The documentary "Hot Politics" is available here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/
Please use the comment section below for discussion. Remember to address each others arguments with evidence and insights from our readings.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What is the role of interest groups in shaping policy about climate change?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the role of ideas in the global climate change debate, as in, how does information, knowledge, and persuasion play a role in the politics of global climate change?
How are the causes of global climate change distributed throughout the US, and the world? How are the effects fo climate changed distributed? How does this affect the political debate?
Does realism or liberalism better explain the lack of coordinated action toward climate change?
Does either realism or liberalism provide a framework for addressing the issue of global climate change? Is solving this problem possible within the given order of anarchy, nation-states, and global capitalism, or are much more radical changes necessary to prevent a global tragedy?
The above are some questions to get you started. You don't need to answer all at once, in fact, the conversation will probably easier to follow if you don't!
ReplyDeleteI'm tempted to say that realism does the best job of explaining the lack of action towards addressing climate change, but I don't think that realism fully explains the problem. I think its easy to say that realism explains the problem because it explains the standoff that the US, China, and India are having as regards global warming because regulating carbon output means making the cost of business more expensive in the country that does the regulating and no one wants to take that penalty. The issue with that explanation is that it fails to explain why no one is acting in the face of the long-term evidence. It seems to me that part of guaranteeing long-term security for your country would be making sure that you limit carbon emissions so as to avoid the floods, extreme weather, precipitation changes, etc. that accompany climate change. Ignoring climate change is paramount to endangering your country to the extreme. As a result, realism fails to fully explain the international response to climate change because realism never seems to advocate the sort of head in the sand reasoning that is required to not take action on climate change.
ReplyDeleteCalum, I agree with your point that India and China are unwilling to take action on climate change because of what it would cost to business. This causes major problems, because global climate change is a GLOBAL problem, solvable only through every country's cooperation. It is great that Europe has been successful in decreasing carbon emissions, but the US and developing nations are still a big problem. Even if some countries do their part to stop climate change, it will not be enough if others continue to produce huge amounts of greenhouse gasses. Europe's role has been to lead the world in efforts against climate change, but many countries do not want to follow that lead. They are putting industrial output before the planet's health; their own interests are more important the world's common efforts. Thus, a liberal approach is one of the only solutions to this problem. All countries must realize that action to prevent climate change must be taken immediately, because it is an issue that effects the whole world. The only other possible solution I can see is for Europeans to pressure uncooperative countries to adopt mandatory caps on carbon emissions.
ReplyDeleteI agree that realist theory seems to explain why countries are resistant to committing themselves to some sort of global pact, but it does not explain why they don't take action within their own countries (without tying themselves to other nations). That failure seems to be best explained by liberal theory, which incorporates ideology as a major influence on actions,unlike realism, which as the writings of Mearsheimer demonstrate, tend to focus only on national security and power politics. I think ideas and ideology are an important aspect of the climate change issue, as politicians seem to hold their positions based on their party affiliation, and not some universal trust or belief in science. It does seem to go against realist beliefs to not act on an issue that would potentially threaten state survival (but, politically, not everyone accepts that it does pose a threat). The cooperation for mutual benefit that characterizes liberalism is one possible solution. States can work to pressure each other and hold each other accountable for reducing emissions. However, I think realist theory could also pose a solution. If come to fully accept that climate change does pose a threat, they would see that it would be in their own self-interest and protect the survival of the state to take action. From a realist perspective, once it is accepted that climate change is a threat, addressing the issue on a global scale could become an issue again because they wouldn't want other states' excessive carbon emissions to threaten their own survival. If cooperation doesn't seem feasible, a realist might weigh the pros and cons of trying to force other states to take bold action to address the issue.
ReplyDeleteIn the Bush administration, there is no doubt we saw realist policies in play. In fact, Bush used India's and China's hesitancy and eventual dismissal of mandatory lowering of carbon emissions as an excuse for pulling out the "fatally-flawed" Kyoto Protocol. However, there were other factors that came into play with Bush's decision, namely, special interest groups and the expense of initiating this kind of operation. Therefore, this observation parallels with Anna’s observation of why a country wouldn’t take action within their own country’s borders, yet, I think there is an answer to be found in realism. It seems the Bush administration thought money could be spent in other areas that would bolster national security better—such as defense spending. The very idea of addressing global climate change is a liberal idea, however. While the results of the Kyoto Protocol can be explained by realism, its launch can better be explained by liberalism. Countries realized their interests were compatible and attempted to take collective action to preserve their well-being.
