Reflections On Politics Of Climate Change

International Relations and Understanding of Climate Change

Discuss about the Reflections on Politics of Climate Change.

According to the NASA source, climate is a usual weather that is found in a place like the amount of rain in a nation, amount of ice fall in a geographical region and usual temperature of a particular location (Nasa.gov 2017). In recent times, scientists found that the climate of the earth is changing and the temperature of the earth is raised up to two degree Celsius. The major adverse consequence of the climate change is the loss of forest that results in landslides and loss of life. Moreover, another impact of climate change is that agriculture affected a lot due to decrease in monsoon and increase in water level due to melting of ice (Climate.nasa.gov 2017). There are some other adversity like change ecosystem, extinction threats and air pollution.

In this essay, details of international relations (IR) regarding the understanding of climate change are highlighted through which the exact scenario of the adversity can be attained. Burke et al (2016, 500) mentioned that rules should be formulated for overcoming the problem and in politics also, the problem of climate change should be addressed. It is believed that not only the technological advancement can overcome the problem but the initiatives taken by common people can also make a difference. The theory of realism, neorealist and liberalism will be explained along with the limits and potential of these international relations.

Mingst and Ivan Arreguín-Toft (2013) stated that the international relations represent a set of ideas that illustrates the working system of the planet. In recent times, there are many initiatives are taken into consideration like Paris climate change agreement and Kyoto protocol on climate change. Laws like food safety and endangered animal protection regulations are also formulated so that people can get relief from the adverse effect of the problem of climate change.

Burke et al. (2016, 500) highlighted that the Paris climate change agreement frames the main objectives of keeping a global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius and pursue efforts to limit the increase the temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius (Unfccc.int 2017). The positive aspect of this agreement is that all the nations are agreed to provide appropriate financial flow, to enhanced capacity building framework and new technology framework. The international relation theory of multilateralism has been witnessed in this case as different world leaders like- Barrack Obama, Xi Jinping- president of China and others come together to take effective step for fighting against climate change (Lacy and Mark, 2012). 196 governments agreed on the need to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and this also shows the radical realism about climate change However, Bulkeley, Harriet, and Michele (2013, 136-154) argued that Paris agreement can never be the milestone in curbing the problem of climate change and global warming. The criticism illustrates that Paris Agreement, target of achieving net-zero emissions based on decarburization or emissions; however, it is not clear through which initiatives the real emissions reductions will be attained. The technology for reduce carbon production mentioned in the Paris agreement is not feasible for the poor countries due to high cost.

Paris Climate Change Agreement

On the other hand, Kyoto protocol is an extension of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that aims for the reduction of anthropogenic that is human-emitted greenhouse gas emissions (Bulkeley and Vanesa Castán Broto, 2013 361-375).  The main strength of this agreement is that total of 38 industrialized counties have involved themselves to reduce the GHG emissions and the technology that they have agreed to use translated all the GHG gases into carbon-dioxide that reduces the overall emissions. However, alike Paris Agreement only the Anex-I countries participated in this protocol are well-developed countries; while, the rest countries are poor countries. De Stefano et al. (2012, 193-209) moreover highlighted the strength of this agreement that the non-listed low-income developing countries can participate in the Kyoto Protocol through their Clean Development Mechanism. Thus, this protocol also define three flexibility mechanism- International Emissions Trading (IET), Joint Implementation (JI) and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) (Unfccc.int 2017). The JI and CDM combined known as “project-based mechanisms”. Bulkeley and Heike Schroeder (2012, 743-766) highlighted that the project mechanism IET illustrates quantitative restriction of emissions; whereas, JI and CDM are the projects for giving ideas for reduction of the emission reduction. The only difference is that the JI projects are for the Annex I Parties; while, the CDM projects are designed to encourage non-Annex I Parties. Thus, all developing and developed countries are addressed under Kyoto protocol.

In addition to that, in international relations the concept of realist and neorealist perspectives is present. (Tingley and Michael (2014, 344-368) stated that realism illustrates the perception of reign supreme in international relations that is powerful nations can adopt necessary technology and steps to fulfill their interests; while, the poor nations have to accept their inferiority. In context of climate change, there are several realists, who stated that appropriate global climate negotiations can be approached (Burke et al. 2016, 500). However, the major problem in this case is the issues of power and interests. Realists stated that it is not the responsibility of any state to take initiative for overcoming the climate change and it is the sense of necessity that they have to realize the fact. Burke et al (2016, 499-500) stated that realists consider the principal actors to be state or a notion who are liable for their own security and act in pursuit of their own national interests. These realists often fight for their power. In this case, a politician will do or adopt strategy to fight against climate change but for their nation only. Thus, in this case, realists from all over the world often reach different conclusions about how Americans should deal with climate risks (Terhalle and Joanna 2013, 572-588). The realist politician also values the facts and against of declaring all the natural ill as a consequence of climate change adversity. According to this theory, even if all the Annex-I states would lead to absolute gains, the occurrence of the gain not given equally to all the nations. Thus, it can be stated that the realism theory of the international relations shows the accurate reason why the climate negotiations often fail (Burke et al. 2016, 500).

Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change

Moreover, another theory of international relations is Neorealism that is an extension of the realism theory. In this theory, Terhalle and Joanna (2013, 572-588) depicted that there is no monopoly on the legitimate use of laws that is proposed by the domestic politics. According to that neorealist perspective, they recognize systematic constraints but they address international as well as domestic factors together. De Stefano et al. (2012, 193-209) called this perception as a ‘two-level game’. Neorealism Politicians take initiative concerning climate funds and carbon markets. Climate funds are largely drawn from existing official development assistance budgets in spite of other international commitments, which is an international approach to solve the problem of climate change. These budgets are used for protecting animals and their habitats and saving the water reservoirs for agricultural fields. On the other hand, carbon markets concept is for domestic level that state government taken into consideration Carbon market engages a relatively broader number of states and thus politicians should take the approach of collaborating with other states. Burke et al. (2016, 500) stated that all the politicians and political leaders should make aware their people regarding the problem of climate change. Okereke et al. (2012, 7-30) furthermore portrays that neorealist theorists focused on the structural factors and this works as a driving force of the international relations. Burchill et al. (2013) affirms that in this theory, special institution is needed that can appropriately identify the mitigation approaches for the climate change. Thus, it can be stated that since all the states will be benefited by adopting the technology and procedure of climate change, all the nations will find it in their interests to reduce the emission.

Liberalism represents a contradictory perception compared to realism. De Stefano et al. (2012, 193-209) stated that liberals tend to see optimistic relations in terms of international relations. Unlike realists, liberals also see international system as anarchic but also believe that security dilemmas can be escaped. Liberals believe that with the correct international institutions and increasing interdependence any adversity can be resolved. However, the problem that politician faced in this case in anger, frustration, sadness and outrage. This is the reason that Obama’s 2010 climate legislation in the US failed. Expert believed that the initiative failed because the GOP refused to support it and democrats didn’t support it enough (Theguardian.com 2017). Burke et al. (2016) also highlighted that liberals interacts with other nation through the means of economy, finance and culture and they do not focus on security and military force as a primary goal in state-to-state interactions. Terhalle and Joanna (2013, 572-588) moreover added that humankind is the only aspect that liberals can see and hence rejects the realist assertion that is warfare between states is inevitable. This is the aspect where the liberal fails as they want the humankind issues to be related with climate change and not the exact consequence of the issue. Taken for instance, Hance (2017) in The Guardian publishes that liberals care particular about economic inequality, racism, sexism, injustice and war and assess whether or not climate change has an impact on those factors. However, climatologists have linked the civil war in Syria in part to water stress, which is another consequence of climate change (Terhalle and Joanna 2013, 572-588). Thus, issue like rising price of food, water scarcity, mass extinction, increase amount of hurricanes, rainstorms, wild fires are also rises and liberist have to admit that these adverse results does not affect selected people and affects all humankind. Thus, these issues should also be addressed by these politicians

Realism, Neorealism, and Liberalism

Furthermore, Urry (2015) also raise questions on the ability of democratic systems for dealing the problem of climate change and global warming. Bulkeley and Vanesa Castán Broto (2013, 361-375) argued that for the reason of short election cycles of liberal democratic political systems, the liberal democracy may be incapable of responding to climate change. The argument also highlighted that corruption of a state and democracy by the powerful nation is also a reason of global environmental problems. This is the reason China have the advantage over the liberal democracies for making rapid and decisive policy decisions compared to the Japan and South Korea. Moreover, Mingst and Ivan Arreguín-Toft (2013) stated that in context of global environmental politics, autonomy and hegemony are the two faces of power. In this case, the nations adapt the agreement that contains legislation individually for radioactive waste, fish conservation and whaling so that other environment issues can be overcome. Moreover, Swyngedouw (2013, 1-8) that greater economic resource derived from the degradation of the environment. Thus, it can be said that international relations helps in understanding the situation of the climate change by addressing the intention of the government, technological development, flow of the financial resources and capability of the nation. All leaders have the potential to formulate a financial budget for treating the adversity of climate change and implement technologies that are required to overcome the raised adversity. Moreover, the politician and also create collaboration with other states so that the risk for terrorism can reduce (Theguardian.com 2017). This step plays a crucial role as scientists and climate expert believe that issues like immigration, the economy, debt, kind of jobs, terrorism are the factors for climate change (Theguardian.com 2017). The scientists should also create awareness videos and campaigns for making the politicians and leaders aware of the problem of climate change.

