Global Governance used to be an EU-US affair, but increasingly it reflects the emergence of new powers and the declining ability of Brussels and Washington to shape the global agenda’. Discuss

with reference to climate change.

Post WWII, the United States and Europe have had an apparent monopoly of power in the global arena over; trade, money and security issues. However, with the emergence of new powers on the world’s stage it can be argued that the power of Washington and Brussels is in decline. This essay will discuss this notion in-depth in regards to a prominent and relatively new security issue: Climate change. States have long been the main focus when analysing global governance, however, with the emergence of new security issues, it can be argued that new powers are increasingly shaping the global agenda. This essay will begin by setting the context of climate change on the global agenda and analyse how the EU and the US have been historically dominant. In turn, the role of the EU and the US will be evaluated as to whether or not they remain global leaders or if other states are taking their place. Preceding this, the role of new powers; institutions, multinational companies (MNCs) and non-state actors (NSAs) will be analysed as to whether they have the ability to shape the global agenda more effectively than states.

Climate change is a highly contentious issue across the globe, with some scientists disputing that climate change exists or that it is a man-made problem. However, ‘the overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists – and governments – agree that climate change is occurring and that the main cause is human use of fossil fuels’1. The effects of climate change vary widely ranging from; sea level rises, the melting of the glaciers to changes in the seasons2, and these are not limited to national boundaries, they appear on a global scale. As a result of the transboundary nature of climate change, the issue moved from a ‘low’ political issue to ‘high’ political issue3 after the First Earth Summit (1972 Stockholm United Nations Conference on the Human Environment) with the Declaration ‘warning Governments to be mindful of activities that could lead to climate change and evaluate the likelihood and magnitude of climatic effects’4.

It can be argued that the EU and the US have shaped the global agenda on climate change since the official creation of the EU in 1993 under the Maastricht Treaty. Although many of the 28 EU member states had been active in the climate change debate before this, it was this year that the EU acted as a global power with a united voice5. Pre-1993, during the Rio Earth Summits, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) had set the objective to stabilise GHG concentration at levels that should mitigate climate change. At the UNFCCC, the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ was set and developed countries (most notably the US and the EU) were expected to take the lead on combating climate change. They were to do this by transferring financial and technical resources to developing countries to help them address the problem.6 By 1997 legally binding targets for developed countries were set but were delayed in The Hague in 2000 and eventually repudiated by the US’s newly elected President Bush in 2001. The negotiations around the Kyoto Protocol resulted in major political divisions between the USA and the

1 Carbon Capture and Storage Association 2014 2 NASA Global Climate Change3 Carter 2010: 52 4 Jackson 2007 5 Nugent 2010: 55-596 Carter 2010: 56

Page 1

EU and stalled the ratification of the protocol until 2004. Climate change has since been a major item on the agenda for the G8 and G7 summits and has created a rift in EU-US relations.

The repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol by the Bush administration in 2001 shows the dominance that the USA had over the global agenda. The USA was responsible at the time for over 20% of global GHGs and the Protocol could not enter into force until it had been ratified by 55 countries which were together responsible for at least 55% of GHG emissions (developed countries). This showcases the power that the US government had over the climate change agenda but also how the EU could take on a leadership role. The EU facilitated negotiations with Japan and Russia to persuade them to sign up to the Protocol which they did eventually by 2004, leading to its ratification.

The above example shows the ‘soft leadership’ strategy the EU implements for climate change politics7.The EU has limited political and economic power to force other countries to join agreements or to cut emissions so it developed an approach that combines ‘leadership by example, diplomacy, persuasion and argument’8.