ReplyDeleteAnna, I Agree with your statement about using realist theory to actually solve the problem here. It seems to me that many of the world powers (especially the US) acknowledge global warming and the harmful impacts it is having and will have in the future. The problem seems to be that they super powers are worried about being the only one who makes a change, and therefore outsourcing many of their jobs and or production to states who aren't conscious of or ardently regulating carbon emissions. I do think though if one great power were to take the leap in action against global climate change the others would be soon to follow. There of course would have to be psychological manipulation, so that a power struggle would ensure. This is a 'hot topic' as the title eludes and once it is seriously taken on by one of the greatest powers, the others are sure to follow in wanting to be the most powerful in this field. This can only be the case though if there are benefits to the nation. Unlike liberal theory may explain, humanitarian good on the global level will not be enough to motivate super powers to make enormous financial sacrifices. Leading technologies in fuel efficiencies, recycling, water purification, renewable energy etc which will bring in profit as well as modernity and advancement to large nations will be what drive the realist power struggle revolving around global climate change. American Consumers have already begun gravitating towards environmentally friendly products and ways of life. This trendy behavior will most likely spread globally, changing the demand in the market and resulting in a gravitation towards green products world wide. Therefore, with economics and technology on the mind, realist theory could be an excellent strategy in jump starting a POSITIVE power struggle to make the world as clean and green as possible!
ReplyDeleteI agree with the point that Anja makes about financial sacrifice being a main component as to why great powers are hesitant to act on global warming. Of course the United States does not to lose money. The coal industry that functions inside of the US as well does not what to lose money either. I think that these industries have enormous influence over the US governments, and they do not have realist or liberal agendas. I think they are for the most part self-interested. That explains why there was such an active campaign against the science behind global warming. This is dangerous, especially concerning global issues. These groups are not concerned with international affairs, but often impact them by shaping the policy of superpowers.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree with the idea that part of the issue may be explained through realist theory, Anja brings up a good point saying that many Americans have already begun to have a change in their consumption towards environmentally friendly products and practices. This is in my opinion better explained by liberal theory, because it is in this case the citizens of a nation who are acting in the way they expect the government to be doing so. Having said this the United States is realistically not going to be going to war in order to commit a country to a particular C02 emission quota. Furthermore it remains unclear what the ability of the U.S government is to accept any sort of restriction on pollution, due to the inability of passing it through congress as it occurred with Al Gore. Therefore it is not just a matter of having the intention of doing so but also the ability, which due to the way the government is structured (receiving campaign contributions from large industries) it may prove to be very difficult. In addition one could consider the way in which the United States sought to bring India and China to a committed restraint on pollution to have been in aggressive. This is because the United States may in the long run be threatened as the world greatest power by these emerging nations. As a result they may have viewed the U.S insistence as a method of slowing down their growth.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the above bloggers that the realist theory best describes the political situation of global warming, and that the liberal theory describes the efforts of American citizens to make sacrifices in order to help the cause. Yet, it seems as though there is only so much that ordinary citizens can do. It seems like political powers are playing a game of chicken, in the sense that surrender translates not into cowardice, but into a world power stepping up and commiting to carbon caps, therefore putting the development of their nation's progress at risk.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I feel like the solution lies in the liberal theory, in the sense that all the nations need to find that they have a common goal, and find a way to work together in order to achieve progress. While I understand that this may not seem that plausible because of the past responses of nations such as China, India, and even the US, I feel that it will be the only possible way to get anything done in the issue of global warming.
One thing that I think needs to be clarified is the role of self-interest in realism and liberalism. Realism is focused on relative gains and the problems of anarchy in not being able to produce coordinated action among states. States are also self-interested in liberalism, but they may view their interests in terms of promoting wealth and prosperity, in terms of absolute increases for all, regardless of the distribution of those benefits.