Conclusion

Climate change is the current issue in the world and due to this adversity several problem arises like shrinkage of ice lands, extinction, deforestation and increase in earth’s temperature. Two climate change program is highlighted that is Paris climate change agreement and Kyoto protocol for climate change. It is also found that, the nation that are prosperous in financial resources are capable to adapt necessary climate change technology and approaches for the benefit of the planet and not the under-developed nations. Realists believe that it is not possible to develop a unique climate change framework as different nations have different capabilities to mitigate a problem. On the other hand liberal nation believes that humankind is the main aspects and security concern can also be avoided. Thus, it can be stated that, politicians have the potential to reduce or control the impact of climate change but they have to collaborate with the scientist and consider the perception of their nation’s people on climate related problems. Politicians should address the financial budget for the nation by utilizing their power so that industry can reduce their impact on climate change.

Reference List and bibliography

Abbott, Kenneth W. “The transnational regime complex for climate change.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 30, no. 4 (2012): 571-590.

Bäckstrand, Karin, and Ole Elgström. “The EU’s role in climate change negotiations: from leader to ‘leadiator’.” Journal of European Public Policy 20, no. 10 (2013): 1369-1386.

Bulkeley, Harriet, and Heike Schroeder. “Beyond state/non-state divides: global cities and the governing of climate change.” European Journal of International Relations 18, no. 4 (2012): 743-766.

Bulkeley, Harriet, and Michele M. Betsill. “Revisiting the urban politics of climate change.” Environmental Politics 22, no. 1 (2013): 136-154.

Bulkeley, Harriet, and Vanesa Castán Broto. “Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38, no. 3 (2013): 361-375.

Burchill, Scott, Andrew Linklater, Richard Devetak, Jack Donnelly, Terry Nardin, Matthew Paterson, Christian Reus-Smit, and Jacqui True. Theories of international relations. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Burke, Anthony, Stefanie Fishel, Audra Mitchell, Simon Dalby, and Daniel J. Levine. “Planet politics: A manifesto from the end of IR.” Millennium 44, no. 3 (2016): 499-523.

Climate.nasa.gov., 2017. NASA- Climate Change Effects. [online] Available at: https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/.  [Accessed 10 Oct. 2017].

De Stefano, Lucia, James Duncan, Shlomi Dinar, Kerstin Stahl, Kenneth M. Strzepek, and Aaron T. Wolf. “Climate change and the institutional resilience of international river basins.” Journal of Peace Research 49, no. 1 (2012): 193-209.

Jeremy Hance., 2017. Liberals have a responsibility too: make climate change a top issue. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2017/jun/06/liberals-climate-change-trump-paris-accord.  [Accessed 19 Oct. 2017].

Lacy, Mark. Security and climate change: international relations and the limits of realism. Routledge, 2012.

McAdam, Jane. Climate change, forced migration, and international law. Oxford University Press, 2012.

Mingst, Karen A., and Ivan M. Arreguín-Toft. Essentials of International Relations: Sixth International Student Edition. WW Norton & Company, 2013.

Nasa.gov., 2017. NASA- What is climate change. [online] Available at: https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-knows/what-is-climate-change-k4.html.  [Accessed 10 Oct. 2017].

Okereke, Chukwumerije, Bettina Wittneben, and Frances Bowen. “Climate change: Challenging business, transforming politics.” Business & Society 51, no. 1 (2012): 7-30.

Swyngedouw, Erik. “The non-political politics of climate change.” ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies 12, no. 1 (2013): 1-8.

Terhalle, Maximilian, and Joanna Depledge. “Great-power politics, order transition, and climate governance: insights from international relations theory.” Climate policy 13, no. 5 (2013): 572-588.

Theguardian.com., 2017. Liberals Climate Change Trump Paris Accord. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2017/jun/06/liberals-climate-change-trump-paris-accord.  [Accessed 16 Oct. 2017].

Theguardian.com., 2017. Reflections on the politics of climate change. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jun/02/reflections-on-the-politics-of-climate-change.  [Accessed 16 Oct. 2017].

Tingley, Dustin, and Michael Tomz. “Conditional cooperation and climate change.” Comparative Political Studies 47, no. 3 (2014): 344-368.

Unfccc.int., 2017. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. [online] Available at: https://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php.  [Accessed 01 Oct. 2017].

Urry, John. “Climate change and society.” In Why the social sciences matter, pp. 45-59. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015.