Atlantic Community:Global Must Read Article "A New Strategy for Climate Diplomacy"

A New Strategy for Climate Diplomacy

Nigel Purvis and Andrew Stevenson | German Marshall Fund | March 2010

Following the Copenhagen Accord, there is a danger that Europe and the United States will fall back upon old strategies in international climate politics and hope to see matters through with new patience. But the debacle at Copenhagen clearly showed that the European vision of a strong, top-down international regime for climate governance has failed to garner sufficient support across the globe. If one wishes to combat climate change more effectively, then the transatlantic community needs to seek new paths in climate diplomacy.

A new transatlantic strategy will have to focus on a weaker, bottom-up international climate regime. The international community will have to leave decisions largely to national policymakers and pay more heed to economic priorities. International commitments will be weak. The United States and Europe should place their relations with developing countries at the heart of the new transatlantic strategy. They should exhibit a marked preference for concrete action on climate mitigation over vague official commitments. Like many other developing countries, China is reluctant to commit to international climate agreements because of its self-image in relation to climate change. In the Chinese narrative, the industrial states caused global warming and should shoulder the related expense. In terms of domestic politics, Chinese politicians are hence unwilling to commit to international agreements on a strong, top-down international climate regime, much like the conservative members of the U.S. Congress who oppose it based on supposedly inherent economic disadvantages. While U.S. politicians hence are free to commit to international agreements, they are unable to see them through domestically. In order to make the best of this paradoxical situation, reliance on international trade opens up a vast, yet untapped potential to fight climate change. Trade barriers on clean technologies need to be swiftly removed and exports promoted. Not general assurances should serve as the base for financial aid, but concrete projects for climate mitigation.

Europe should not abandon its leadership role in climate diplomacy. It must face the fact that the United States, even under Obama's leadership, is unable to assume this role. Climate agreements should not be pursued exclusively through the venues of the United Nations. The United States and Europe should not insist on legally binding climate accords in their relations with countries like China and India. Instead they should provide incentives for these countries to implement mitigation projects domestically.

This summary was prepared by the Atlantic Community Editorial Team from "Rethinking Climate Diplomacy: New ideas for transatlantic cooperation post-Copenhagen" published here by the German Marshall Fund as part of series of Brussels Forum papers.

The Brussels Forum is an annual high-level meeting of the most influential North American and European political, corporate, and intellectual leaders to address pressing challenges currently facing both sides of the Atlantic.

The Brussels Forum reconvenes March 26-28, 2010.

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

Thu, Apr 1st 2010, 00:03

Somdeep Sen, Middle East Technical University/Humboldt University Berlin, Bronze Contributor (20)

I like this comment! What's this?

This is an excellent article. I find the concept of 'climate diplomacy' particularly interesting. It is true that countries like China and India, that seem to be booming with self-confidence (thanks to their economic might) are unlikely to be forced into a binding agreement over climate change. Careful diplomacy is the only way to got. But, there remains a further gap in climate change awareness that Europe and the US need to plug; namely, the citizens of countries like China and India. Lets take the case of India. The urban, educated elite has in fact, to a certain extent, jumped on the climate change bandwagon. But, what about the vast rural and urban population that remains on the margins of the economic boom that the country has seen in recent years? While they continue to struggle to acquire the basic needs and amenities of everyday life, issues like climate change remain an issue of the 'privileged'. But, the irony lies in the fact that a positive impact can only be felt (with regards to this issue), if there is awareness and pro-active life-style alteration within every niche of society, including the poor masses of a country like India. This remains a massive challenge but not an impossible one. Prioritizing this vast niche of the marginalized, the climate change regime in Europe and the US need to work closely with central government in countries like China and India to conjure a campaign on climate change that is not only relevant but also palatable to them. It is only then that we can hope for a surge against the catastrophic impact that climate change threatens to have on human civilization in the long run.