ReplyDeleteWe might also think about the inadequacies of either realism or liberalism in terms of unequal economic development-- a perspective that emphasizes historical colonial economic and political relations as contributing to the status quo may be more in line with Marxism or post-colonialism.
That last comment from "Jenny" was actually from me, posting from a friends computer from the International Studies Association conference in New Orleans!
ReplyDeleteAs Amy (and Calum) point out “India and China are unwilling to take action on climate change because of what it would cost business”
ReplyDeleteHardin’s Tragedy of the Commons best explains why it is nearly impossible to get nations to agree on mandatory global limits of CO2 emissions. Hardin uses the example of a shared pasture (the commons) . If farmer A limits his cows from overgrazing and destroying the commons, farmer B will simply take advantage of him and let his cows overgraze the land and reap the short-term fiscal benefits. While farmer A, who did the right thing for the environment, suffers economically and ALSO suffers because, despite his actions to prevent overgrazing, farmer B still destroys the commons. Thus, Hardin explains, nations always find it more beneficial to destroy the environment and reap the short-term fiscal benefits, because if they aren’t the ones destroying the environment, someone else will.
However, one thing that IS driving China to become green is the great demand for green equipment. They can manufacture products quicker and cheaper than other countries, so they are driving down the cost of wind turbines, electric cars, solar panels, etc. Which means that green technology will become more available worldwide, and countries that otherwise could not have afforded to use alternative energy will do so. China will realize that it is economically good business to go green. Afterall, the two richest men in all of China have made their billions on green technology: one paper recycling and the other electric cars.
Hi everybody, your comments have all been great so far, but I think that bringing up specific examples from the documentary would enrich the discussion.
ReplyDeleteAlso, what has been the role of scientists in this international issue?
The Republicans opposed to the policies that would have been enacted to combat global warming for which scientists had fairly certain evidence crafted a strategic effort to undermine the scientific credibility of such information. Reasonable hesitation to confirm with absolute certainty the exact severity, depth, and prescience of the problem of global climate change was a rational frame for scientists to present their global warming knowledge, but that 1% doubt was exploited by interests for which solutions to the problem, although their benefits would be extensive and universally beneficial, were not politically viable. They decided to fund other scientists to produce research that could contradict thoroughly comprehensive evidence for the reality of global climate change, the human contribution to it, and our capacity to mitigate the issue, placing science at the mercy of political convenience. This strategy of fabricating scientific doubt was extraordinarily effective in preventing comprehensive action to alter the processes by which we exacerbate global climate change, affirming the influence of subjective political interests over what is often framed as an objective and inherently true discovery of information. Our trust in science allows manipulation of what we hold to be empiric truth by politically savvy machination. There is no overarching arbiter of international political obligation or decorum, nor is there any final authority on science, and no mechanism for the enforcement of either, so when a scientific problem is framed as an international one, cooperative solution of such is just as challenging as any other political problem, despite the pedestal on which we place scientific knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThe science behind the climate change debate was challenged by fossil fuel companies who spent millions to convince scientists and politicians to show skepticism about the existence of global warming. As a result, both the US government and the American people could continue to pollute without a guilty conscience. The scheme to bring doubt to scientific evidence of global warming included commercials that claimed large amounts of CO2 were good for the environment. ExxonMobile gave millions to advocacy groups and scientist to spread doubt about climate change, but in the last few years have changed positions and began to admit the existence of climate change and fund groups that combat warming. The inaction of the US government has been blamed on the influence of special interest groups and fear that cutting emissions will raise production costs for American corporations. Our corporations would be at a disadvantage to cheaper markets in China and India, and our economic growth would stagnate. In terms of realism, the short-term interests of economic growth and the edge in competition have been controlling the actions of the US and China. Also the repeated failures of the international community to come to a binding agreement to reduce emissions reflects the anarchy of international politics. The US does not want to sign an agreement that would put them at a disadvantage, and has avoided signing binding agreements to reduce emissions. The 2009 Copenhagen Accord was written up during the UN climate change meeting, and while it sets goals to reduce emissions, it is not binding.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the realism approach would be a good solution to the problem. I also acknowledge that my classmates have done a good analysis of the world's powers fears of confronting the problem. These countries do not want to be the only ones to attack the problem for fear of exhaustion of resources and manpower. It is especially difficult with today's economy to take an issue like this as a single country's burden. A slight integration of a liberalism approach could be useful in order to combine the forces of multiple states worldwide. This was, as I understand, the ultimate goal of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. I feel as though Bush's reluctance to attend is a further extension of our fear to be depended on for such a large cause.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, scientists and political officials alike are hesitant to put too much stock in global warming. As weather trends will dictate, it is not unlike our planet to have spells of hot and cold climate changes. With an issue of such varying validity, it is difficult for many to believe that such a large amount of time and resources need be invested.
