the EU ETS set the example for other markets to emerge, such as the one in California, and their impacts are measured by the World Bank that estimated that, from 2005 to 2010, various carbon markets around the world saw over 500$ billion in trade.
This contributes to climate justice insofar as it punishes actors — in this case it could be TNCs or countries — that do not respect their emission limits, all while rewarding those that do.
Reverting to the significance of the role of the COPs, the aforementioned carbon markets were the result of the Kyoto Protocol under Article 17 that gave additional flexibility in terms of emission reduction targets
Nationally
institutions like the Court of Appeal of the Hague ordered that the Dutch government reduce their GHG emissions sooner than planned.
. This unprecedented ruling not only represents a victory for the Dutch environmental organisation Urgenda, but also for global climate justice since it sets the precedent that civil societies can take matters into their own hands and that institutions can legally oblige a country to take more drastic and urgent measures to protect its citizens against the consequences of climate change.
Begs the question of whether we are looking in the right place when we consider international intstituions. Would it perhaps be more effective to look at national or even subnational bodies to deal with climate change/justice?
This set the tone for other climate justice movements such as the “Case of the century” in France in which NGOs like Oxfam and Greenpeace France amassed the most signed petition in French history and successfully sued the government, asking that it compensates the ecological damage that was done due to the country’s failure to meet its emissions target.
USA The decentralisation of the government has therefore been indispensable to adapting to new circumstances today such as climate change.
Argument extended to Tocqueville's vision
For instance, since the Trump administration pulled out of the Paris Agreements, states like California have continuously defied the central government’s environmental rollbacks.
Decentralisation has allowed California to be a pioneer on environmental issues as it announced more ambitious energy transition plans, despite Washington’s defiance towards the issue.
Furthermore, California has also illustrated that democracies can, indeed, adapt to new circumstances as former governor A. Schwarzenegger (from the Republican party that is still associated with downplaying the climate crisis) and his successor J. Brown (from California Democratic Party) have pledged to announce a new climate bill across party lines to tackle the environmental crisis.
This commitment to climate change is also seen in other states that are also part of the United States Climate Alliance like Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, New York, to name a few.
This bipartisan coalition unites governors but also mayors, NGOs, and TNCs from all over the world to discuss problems neglected by the central governments. A notable summit was that of 2018 in San Francisco during which California showcased that local initiatives at a federal level can make up for the disengagement of the central government by signing a bill that will allow electricity to be 100% renewable by 2045, making the Golden State the second one to do this after Hawaii.
espite the numerous advances in policies and treaties to tackle climate change, the urgency and magnitude of the COP26 is a reminder that, even after 25 years, the institutions of international politics have been slow and inefficient to act against climate change.
What obstacles are we facing
The President of the IDDRI Scientific Council Claude Henry said that the cooperation between sovereign states and the action of international institutions to control climate change remains highly insufficient.
Unilateralism
‘free-rider problem’ that hampers multilateralism
. This issue stems from the fact that the environment is a common good, mainly due to its characteristics of rivalry and non-excludability — a theory developed by P. Samuelson — which means that some countries can benefit from the common fight against climate change all while contributing little to no effort.
This serves as an explanation as to why, despite the countless negotiations ever since the Rio Summit of 1992, it has taken so long to achieve significant results in terms of carbon emission
Though it is also worth noting that she f the changes are not inconsierable
in 2010, 80% if UK electricity came from fossil fuel and by 2019 the figure had dropped to 39% with more electricity generated by renewables (40%) than from ff for the first time
Of course there are also nuances and limitations in looking at these figures because a lot of the manufacturing and dumping are done abroad but the change is still commendable
US decided not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, thus complicating international negotiations all while creating a domino effect in other countries like Russia, Canada, and even Japan (in the second phase of the protocol) who followed suit.
This problem persisted even after the Kyoto Protocol when the US decided to pull out of the Paris Agreement under the Trump administration.
Although there was not a significant domino effect with the Paris Accords, the behaviour presented by the US is a substantial obstacle on the effectiveness of international negotiations, since an agreement that does not involve the single biggest polluter per capita weakens the legitimacy and efficacy of the institutions of international politics.
Today, still, it seems like international institutions are still unable to band the countries together since Putin was absent from the COP26, citing the current pandemic as the reason, even though Russia’s present is indispensable since the country remains the 4th highest carbon emitter in the world and is one of the main natural gas suppliers to Europe.
The war certainly isn't making things easier either....
Looking to stop buying Russian fossil fuel but this was an opportunity for the world to say stop to fossil fuel. full stop.
Therefore, the credibility and efficacy of international institutions is highly contingent on the willingness of the main polluters to comply.