“Action on climate change is exactly the kind of test for the European Union in this century. A test of our capacity to act, our capacity to deliver. And it is also a test of our capacity to lead.”9 (José Manuel Durão Barroso)

The EU leads by example with its approach to climate change by implementing the rules and regulations set by the Kyoto Protocol (cutting GHGs by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 with the ultimate goal of reducing this to 80% by 2050).The EU can also be said to be leading the world by example with the European Trading System (ETS) which was ‘the first – and still by far the biggest- international system for trading GHGs’10 which is a key tool for reducing industrial GHGs cost-effectively (using the Cap-And- Trade principle). At the UN Climate Summit in 2014 Barroso showcased the EU as an example of how tackling climate change can lead to a boost in the economy "The European Union is on track to meet our targets and at same time we have seen our economy grow", "We prove climate protection and a strong economy must go hand in hand." The EU has long been the world's leading provider of climate finance through official development assistance and therefore it is able to exert some influence over developing nations. However, ‘the battle against climate change can only be won through global action’11and the EU was responsible for only 10% of the world’s GHG emissions in 201212so its ability to directly affect climate change is limited. It can be argued that the EU no longer has the hard power to influence the global agenda as it once did and is now limited to the use of soft power and enforcing policies on the European level.

In contrast to this, the US has shown its ability to shape the global agenda in a different way. As was mentioned previously Washington’s decision not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol severely delayed the process. At the time, the USA was responsible for 20% of all global GHGs so it was paramount that it ratified the protocol if there was any hope of it being a success. This example shows that the US had the ability to shape the global agenda simply by choosing not to participate. In recent years

7 Wagner 20148 Carter 2010: 609 José Manuel Durão Barroso 200810 European Commission 2014 11 Europa: Summaries on EU legislation 2011 12 European Commission 2014

Page 2

however, it has taken a more proactive approach to climate change, choosing to focus more on funding innovative products and technical advances to lessen the impact of pollutants. The US Department of Defense states that it ‘is responding to climate change in two ways: adaptation, or efforts to plan for the changes that are occurring or expected to occur; and mitigation, or efforts that reduce greenhouse gas emissions’13. It is notable what policy is stated first here; adaption rather than attempting to reverse the effects of climate change. This is in direct competition with the EU’s main approach; cutting back using rules and regulations. In the speech made by Obama at the 2014 UN Summit it is clear that the US wants to remain as a global leader, “The United States has made ambitious investments in clean energy and ambitious reductions in our carbon emissions… Today I call on all countries to join us, not next year or the year after that, but right now. Because no nation can meet this global threat alone." This speech shows a clear transition from Washington’s previous unilateral approach of the Bush administration in regard to the Kyoto Protocol.

As has been noted above, both the EU and the US want to lead the way in tackling climate change but other powers are also shaping the global agenda. With the rise of new and developing powers such as China and the BRIC countries, the EU and the US’s leadership struggle is becoming increasingly challenged. China now emits 48% more CO2 than the USA and is responsible for a quarter of the world’s emissions14 meaning that the decisions that China makes in regards to climate change has a great impact on the rest of the world. In November 2014 the US and China announced a joint agreement to cut carbon emissions. This new power dynamic can be seen as replacing the previous EU-US partnership as the US and China’s climate change policies are a lot more similar. The US-China partnership will play a major role in shaping the global agenda as they are already two of the world’s largest economies, largest investors in clean energy and already have robust programs of energy technology cooperation in place such as; the U.S.-China Climate Change Working Group (CCWG); the global phase down of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center; and agreed on a joint peer review of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies under the G-2015.

The recent Climate Change Summit in New York highlighted another major player in shaping the global agenda on climate change: Brazil. The Brazilian delegation refused to sign an anti-deforestation pledge because ‘measures to end illegal deforestation had been drafted behind closed doors at the United Nations without its participation’16. Without Brazils participation – which holds approximately one-third of the world’s remaining rainforests, including a majority of the Amazon rainforest17- the UN’s aim to ‘halve deforestation by 2020 and to end it within the following decade’ will be extremely difficult to do. This example shows that when making decisions at the global level, many states need to be involved in the process because even one state- such as Brazil- has the ability to derail or stop a global agenda.

