In light of recent political events in the USA and UK, I thought I would follow-up on my discussion in regards to geoengineering governance. The post-Brexit dissolution of the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, swiftly followed by climate change-sceptic Donald Trump’s Presidential victory, could symbolise a significant shift in global environmental policy. The US has already lost significant credibility for upcoming COP22 climate negotiations in Marrakech. Similarly, it would seem climate change mitigation is at the bottom of the agenda for the UK, for the near future anyway.
The global system; economic and political, has long been shaped and arguably, monopolised, by Western capitalist economies. Thus, global inequities manifest themselves during international climate negotiations. This raises ethical implications as the poorest 1/2 of the global population live in countries most vulnerable to climate change (Figure 1). It has been estimated that 10% of the wealthiest people in the world, mainly in OECD countries, are responsible for 50% of global carbon emissions (Oxfam, 2015). Although the map below is effective in visualising this notion, it fails to take into account the carbon footprints of rising middle classes in developing countries. Nevertheless, the point of climate change injustice remains.
 |
| Figure 1: A climate change vulnerability index mapped against carbon footprints (Oxfam, 2015). |
Geoengineering could further entrench such inequities, as select countries are able to finance research and development of technologies. One study refers to the phenomenon as a "geoclique"; i.e. a group of elite scientists, overwhelmingly from the US and UK, who dominate climate engineering policy agenda's.
Yet, forecasted shifts in global economic power, from Western capitalist economies to emerging and developing economies, will inevitably shape future global environmental governance. Whilst climate change mitigation may be on the bottom of the agenda for key playing Western economies, it may give developing & emerging economies a chance to negotiate in their interests.
It will be interesting to see how developing countries negotiate climate change at COP22 and the implications it will have on potential geoengineering governance. Perhaps it may produce a paradigm shift towards an inclusive science.
Hi Sarah!
ReplyDeleteDuring the past decade, there have been many summits and climate negotiations where many countries from both developed and developing economies discuss climate change. Certainly western economies may not have climate change as their number one agenda, but does this just not make it more difficult for developing countries to raise climate change issues to the economies who is contributing the most to climate change?
Hi Hong! Thanks for your comment - that's definitely an interesting point you raised.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it will inevitably cause friction when negotiating, as inequities are manifested when doing so - especially with some Western leaders trying to absolve themselves of blame and playing a 'blame game'. However, if the 'game' is played correctly by leaders from developing countries in the future, they could use it as an opportunity to make their voices heard and increase pressure on Western leaders to take swift action. It's very interesting to see the 48 most climate change-vulnerable countries have committed to 100% renewable energy at COP22 - in stark contrast Trump has promised to dissolve the Clean Power Plan and Paris negotiations (although we can't be sure for now).
I think developing countries are seeing it as an opportunity to take an active leadership role, reflected by COP22. I think only time will tell how this will unfold. I definitely see friction in the future related to climate change accountability.