Developing countries
Kyoto Protocol did not manage to include everyone since there were countries like China and India that were — and still is — facing socio-economic issues such as poverty and food-security.
these two countries have emerged as key players in the sense that they are today among the biggest polluters, yet they also represent countless developing countries claiming the rights to development to achieve the same level of prosperity as the historic polluters.
recently caused controversy at the COP26 for watering down the language regarding fossil fuels, insisting that the ‘phasing out’ of coal be amended to ‘phasing down.’
This last-minute change in the GCP caused the summit’s president to choke back tears and apologise as the COP26 concluded, a scene that arguably represents the lack of decisiveness from the COP.
Although Johnson insisted that the COP26 still marked the “beginning of the end for coal,” the amendment still reflects the inequality of development across the world and how it represents a significant obstacle to the ability of the current institutions to deliver climate justice.
N. Klein: quoted Bolivia’s climate negotiator who was optimistic that the climate crisis could end up being advantageous for poorer countries
they could declare themselves as “climate creditors” and rely on financial and technological support from wealthy countries — a claim that was voiced many times during the opening speeches of the COP26, such as with Vietnam that claimed equity and justice.
Goes back to the question of what we mean when we talk about climate justice. Is climate justice that those countries which are responsible for past emissions should take all the actions in reduction emissions?
the least developed and developing countries face a double sanction, as they are the ones that pollute the least but will most likely suffer the most
This therefore implicates the need for a greater contribution from the Western countries as they have a ‘historic responsibility’ in regard to climate change. Considering how the deregulation of the climate started in Europe and was amplified in North America, countries like the UK, France, and the US have a greater ‘climate debt’ than the rest of the world.
However, these countries seem to be unwilling to corporate, as shown by N. Klein when she underlined that the development of green energy programs were being “increasingly challenged under international trade agreements, particularly the World Trade Organisation.”
Reverting to the problem with unilateralism, Klein highlighted, the problem with the US’ diplomacy and its impact on the existing international institutions, notably when it “challenged one of China’s wind power subsidy programs on the grounds that it contained supports for local industry considered protectionist” in 2010.
As a result, China retaliated by filing “a complaint targeting various renewable energy programs in the EU” in 2012.
With China and the US being the two main GHG emitters in the world, one would think that they would be able to recognise the urgency of the matter and the need for greater cooperation, instead, they have resorted to “rushing to the WTO to knock down each other’s windmills.”
the divergence in terms of development and political interests of individual countries have always remained a major obstacle to the functioning of international institutions.
ever-persisting dysfunction of public actions
research organisations like Climate Action Tracker are still sceptical. According to their latest reports, even with the new NDCs, the world is still on track for 2.4 degrees of warming by the end of the century
Lobbies
slows down or even puts a stop to legislations and decisions taken at an international and national level.
Companies like Shell, Exxon, Chevron, and BP, just to name a few, have all donated tens of millions of dollars to political lobby groups such as the American Petroleum Institute to “stall or weaken” legislations at the US Congress.
Klein quoted R. Eckersley to describe the incompatibility between the imminent climate crisis and the existing institutions.
Eckersley said that organisations such as the World Bank and the IMF were unwilling to recalibrate the “international trade rules to conform with the requirements of climate protection,” and were doing the exact opposite by imposing austerity policies that protect “liberalised trades” against climate policies.
although countries like France and the UK have a relatively ‘green’ energy portfolio thanks to nuclear energy, it does not include the fact that they are still purchasing ‘dirty’ energy abroad.
The dysfunction of public action related to the current economic status-quo therefore translates to a lack of transparency from states that champion international institutions, which will eventually lead to ineffective measures.
Conclusions
A lot has been tried and done to tackle the climate crisis and deliver climate justice over the years
26 counting from the COPs and exactly 50 counting from Stockholm
But even after half a century, the world is still on track to surpass the 1.5C safety net and climate-related inequalities still persist
International institutions still serve as a common road map for individual countries
Every IPCC report is another year down the drain
Possible alternatives:
possible alternative to the fight against climate injustice, like a climate club championed by W. Nordhaus
WoT 9/11
Introduction
“There is clearly in our representation of the world a before and after September 11,” said French political scientist Christian Lequesne (scpo)
The acts of violence of 11 September 2001 gave rise to a round of profound re-assessment by analysts of international politics.
Some saw 9/11 as the opportunity to bring new order to the world
others saw it as proof of global disorder
and yet others saw it as entrenching the unequal power relations that had always been present, whether along the lines of colonialism, gender, class, or race.
CL: transition from a “realist world of violence of interests to enter the world of violence of emotions and identities.”
This thesis is comparable to that of other political scientists like of Samuel P. Huntington in The Clash of Civilisations to explain the shifting nature of violence in the 21st century
Having always benefited from the geographical advantage of being surrounded by the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean, the USA was in disbelief when it was struck with four spectacular attacks planned by Al-Qaeda terrorists that claimed the lives of almost three thousand people in the span of one day.