Due to the very nature of climate change and its ability to shape the global agenda, it is no doubt that bilateral, multilateral and international agreements will be used to combat climate change. The first international response was formulated at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was signed (the first attempt to

13 Department of Defense 2014 14 Rogers 201215 The White House 201416 Usborne 2014 17 Usborne 2014

Page 3

stabilise GHGs at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate change) 18. Since then, the world's governments meet annually at the Conferences of the Parties (COPs) to discuss the climate change challenge. It could be said that the UN is the most legitimate source of global authority as almost every state in the world has become a member (193 members as of 201219). The UN has continuously monitored the impacts of climate change using the IPCC since 1988; held conferences and summits on climate change such as; the United Framework Convention on Climate Change (UFCCC) in 1992; the Momentum for Change summit in2011 and the soon-to-be-held Paris Summit in December 2014. It facilitates recommendations on how to combat climate change using initiatives such as the Kyoto Protocol and its Doha Amendment. However, although the UN is a large player in the climate change debate, its power comes from the heads of states and therefore the UN can be seen as merely a platform for world powers to voice their opinions. The UN agenda is set by the Secretary- General20, who is elected based on the recommendation of the permanent security members (China, France, Russia, the UK and the US) so therefore they have the ability to shape what is on the UN agenda by choosing a candidate who is most likely to be sympathetic to their own agendas.

In contrast to the above, multinational companies (MNCs) play a large part in shaping the global agenda in relation to climate change. Some MNVs will be largely affected if regulations are enforced upon them and their close relationship with state policy makers may lead to increased pressure when shaping the global agenda. It is clear that some companies will attempt to influence policy makers to suit their own interests for example,

‘U.S.-based companies such as Exxon and Chevron have aggressively challenged climate science, pointed to the potentially high economic costs of greenhouse gas controls, and lobbied against mandatory emission controls… By contrast, BP and Shell, the two largest European companies, have accepted the scientific basis for precautionary action, expressed support for the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases, and announced substantial investment plans for renewable energy’21.

Policy makers are restricted in what they can do in regards to climate change if it will affect large MNCs. This effects what policies are proposed at the global level because the countries that benefit economically from these companies would not want to lose them. As is noted in the 2006 Stern report, climate change could have a severe impact on economic growth and development if no action is taken to reduce emissions. MNC’s will be greatly affected by this so may help fund the state to pursue their best interests when shaping the global agenda. It could be argued that the Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership proposal is an example of this ‘the EU sets out on the path towards the TTIP with the US in the firm belief that our aspirations and objectives are based on a common overarching objective of sustainable development….we envisage an integrated chapter specifically devoted to aspects of sustainable development of importance in a trade context’22.

The support of non-state actors is increasingly important in global governance. It can be argued that NGOs ‘have the largest influence on the outcome of climate negotiations when they mobilize public 18 Betzold 2012 19 United Nations: Member States20 UNelections.org 21 Levy and Kolk 2002 22 European Commission, Trade and sustainable development

Page 4

pressure in collaboration with the media’23. NGOs have played an active role in environmental politics since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and are increasing active both inside and outside governments using tactics such as; lobbying, protesting, educational events, think thank groups etc. Their ability to engage with the public at the grass-roots level enables them to sway public opinion more easily and therefore to influence what decisions are made in the government. It is also notable many individuals are taking on the climate change debate themselves. Al Gore (US Presidential candidate), Leonardo Dicaprio (acclaimed actor) and Russell Brand (UK Comedian) are too name but a few. These individuals are helping enable public support to address climate change and are changing climate change perceptions on a global scale using the internet and social media campaigns. Al Gore’s TedTalk and Dicaprio’s speech at the UN Climate Change summit are examples of this. Environmental groups are encouraging citizens to think about climate change when they are making everyday purchases, encouraging them to limit their environmental impact and to buy environmentally sourced products. This enables individuals to shape the global agenda because if they are not buying certain products due to their causation effect with climate change, companies will be forced to diversify, and democratic governments will be forced to make decisions in line with their electorate.

