World Politics
Energy and the Environment
Today: two tough issues, tough to deal with in one class. I’m going to talk only a bit about peak oil theory at the end of class, since it’s easier to understand at least in theory, but harder to really analyze. But start with environmental concerns and environmental international law.
Environmental problems are really tricky for international relations. Pollution levels have been increasing dramatically creating dilemmas not covered well in customary international law. With global warming, depletion of the ozone layer, threats to biodiversity, and the spread of smog and pollution across borders, this opens up a huge set of problems. So far:
* problems concerning liability for direct damage by pollutants across borders is the most advanced;
* the Montreal Protocol (1987) to the 1985 Vienna treaty on ozone depletion has shown success in both bringing together effective laws on the issue of reducing hydroflurocarbons, and actually reducing the problem
* larger global or collective problems are harder to address, and again create a North-South conflict on the goals and nature of the remedies.
Sixties and Seventies it became clear environmental concerns were becoming an international problem. The 1972 Stockholm Conference set out the basics, twenty six principles, and since then over a thousand international declarations and agreemeents, and numerous national laws of started to work on environmental concerns. It also led to the creation of the United Nations Environment Fund (UNEP), based on voluntary state contributions.
The conference also helped advance the notion of sustainable development as a goal for developing countries. Clearly if the whole world would pollute at the rate developed countries pollute, it would be hard to handle the impact. Furthermore, with resource exploitation and the lack of national standards, development could destroy a country’s ecology. Sustainable development means simply to match the costs to the environment with the economic benefits.
North: want more regulations, especially as the South starts to develop more quickly; the south believes that they should not have to have tougher regulations than the North had at that stage of development, and should get technology transfers to help them adapt.
1992 Rio Conference: Tried to overcome this North/South divide, with marginal success. Five documents emerged:
1. Agenda 21: 800 page behemoth, but a powerful analysis of the problems and things that need to be done. No mandatory rules, and no clear idea on how funding will be developed. It remains a solid statement of the problems and possible solutions, but so far has not accomplished much.
2. Rio Declaration: 21 Principles, some overlap with the Stockholm conference, but more forcefully pushing sustainable development in the third world, hopefully with a partnership to the first world for technological assistance.
3. Convention on Biological diversity: Designed to protect endangered species, and called for national monitoring of development, with preservation for all forms of life. It also called for technology transfers from the first world to help third world states do this, which President Bush said “on principle” the US could not agree to. President Clinton altered this in 1993, but the US only signed, and did not ratify the convention.. 120 nations of signed it so far.
4. Climate Change Convention: Designed to protect the atmosphere; 6% of the world’s countries, the advanced industrial powers, produce over 30% of the greenhouse pollution. The goal was for countries to reduce levels to 1990 levels and maintain them. The problem: developing countries would be kept far below developed countries in relative output if they were stuck at 1990 levels (before they had developed as much), solidifying the “right” of advanced countries to produce the lion’s share of the pollution. This led to the 1997 Kyoto protocol which got the advanced industrial nations to pledge to reduce their levels, with an emphasis on sustainable development and aid in limiting pollution to developing nations. The goal is to get to 1990 levels by 2008-2012. The treaty went into force when Russia was the 55th state to ratify the treaty (entered into force Feb 16, 2005)
The evidence is overwhelming that global warming is occurring, and that green house gases, most notably C02, emitted from car exhaust and power plants, is the major cause. The evidence is not, however, conclusive, and alternate theories for warming, or even concern about possible cooling remain in the scientific community. This means that politically those who don’t want to act can always find arguments to support them, and states will have a much more difficult time generating support for what may seem a sacrifice.