The acts of 9/11 thus set in motion a long train of political violence
from the flourishing of national ‘wars on terror’ globally
a broad geography of drone strikes, proxy wars, and state surveillance and repression.
With its promise of ‘infinite justice’, the defense of civilization, and a concern with ungoverned spaces and ‘weak’ and ‘failed’ states, the War on Terror built on many of the discourses and tools of the 1990s.
The violence of 9/11 and the US response shattered many of the images of post-Cold War globalization, stability and progress.
Some argued that 9/11 proved conclusively that global politics was no longer the exclusive domain of states, but rather was defined by broad and conflicting cultural or religious identities.
Others argued, conversely, that 9/11 in fact demonstrated the state’s continuing centrality to international politics, and that we need to look at the recent history of superpower politics and the Cold War itself to understand the attacks.
Impacts for the USA
What changed
In a speech to Congress just a few days after 9/11, Bush Jr declared a “war on terror,” a new guiding principle in US foreign policy which pledged to go to war against terrorism, making no distinction between the terrorists, and the countries that host terrorists.
Transnationalised threat
terrorism wasn’t just a threat to american or western values such as democracy and capitalism but to the international world order as it stood.
Because the terrorism threat is by definition, delocalised and not limited to state boundaries (war in countries we are not at war with), it also brings about the transnationalisation of political threats.
Iran, Iraq, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as the “axis of evil,” on the grounds that they were harbouring and procuring weapons to terrorists — this expression is similar to that used by Raegan in 1983 to describe the Soviet Union as an “Evil Empire.”
9/11marked the intrinsic intertwining of domestic and foreign policy in that terrorism was now perceived as both an internal and external threat: conflict was defined as both “between states and borderless or globalised phenomena” (Carne Ross, Did 9/11 Change Everything?)
Change in the USA’s approach to global politics because conflicts were no longer thought of as state versus state, but rather as a global threat to the international order.
US foreign policy became 'preventative' with the Bush Doctrine
Robert Jervis: If, in the past, conflict was defined by links of causality, provocation and reaction, the notion of ‘preemptive self defence’ made it now much more ambiguous
"Because even defence may not be possible against terrorists or rogues, the United States must be ready to wage preventive wars and to act against emerging threats before they are fully formed"
Nausheen Wasi : US changed its approach to global politics of security in that it shifted its defence philosophy from a 'threat based' model to a 'capability base’
Preventative war illegitimate and pre-emptive war legitimate but Bush admin blurred that distinction and sometimes argued it made little sense to consider them as different in the context of terrorism and WMD
Callinicos: the country “had to be seen striking back itself, not dialling 911 for the international police.”
saw this event, indeed as a tragedy, but simultaneously as an opportunity, to advance these universalistic ideals.
Indeed, shortly after the terrorist attacks, Bush is reported to have told one of his closest advisers: “We have an opportunity to restructure the world toward freedom, and we have to get it right.”
Where did they go lol
embark on a series of conflicts, first with an air strike on Taliban-led Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, then the arrival of American ground troops, which eventually led to the quick downfall of the Taliban and the establishment of a new pro-US government.
Thereafter, on the assumption that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that there may have been a tie between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden, the US and the UK led a coalition that quickly removed Hussein, and, again, created a new democratic government.
At least...democratic until we consider the fact that the US tried repeatedly to postpone the. move to elections in Iraq out of concern that pro-Iranian groups would win. It was only with mass protests in favour of democratic elections that they were held
Despite announcing the end of “major combat operations” in Iraq, the Bush administration and the US military found it increasingly difficult to handle countries destabilised by organised insurgencies
in the direct aftermath of 9/11, the swift wars that the US had planned out achieved their short term goal, but eventually mutated into wars of occupation, then wars of invasion against highly resilient and embedded insurgencies
Robert Samuelson (2001) saw that the illusion of U.S. invulnerability to external threats could no longer be maintained, and that the change in attitudes and assumptions would have a profound effect on U.S. politics and foreign policy, as well as on the nation’s identity
What didn't change
9/11 only intensified characteristics of american approach to global
demonstrated, the USA’s use of extreme force and military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan
Pinfari says that US still an interventionist sate
stopping terrorism really is now the country’s top priority in the way that stopping Communism once was, competing priorities will inevitably be displaced.
Greater domestic surveillance echos the CW's McCarthyism era
The result of the September 11 attacks will not be an American return to isolationism, but a reinvigoration of engagement.
Impacts for the world
Impacts for a region (SEA study)
Asia Pacific has also witnessed significant shifts in major-power relations since 9-11
Today
Could Russia's war in Ukraine be dubbed as a pre-emptive war?
Climate