http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html
This article is concerned with our failing to respond to climate change and set up mandatory carbon cap, when facing with increasingly mounting evidence pointing to an already changed climate. Till today, there are still some experts say we do not have enough evidence to claim that there is a climate change. And we, again, fail to start to reach something meaningful in the Climate Summit, with US failing to full fill its leadership role in this issue.Actually, what quite interesting about this article is that it brings about the fact that China privately signaled last year that if the US. passed meaningful legislation, it would join in serious efforts to produce an effective treaty. And if the two largest polluters begin to do something, the world community will begin to act. For this article, I am just wondering how to account the fact that China’s signal to US, for we cannot imagine the vice versa. But why we cannot imagine the vice versa? I think one of the reason is that the US, the only super power in the world, has to pass a mandatory carbon cap first and only in this way, some developing countries can feel safe and secure, like China. Also we cannot do something meaningful to the climate change if the mandatory treaty does not include China, for it will make the US feel less secure. I think there are at least two reasons. First, the US and the China has different ideologies and the former does not see the latter as a liberal state. Thus, although there are increasing economical cooperation within the two countries, it is still hard for the two countries to trust each other. Second, from the point of power politics, China has the potential to become a regional hegemony and the US. has to be alert about that.
Yuhui, you bring up several points related to realism and liberalism. There are both 'international politics' reasons and 'domestic politics' reasons why it is difficult for either the US or China to take the first step in capping carbon emissions. As you say, from a realist perspective, a cap in carbon emissions threatens the global competitiveness of either China or the US. Such a view indicates the zero-sum gain of realism, in which either China, or the US can be a hegemon, but not both. It seems like a classic prisoner's dilemma, in that the best solution would be an agreement on carbon emissions, but, without anyone to enforce such an agreement, the two sides can't trust each other to go along, so the 'sub-optimal' outcome is neither entering into any agreement.
ReplyDeleteThe different in political systems may, as you remark, also be a factor. The US, as a liberal society, sends outsiders clear signals. International actors can read what is going on in domestic politics, and can tell that, due to various special interests and other oppositions to carbon cap agreements, the US is unlikely to enact strong measures. What we might gather would be in China's economic interests may be clear, but to the liberal theorists, we don't know, and would be inclined to believe China would not act as cooperately with the US because they are not a liberal democracy.