In general: 1958 - first evidence at the South Pole that CO2 levels have been rising, and now are higher than any time in over 150,000 years. This will undoubtedly have an impact on the planet -- the so called Greenhouse effect. That is beyond dispute. But what impact? Some say that the higher numbers really aren’t so extreme, and that though the warmest ten years of regarded history have been since 1980, this is normal climate fluctuations. They argue that natural processes can counteract the C02, and that in the grand scheme of things, we aren’t really adding enough to make a major global difference. But the more data that comes in, the more it seems obvious to even one time skeptics that global warming is occurring, and humans are part of the cause. It’s unclear what the solution will be global temperatures have been rising the last half decade, and the UN believes humans are at least a partial cause, with expected increases to continue.
a) global warming isn’t uniform, some places will be cooler, others hotter, and some will simply have more extremes (colder winters, hotter summers).
b) a major impact will be more extreme weather: stronger hurricanes and typhoons, droughts and floods. The extremes could cost billions of dollars in damage, with the most severe human impact in the third world.
c) some recent signs: thinning ice in artarctica, Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa has lost 75% of its ice cap since 1912, it could disappear; open water on the north pole, break away icebergs, glaciers disappearing, lakes freezing later, extreme heat waves in summer, the list goes on. It’s hard to deny that we aren’t seeing some kind of change in the weather!
d) recent evidence that globaling warming is quickly melting polar ice caps, potentially stopping the North Atlantic gulf stream. Ironically, that could mean a mini-ice age for northern Europe and northeastern US, as a result of global warming.
Potential impact: depending on how high the temperatures rise, the impact could range from inconvenient to devastating. A small rise in sea levels could mean coastal cities under water, especially in low lying areas; Miami, New Orleans, a quarter of Bangladesh, much of the North Carolina coast, could all be under water. Other cities like Tokyo, New York, and pretty much any coastal city would experience flooding and more extreme storms. Such a rise would have unknown impacts on the climate world wide as well, shifting deserts and agricultural centers. .
If things get as bad as pessimists say, it could lead to:
1) major warfare, as people try to counter scarcity and loss of usable land
2) major famines, and
3) economic collapse.
This could be the biggest problem in our future, but one we’re not really facing up to since we’re not feeling the impact yet.
Note: you’ll often hear people complaining that the US would be forced to cut back while third world countries are not, and hence that the Kyoto accord is unfair. But if you consider that the US has produced 186.1 billion tons of CO2 since 1950, while the EU is at 127.8, Russia at 68.4, China at 57.6, Japan 31.2, and most of the third world below 2.0, we see that there is a reason for this: the problem came from the first world. To not let third world countries grow would be to stop their development.
Per capita output has the US leading, along with Australia, followed by Europe, Canada, Russia, South Africa, and some mideast countries. China is number one in total output, though per capita is rather low, and India and most third world countries are at low levels, below 2 billion tons per capita.
5. Non-legally binding authoritative statement on the principles for global consensus of the management, conservation and sustainable development for all types of forests: Goal: preserve forests, stop clear cutting, and make sure that states with large forests (esp. Rainforests) do not simply destroy this resource (which has implications for the planet, as 50-80% of the world’s oxygen comes from the rain forests, even the Amazon forest alone!). 25 million acres are cleared yearly, world wide, in Brazil, Columbia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and others. A tough issue, as these countries want financial incentives to cut back.
ICJ: has issued rulings (Slovakia vs. Hungary) that the “right to develop” can be limited by environmental concerns, especially in the impact on other states. Sustainable development is in a sense becoming legally recognized as the major principle involved. The ICJ has a special chamber of judges that look at environmental cases, and this is another area of international law likely to become more important over time. 1993: ICJ formed the Chamber of the Court for Environmental Matters. So far it hasn’t been very active, but could become more important over time.
Peak Oil theory
Essentially, peak oil theory is based on an argument that we have reached or
even past the peak of oil production and development, and are not far from
having oil supplies dwindle quickly. This is hidden, according to the theory, in
part so oil countries can remain potent in influence and in part to prevent
prices from rising to the point that it causes states to develop real
alternatives. The idea: once it starts running out, profits will be high, both
for companies and oil states. Keep the West addicted to the last instant.
If true, the next twenty years will see tremendous changes in our economic and political life. If false, then oil is only slowly going to fade.
Peak oil theory is controversial.. I recall in the seventies some people saying we could run out of oil by the year 2000. That hasn’t happened, obviously! But nonetheless it is a non-renewable resource, and therefore sooner or later, it will run out.
(Slides to demonstrate arguments about oil supplies, as well as recent prices)
Class discussion on these two issues