Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, vol. 51, no. 6, December 2009–January 2010, pp. 211–220
Order a copy of the issue here
<First 500 words>
As Paula J. Dobriansky and Vaughan C. Turekian point out in their commentary elsewhere in this issue, with the world gathering in Copenhagen this December to replace the Kyoto Protocol, the relative successes of existing regional and national approaches are of great interest. It is particularly useful to look for lessons from the only region of the globe that has moved in a coordinated and effective way to limit its greenhouse-gas emissions: Europe. David Buchan’s Energy and Climate Change: Europe at the Crossroads gives a comprehensive overview of the European Union’s energy policy, and how the shared threat of climate change encouraged collective action, in effect creating a common energy policy within the EU. This book should be a guide for international and national policymakers for how to create a climate-friendly energy policy.
Scientists say that the levels of carbon in the atmosphere have not been this high for 15 million years, and the last time they were, global temperatures were 3–5°C warmer and sea levels approximately 23–37 metres higher than today.1 The unambiguous scientific consensus, as stated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent assessment, is ‘warming of the climate system is unequivocal’ and there is ‘very high confidence’ that this warming is probably caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.2 An international agreement in Copenhagen would ask the countries of the world to come together to bring emissions below dangerous levels by 2050.
An agreement to stabilise and reduce emissions must overcome the differing priorities of each nation. The least-developed countries call for funding for direct adaptation, so that they are not overwhelmed by the effects of climate change. Tropical nations seek a reliable way to finance the protection of their forests from the pressures of deforestation, the source of 20% of greenhouse-gas emissions. Small island nations want assurances that they will retain some form of sovereignty should they slip beneath the waves. Large growing nations, particularly China and India, say that they cannot agree to a cap on their emissions, as that will only prevent them from enjoying the economic growth that the West has already achieved. Meanwhile, developed countries, particularly the United States, maintain they cannot abide a reprise of Kyoto, with mandatory caps on the developed world and no commitments from the developing world. Oil-producing nations like Saudi Arabia have asked for financial reimbursement to replace revenues lost because of limitations on oil sales. Bridging these divides will be a substantial challenge.
How can such a diverse set of agendas be brought into agreement? For a possible answer we may look to Europe. The 27 states of the EU exhibit significant diversity: some are large, rich or growing fast, while others are small, poor or economically stagnant. Europe has crafted a common climate policy that includes the coal miners of Silesia, the bankers and traders of London, the auto manufacturers of Germany, impoverished rural farmers in the Carpathians, and environmentalists throughout. As Buchan reveals, action on climate...
Get full article here
Andrew Holland is Programme Manager and Research Associate for the Transatlantic Dialogue on Climate Change and Security at the IISS.
Related Articles
Climate Change and Copenhagen: Many Paths Forward by Paula J. Dobriansky and Vaughan C. Turekian (December 2009–January 2010)
The Political Consequences of Climate Change by Paul F. Herman and Gregory Treverton (April–May 2009)
Moon Over Manhattan by Jeffrey Mazo (April–May 2009)
Why Europe Leads on Climate Change by John Schmidt (August–September 2008)
What Price Energy Transformation? by Andreas Kraemer (June–July 2008)
The Strategic Implications of Climate Change by Alan Dupont (June–July 2008)