In conclusion, it is clear from what has been evaluated here that global governance in relation to climate change is no longer simply an EU-US affair. Climate change is a transboundary issue, it does not respect national boundaries nor does it deviate between more or less environmentally friendly states. The emergence of new powers such as China and Brazil highlight the importance of working on a global level to combat a global problem. It was also made clear in the analysis of MNCs and non-state actors that many factors other than those specifically at the state level have the ability to shape the global arena, as Marshall McLuhan states ‘There are no passengers on Spaceship Earth. We are all Crew’24 and in an increasingly interconnected world, the global agenda needs to be determined globally.

Bibliography

23 Rietig 2011:3 24 McLuhan 1964

Page 5

Betzold, C. Panel chair for the Conference on ECPR Graduate Student Conference 2012, section: International Relations, panel number: 49, Ideas, Issues and Actors in international Climate Change Negotiations, 2012. URL: http://www.ecpr.eu/Events/PanelDetails.aspx?PanelID=225&EventID=4 ( 7 December 2014)

Carbon Capture and Storage Association, Tackling Climate Change, 2014. URL:http://www.ccsassociation.org/why-ccs/tackling-climate-change/ (6 December 2014)

Carter,N. (2010) ‘Climate Change and the Politics of the Global Environment’, in M. Beeson and N. Bisley (eds), Issues in 21st Century World Politics, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Department of Defense, 2014 Climate Change Adaption Roadmap, June 2014 URL:http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/CCARprint.pdf (6 December 2014)

Europa: Summaries on EU legislation, Strategy on Climate Change and Beyond,31 August 2011 URL:http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/tackling_climate_change/l28188_en.htm (4 December 2014)

European Commission, EU greenhouse gas emission targets, 11 December 2014. URL:http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/g-gas/index_en.htm (11 December 2014).

European Commission, The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), 11 December 2014. URL:http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm (11 December 2014).

European Commission, Trade and sustainable development, N/A. URL: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/july/tradoc_151626.pdf (1 December 2014).

Jackson, P. From Stockholm to Kyoto: A Brief History of Climate Change, June 2007. URL:http://unchronicle.un.org/article/stockholm-kyoto-brief-history-climate-change/ (3 December 2014)

José Manuel Durão Barroso, President of the European Commission, Europe's Climate Change Opportunity, speech given at Lehamn Brothers, London (21/01/2008) URL:http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/08/26&format=HTML&aged=0&language= EN&guiLanguage=en (December 2014)

Levy, D.,Kolk, A. (2002) ‘Strategic Responses to Global Climate Change: Conflicting Pressures on Multinationals in the Oil Industry’, Business and Politics, vol.4, no. 3 pp. 275-277

NASA Global Climate Change, The current and future consequences of climate change, N/A. URL:http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ (1 December 2014)

Nugent, N. (2010),The Government and Politics of the European Union, London: Palgrave McMillan

McLuhan, M, ‘Understanding Media 1964’, in Heywood, A. Global Politics, London: Palgrave McMillan (2011).

Rietig, K. Public pressure versus lobbying – how do Environmental NGOs matter most in climate negotiations? December 2011. URL:

Page 6

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WP70_environmental-NGOs-climate.pdf (10 December 2014)

Roger, S. World Carbon Emissions: The League Table of Every Country, 21 June 2012. URL:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2012/jun/21/world-carbon-emissions-league-table-country (3 December 2014)

The White House, U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change, 11 November 2014. URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change (10 December 2014)

United Nations: Member States, Growth in United Nations membership, 1945-present, N/A. URL:http://www.un.org/en/members/growth.shtml (7 December 2014)

UNelections.org, UN-Secretary General, N/A. URL:http://www.unelections.org/?q=node/71 (8 December 2014)

Usborne, D. Climate Change summit: Brazil refuses to sign UN’s pledge to slow deforestation, 23 September 2014. URL:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/climate-change-summit-brazil-refuses-to-sign-un-pledge-to-slow-deforestation-9751770.html (4 December 2014)

Wagner, J. The Effectiveness of Soft & Hard Power in Contemporary International Relations (14 May 2014). URL: http://www.e-ir.info/2014/05/14/the-effectiveness-of-soft-hard-power-in-contemporary-international-relations/ (7 December 2014)

Page 7