Climate Negotiations:
Time for a Rethink
By Adil Najam and William Moomaw
 Let’s face it:
the global climate change regime is stuck in a rut. It is unlikely that things will change
dramatically at the forthcoming conference of the parties (CoP-9) of the United Nations
Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC). Of course, it is possible that Russia
could surprise everyone by deciding to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. It is possible, but not
probable.
Conceivably, the nations that have already ratified the
Kyoto Protocol could discover uncharacteristic boldness and decide to put the provisions
of the Protocol to test, with or without the Russians. The technicality that now gives the
Russians the deciding vote was entirely arbitrary to begin with. There is nothing stopping
the countries that have ratified the Protocol from launching an accelerated program of
implementation without allowing the erstwhile cold warriors -- the Americans and Russians
-- to hold the Protocol hostage.
Unfortunately, the odds are stacked against anything so
dramatic coming out of Milan. Global change of a very different is thick in the air. The
scepter of violence and war looms large. Multilateralism is in retreat. The US remains
adamant in its opposition to the very idea of the Kyoto Protocol. Developing countries are
resistant to mandatory obligations being thrust down their throat. Even the Europeans are
reluctant supporters of the Protocol. And upcoming elections in the US mean that most
parties would rather wait until next year and would have preferred if the meeting were not
being held at all.
This is a pity. Even as climate change becomes more
urgent with each new study, the momentum for action is fast disappearing. Instead of
simply rehashing old arguments and battered positions, CoP-9 should seriously rethink the
process and re-align to the original intent and aspirations of the UNFCCC. This would
require climate negotiators to build upon three key realisations.
Crisis of Imagination: First, the problems of the
climate regime are not just political pathologies of expediency but also a crisis of
imagination. Ironically, the one global problem that is most clearly long-term has
elicited the most short-term policy reactions. Making decadal commitments can lead into
blind alleys of short term compliance that preempt the century long strategies needed to
actually meet the goal of protecting the climate system and promoting human well-being.
The climate regime needs to take a bold and imaginative stance to determine not only the
cost of action today but also the cost of inaction tomorrow. It is mistaken to believe
that a series of well-meaning but poorly thought-out interim measures will ultimately lead
us to a safe stabilisation of atmospheric greenhouse gases. It would be more prudent to
start from a conception of where we eventually want to be and work backwards to what we
need to do today to get there.
Malady of ‘Mal-Consumption’: Second, the
notion of ‘mal-consumption’ should be placed at the center. The problem is not
just the levels of consumption but also the nature of consumption. The livelihoods and
well-being of people, and particularly equity concerns, must be central to any policy
enterprise. But a right to use sub-optimal technologies when better alternatives are
available cannot contribute to well-being. For the North this means unshackling itself
from the trap of obsolescence: i.e., using 19th century fuels (e.g., coal) and
mid-twentieth century technologies (e.g., power plants, electric grids). The North’s
folly is not only that it remains embedded in outmoded processes, but also that it
continues to give legal cover to their perpetuation (e.g., US subsidisation of its steel
behemoths). For the South this means giving up its demand to repeat the mistakes that were
made by the North. Paradoxically, because developing countries are where they are, they
have the ability to make better decisions than the North. There is no sustainable
development model in the North to emulate; if one is to emerge it will have to be crafted
by the South itself.
Making the Global, Local: Finally, stale debates
and finger pointing at the inter-state level has to give way to fresh thinking at the
people and community level about approaches that can work. The most promising initiatives
and the most robust implementation of climate friendly change are happening at the level
of enterprise, of communities, institutions and even by individuals. Across Europe and the
US, local governments at the municipality level are creating their own action plans to
implement the Kyoto targets. They are doing so without any edict from their national
governments and at odds with national policy. Similarly, communities across the developing
world are moving to efficient cookers and water heaters, not because they are being told
to, but because it makes sense to their livelihoods aspirations. The role of global
climate policy must be recast to focus more on unleashing the spirit and potential of
civic enterprise and to remove the hurdles to policy innovation at the local levels.
In short, it is time to seriously rethink the climate
regime: first, by rooting it firmly in the original long-term vision of the Climate
Convention; second, by questioning the very basis of technological decision-making in both
North and South; and, third, by facilitating and unleashing the potential of local
communities for meaningful climate action.
Both authors teach at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. Adil
Najam is an Associate Professor of International Negotiation and Diplomacy and William
Moomaw a Professor of International Environmental Policy
|
