Part 1: What comes first: the chicken or the egg?

This post follows on quite nicely to fit into the context of the COP21 workshop I attended this week. It was really eye opening, but in a frustrating way. Whose responsibility is it to reach environmental targets?! How can we reach an agreement?! Who will be shouldering the heavier ‘burden’?

COP21 is very much focused on governments coming together, and deciding upon national agreements and pledges to help each other commit to declining emissions and funding for renewable sources of energy. And there are lots of examples of this. The ‘21’ comes from the 21^st year that delegates come together discuss climate change. But after 21 years and numerous other international policies, the question is why are we still struggling to find and commit to an effective strategy to combat this global issue that endangers us all? I argue it is because of the uncertain science surrounding climate change, which different groups are using to different ends.

 This post will be predominantly discussing the idea of ‘discourse’, and how it impacts the decisions made toward Climate Change (is that capitalised?). Discourse is a shared way of thinking about the world, and it is fundamental to how policy is created. Dryzek (2005) condensed the three main discourses surrounding environmental governance, and it is these which are by and large driving policy:

Administrative Rationalism:

This is the belief that action should be dictated by experts – primarily scientists but also politicians. It is a rational process, based on scientific evidence that hopes to leave political wrangling behind. In an international sphere, this is summed up by what COP21 is: a macro-political scene where scientists and politicians from all around the world come together to look at the evidence and make decisions based on it.

This is great when it works – the EU is an example where multiple nations have come together and made commitments together, either within the EU or by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. However, there are multiple problems with this approach. Firstly, science isn’t objective and absolute. In planetary circumstances like this, impacts of anthropogenic warming are actually highly uncertain and therefore, depending on your perspective you would either employ the precautionary principle (EU), or align yourself with the sceptics and refuse to budge on policy (generally speaking, America).

The final problem with this discourse is that science has now largely become a public domain. Previously, decisions would be taken by politicians because they knew best and that was that. But now, an informed public can contest these decisions, leading to activism such as opposition to nuclear energy or GM crops. There is less trust in the experts to make big (and ethical) decisions. 

Economic Rationalism:

Of course, the markets! The taxing and regulation of carbon emissions, as well as commodifying carbon itself to be tradeable in global markets is an example of how the economy is a starting point in tackling climate change. The conceptual framework of the Stern Review (2006) is that investing in mitigation is ‘a cost incurred now and in the coming few decades to avoid the risks of very severe consequences in the future’, which justifies mitigation on an economic basis. This was also seen in Australia's No Regrets policy which recognised that economic growth and environmental sustainability can be reconciled to each other, even if it may not be a straightforward task. 

Probably the main bulk in this discourse is to do with businesses, particularly the fossil fuel energy industries. They are essentially the main cause of the problem, so surely they should lead the way to a sustainable future? They are being encouraged to invest in renewable energies, to use technologically innovation to decrease their carbon footprint, and also find cost-effective solutions.

Nonetheless, there are numerous examples of companies misrepresenting climate science with an aim to protect their own interests. They are powerful lobbying groups, and use their weight to prevent policy which could damage their interests. This self-serving aspect to economic rationalism follows on with regard to consumers as rational economic actors. Will we be consumers – choosing the cheapest product, or will we be citizens – paying that extra pound to buy the more environmentally friendly product?

Democratic Pragmatism:

The final discourse which explores how to get those individuals mentioned above on board. The bottom-up approach of individuals changing their ways, small acts making a big difference. Becoming citizens over consumers. However, this approach, like the others, is riddled with problems. For this discourse to be effective, there needs to be a baseline societal change. The norms and expectations of the ‘good life’ need to be changed. We need to stop aspiring to a materialistic life and bring it back to the basics – but how easy a solution is this…? People are self-serving, and the notion of ‘sacrifice’ doesn’t sit well with most of us. Realistically, will we start hand-washing our clothes to avoid using a washing machine…? Maybe... but maybe not.

As you can see, the array of different options available to us combined with the array of problems they present is adding to the lack of decisions made over the last two decades toward climate change.  The problem is that in an ideal world, these discourses complement each other. Let’s tackle climate change on a global scale, taking the precautionary principle as a rational basis for doing so. Economically, it works – we can just invest in renewable energies which will create a whole load of new jobs and save us a lot of money and harm in the future! And to give these governmental schemes an extra boost, let’s also encourage our citizens to be more environmentally friendly too! Hey – but we already are doing that? So what’s the problem? The problem is that not everyone is in it together. Rather than combining these discourses into one effective strategy, the actors behind these discourses are trying to prioritise their own discourse the prime driver.

I think this is especially evident in the economic discourse, particularly in America which is just a hub of climate scepticism. Grundmann (2007) gives an overview of the problem surrounding climate policy. While there is widespread consensus provided by the IPCC on the issue of global warming, different governments are lending weight to different discourses. In America, the fossil fuel lobby is highly active and pumps a lot of money into funding research by ‘independent’ contrarian scientists, especially since 1994 where Republicans have had the majority in Congress (McCright & Dunlap 2003), all designed to undermine IPCC credibility. The uncertainties of the science are highlighted to prevent any effective measures to combat change. ExxonMobil 

is a great example of an energy company who use their power to protect their own interests, spending an estimated $16m between 1998 and 2005 to fund groups spreading climate disinformation. They were also central to blocking the US from ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. This sceptical attitude translates into politics too, with even James Inhofe, Chair of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, doing and saying the most ridiculous things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8

Source: Youtube - Direct quote: 'Look at me and how clever I am: disproving climate change by holding a snowball!!!'

 

The story couldn’t be more different in any EU country, but Germany especially. This is for a number of reasons. Belonging to the EU means our national governments are already used to making joint decisions. But when looking at the uncertainties of the science, rather than regarding it as insufficient evidence to take action, we have instead employed the precautionary principle and are committed to decreasing our emissions (Liberatore, 1994). Our dominant oil and natural gas industries are slowly but surely also aligning themselves with the administrative rationalist approach, with a recent statement from BP announcing their support for the 98% of shareholders who voted in favour of addressing climate risks.

What is apparent in both the cases of America and Germany is that the media slant in broadly in line with governmental policies, with American press loving sensational and sceptical headlines, while German media presents a more balanced and rational argument in favour of mitigation. The difference in these nations is how they use the uncertainties of the science. This relates to what Stephen Schneider(1988) coins the ‘Double Ethical Bind’ of Climate Change:

“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.

On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.” pg. 113

Do scientists sensationalise the dangers of climate change in an effort to capture the public’s imagination, using scare tactics to catapult people and governments into action, and downplaying the range of uncertainties? Or do they be completely honest, and run the risk of countries like America refusing to take action. Chris Russill’s (2010) view on this ‘bind’ is almost exasperated. The two actors were almost swapping roles – the scientist wants to discuss policy, and the politicians want to discuss the uncertain science. And here we have it, the chicken or the egg? The decision has to be made as to what comes first to address climate change: working out an absolute science (almost impossible), or creating policy in accordance with the precautionary principle.

The fact that different parts of the world are prioritising different discourses is the main reason why, despite 20 years of wrangling, a united and effective global decision has not been decided upon to tackle climate change. Frustrating, I know. Part 2 is going to look at possible solutions (as if) to this problem, with discussion centred around past and present international agreements and how they have panned out. 

Not linked into the references:

- Liberatore, A. (1994) ‘Facing global warming: the interactions between science and policy-making in the European Union’, in M. Redclift & T. Benton (eds.), Social Theory and the Global Environment, pp. 190–204 (London: Routledge).