As a whole, and to return to my original discussion, I believe that both a realist and liberal plan of action must take place. Citizens must put it upon themselves to do their part in the reduction of carbon emissions, yet the overwhelming issue is not one that belongs to just one country. As impossible as it may be, the world needs the assistance of most in order to make a successful global change.
Special interest groups are designed with the ultimate goal of influencing power. In recent times, they have been far more successful than ever before. They are now (in certain respects) the de facto source of power and policy for the official political parties. Therefore, it is possible that most policy is reflecting the will of the upper class as opposed to the general populace (seeing as this is where the special interest groups derive their power). This is mostly because only educated, wealthy individuals have the resources necessary to participate in politics via a special interest group.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the political complications of climate change do not end with the special interest groups. They also concern the politicians themselves because they one of the few issues that politicians will actually disagree on. "Conservative" politicians tend to believe that global warming is a myth, while "liberal" politicians tend to view it as a genuine concern. However, this is a politically binary oversimplification. The reality is that most politicians will do what they feel is necessary to win and maintain office, and that the ideology behind the global warming doesn't matter and really isn't consistent. Therefore, the literature, the facts and the science all become complicated by the political machine, both on the inside and the outside.
Global warming has global effects. It's an externality, so whatever one country does to increase global warming will impact all other countries. Therefore, the political discourse on global warming is influenced by its international implications. Therefore, we can either embrace a cooperative international solution or not be able to successfully address the problem. However, the likelihood that we see massive problems in the short-term (our lifetime) seems low (ie: the polar ice caps melting). This should also be considered.
Well, after watching the video, I understand why the segment was called "Hot Politics." Climate change is a very "hot" [no pun intended] topic in international relations today, and the ideas put forth in the video contributed to the flame. I agree that many countries are afraid to be the only ones to address the issue of climate change because of potentially wasting valuable manpower and money, but I also think that this fear motivated the global summit. The goal was to have a number of countries address the issue together. Global warming is not an issue that can be tackled by only one country, and it is also an issue that cannot be effectively dealt with by using only one ideology. Liberals will always see the potential in the situation without truly addressing the faults in their planning. For instance, not all countries are open to spending valuable government funds on global issues, especially when their state's stability is at risk. Realism, however, would not be a productive means of tackling the issue either. I think that a blend of the two ideals would be most effective in addressing the climate change issue, since both ideologies could contribute positive things to a solution.
ReplyDeleteI found this video to be extremely interesting. You can obviously see the manipulation of fear through the passage of time and how different parties have used that fear. While the Realist approach to the problem is the best from a political standpoint, I feel that there are better approach's that could be taken. These approach's would have a higher risk but would be the only way to bring the changes that are desired in the talks. One of the best quotes of the video was the one about how we must pay for our admissions in the past before we can expect China and India to pay for their admissions for the future. In any case it is a tough problem that must be bravely faced by the few nations that have benefited from it, in order to recompense the many that have suffered from the effects.
ReplyDeleteThis issue is felt much more widely by the US then a nation like China, which can control its media. The US populous hears about all the details and decisions behind policies like these, whereas the Chinese populous hears nothing until the information is provided by the government. This makes the use of science involving global warming a much more important issue to the US than to China. In the early 90's, there was an almost smear campaign against the science behind global warming. This was successful in causing doubt about the validity of the issue for almost 10 years(its longer for me cause i grew up in Kansas.)
In the end, this is a global issue that will take global effort and global cooperation to be fixed. In my opinion, if China and India dont want to be a part of it then leave them out and put sanctions on products in relative equivalence to the emission output from their creation. These kind of measures would only work though through a global effort. Liberalism seems to be a decent answer to the problem, but you must fight your way through realism before you can get there.