World Politics Lecture 9 Key points from last time Migration is an age old process and will therefore remain as a key political issue Migration challenges key concepts in IR particularly the concept of ID: 618817
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "The Politics of Our Environment" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
The Politics of Our Environment
World Politics
Lecture 9Slide2Slide3
Key points from last time
Migration is an age old process and will therefore remain as a key political issue
Migration challenges key concepts in IR – particularly the concept of
sovereignty
Migration is driven by the
globalisation
of economic activity; by conflict; and by climate change
Despite being useful in political rhetoric, the anti-immigration narrative is way off the mark
Migration has been a largely positive process –economically, socially & culturallySlide4
Society / Nature
Nature seen as:
‘external’ to society (a separate ‘other’)
To have intrinsic qualities (fixed and unchanging)
To be all encompassing (global ecosystem, shapes all people equally)
Air, Water & Land pollution / scarcity / change
From this, it becomes possible to:
Identify ‘objective facts’ about nature and the environment
Explain the ways in which societies are affecting (or being affected by)
nature and the
environment
Generate moral /scientific evaluations of society-nature relations
Formulate
POLICY
designed to alter the ‘balance’ between society & natureSlide5
The commodification of Nature – how did it happen?
1.
Anthropocentrism
: human needs and interests are of over-riding moral and philosophical importance
2.
Scientific rationality / technology
: emphasis on human ingenuity and technology to make use of (‘overcome’) nature…..
1 + 2 underpin the
Liberal
view of Nature
John Locke (1632-1704) – human beings are the ‘masters and possessors of nature’
Nature is a resource to satisfy human needs
Nature is only invested with ‘value’ when it is transformed by human
labour
, or when harnessed to human ends
Thus, nature is assigned an economic value and drawn into the processes of the
market
economySlide6
‘The period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment.’Slide7Slide8Slide9Slide10
Potential case studies I
Pollution
Air, water, land
Biodiversity
Animal and plant species – lions and herders sharing land….
The food chain
Production methods (fertilizers; antibiotics)
Mono-cropping - rice, wheat, corn & potatoes are responsible for more than 60% of human energy intake; Cavendish bananas & the
Fusarium
wilt
Genetically modified organismsSlide11
Potential case studies 2
Flooding in the UK
Fukushima
Lake Baikal
Smog in China / India – the ‘
airpocalypse
’
The burning of Indonesia’s forests
VW cheating on emissions figures
Migration forced by
Climate Change Slide12Slide13Slide14Slide15Slide16
Environmental Justice…?
Distributive Justice
:
“how various benefits and burdens should be distributed.”
Participatory Justice
:
“ensures the fair distribution of rights to take part in collective decisions that affect ones’ interests.”
Corrective Justice
:
“is about punishment and compensation.”Slide17
He said he’d be back….Slide18
Nature
‘Earthrise’ 1968Slide19
Social Nature?
This body of literature begins to emerge from the mid-1970s as a critique of the literature associated with a division between Society & Nature (i.e. the liberal position)
Knowing nature
Engaging nature
Remaking natureSlide20
Knowing Nature – challenging the liberal orthodoxy
1. David Harvey’s critique of Malthusian ‘limits-to-growth’ (i.e. over-population and the ‘scarce natural resources’ argument)
David Harvey, “Population, Resources, and the Ideology of Science”,
Economic Geography
, 50(3) 1974, 256-77
‘western’ scientific knowledge being used to disguise a political agenda aimed at population control in poor countries
The ‘real problem’ was not the
amount
of resources in the world, but their
uneven distribution
amongst the global population
2. ‘Natural’ disasters: tend to impact most heavily on the disadvantaged in society; responses dominated by ‘techno-fixes’ (walls, containment-chambers, machines, chemicals etc.) – rather than by measures addressing social inequality (New Orleans / Tohoku Earthquake etc.)Slide21
Engaging Nature – exploring the relationship between humans & nature
The physical characteristics of nature are not
fixed
; they are
contingent
upon social practices
Literature on ‘famine’
Amartya
Sen
: droughts ‘trigger’ famines, but they don’t cause them. Famines very often occur in situations of food surplus. Lack of ‘entitlements’ (wealth) prevents famine victims buying the food they need in their own communities
Literature on ‘Third World Political Ecology’
Legacies of colonialism: uprooting of traditional use of resources in
favour
of cash crops etc. Dependence on colonial / world ‘markets’ and exposure to price risk
‘Environmental Injustice’ in the developed world
Toxic risk borne disproportionately by the poor, by racial minorities. Proximity to polluting industries / waste disposal sites etc. – because these communities can’t afford to fight their legal battles – recycling of electronic devicesSlide22
Remaking Nature – science and risk
This literature points to the ‘physical reconstitution’ of Nature – and its associated risks
Ulrich Beck,
Risk Society
, (1992)
‘manufactured’ risks like acid rain, pesticide dispersal
There is no ‘boundary’ between ‘society’ and ‘nature’ which has become ‘blurred’.
‘Nature’ has become ‘internal’ to social process.
Industrial capitalism ‘produces’ nature for profit
e
.g. Genetically Modified Organisms; tree plantations; adventure tourismSlide23
T
he Emergence of the Green Movement
By the 1970s the environmental costs of commodification /
industrialisation
/ resource extraction had fostered the emergence of Green Politics
This on the back of ecological literature such as:
Rachel Carson,
Silent Spring
(1962)
Murray
Bookchin
,
Our Synthetic Environment
(1962)
Kenneth
Boulding
(1966) – the ‘The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth’
TNCs (and, eventually, ‘
Globalisation
’) in particular came in for criticism – for extracting natural resources…
without contributing to ‘development’
f
ree from regulation designed to curtail pollution
Suggested by the Love Canal incident (1978); and the Bhopal chemical plant disaster (1984)
and by the Chernobyl nuclear explosion (1986)Slide24
Shallow Ecology
Limits to growth:
environmental degradation ultimately threatens prosperity and economic performance
Therefore a need for
sustainable development
– i.e. ‘getting rich more slowly’
How to
internalise
‘externalities’?
Through ‘Green Capitalism’: taxing businesses for the pollution they cause, and the waste & emissions they produce
Through ‘Green technology’: ‘clean’ coal; drought-resistant crops; ‘hybrid’ cars
Through International
R
egimes: systems of transnational regulation that help overcome the ‘tragedy of the commons’
Garrett Hardin,
The Tragedy of the Commons
(1968)Slide25
Climate Change
‘Climate’ = long-term or prevalent weather conditions
Climate Change used to be known as ‘Global Warming’ – but this was too frightening & politically loaded
The ‘denial lobby’ was often funded by US oil companies
The ‘
sceptics
’ question the link between human activity & global warmingSlide26
‘Shallow Ecology’ at Work
Rio ‘Earth Summit’
the first global effort to reach an agreement (1992)
Called for ‘developed’ states to take the lead in restoring emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000
Kyoto Protocol
(1997)
Binding targets for 41 developed states to limit or reduce their emissions by 2012
To at least 5.2% below their 1990 levels
National targets varied (EU 8%, US 7%)
Introduced the notion of emissions trading
But: the EU had called for much deeper cuts, while the US failed to ratify the treaty. Limiting the cuts only to developed countries (India & China, in particular) compromised the process
By 2005 global carbon emissions rising 4x faster than they were in the 1990sSlide27
1946
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling
1950
World Meteorological Organization established
1959
Antarctic Treaty
1972
UN Conference on the Human Environment (precursor to UNEP)
1973
Convention on International trade in Endangered Species (CITIES)
1982
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
1985
Vienna Convention for
the Protection of the Ozone layer
1987
Brundtland
Commission Report (‘sustainable’ development)
1987
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete
the Ozone Layer
1988
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
established
1992
UN Conference on Environment & Development
(Rio ‘Earth Summit’)
1997
Kyoto Protocol (to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change)
2009
UN Climate Change Conference (Copenhagen Summit)Slide28
Copenhagen (2009)
Copenhagen Accord
Drafted by the US, China, India, Brazil & S. Africa
Commitments to ‘take note of’ the Accord
Pledge to prevent global temp rises in the future of more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels
Developed countries to provide $30bn to developing countries between 2010-2012
To allow the latter to cut emissions and adapt to climate change
Developed countries to submit plans to the UN for inspection & monitoring
Developed countries / emerging economies to supply reports on emissions that can be subject to verification
By 2020 developing countries will be receiving $100bn / year from developed countries, more than half of which should come from private sourcesSlide29
Paris (2015)
No agreement yet on whether to aim for 2 degrees of warming or 1.5
Carbon cuts - ‘climate neutrality’ or ‘decarbonisation’?
Money transfers – how much; in what form; on what; how to assure legitimacy?
Oversight / review – at the moment every 5 years from 2023/4Slide30
Why is cooperation so difficult? 1
Collective goods
vs
national interests
What benefits all in general may not benefit each individually
Clean air may be a collective good, but the temptation is always to ‘free ride’ – to let some other state pay the costs of clean up etc.
Costs to developed states are higher – and they’re the ones controlling the negotiations – participatory justice…?
All of which leads to a very low ‘floor’ of protectionSlide31
Why is cooperation so difficult?
2
Developed
vs
developing states
Outsourcing of production means that developing countries produce emissions on goods consumed in developed countries
‘burden-sharing’: developing countries point to the historical legacy to claim that developed countries should pay more of the costs – corrective & distributive justice…?
Thus developing countries should not have to ‘pay’; or they should pay a significantly smaller proportion of the costs
BUT: developed countries argue that they cannot be held accountable for the mistakes / policies of earlier generations – and call for a ‘clean sheet’
Developed countries have already reaped the benefits of ‘cheap pollution’ – whereas developing countries are being denied these benefits without having either the money or the expertise to develop ‘clean technology’Slide32
Conclusion?