‘Climate change’ is a misnomer for what is the anthropogenic influence on natural climate cycles through the emission of Green House Gases; having driven development up until now but interfered with the ecological system underpinning this more perceived aspect of welfare.
Readdressing this balance requires a coherent change of policy incentives for all actors involved in order to avoid compromising the public good of the environment for future generations to an irretrievable extent. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for this reason set out four possible scenarios in 2007 as to how this balance could shift according to regionalist or global approaches being taken to the problem following either high or low growth rates of world GDP.
It was concluded that the most effective way of combating climate change would be through global approaches and high levels of economic growth, presenting policy-makers with a challenge requiring truly common consensus for the first time.
The dilemma, therefore, of how to ‘decouple’ economic ‘development’- giving people greater access to products and services- from an increase in GHGs in order to achieve this for developing countries who would otherwise follow ‘dirtier’ patterns of growth and hinder the environment of the developed world first arose at the COP 8 meeting in Delhi of 2002[1]. Having polluted their way to wealth, per capita emissions of industrialised countries are on average 5 times higher than those of developing countries,[2] who are nonetheless expected to be disproportionately affected by climate change’s effects.
The African continent, where 48 out of the 79 ACP states are located, has only contributed to 3% of global emissions for example but is already suffering disproportionately from climate change having witnessed a new type of conflict over scarcer water supply in Darfur and is expected to experience a 20% decrease in its agricultural yield, currently forming the basis of its economy, by 2030.
The environmental, economic and social impact of the extraction of natural resources, largely from the former colonies of the EU states generating these emissions whilst building on their ancestral knowledge as well, borrowed in order to develop agriculture- the most carbon-intensive activity that exists- justifies their selection as policy areas to be examined with a view to constructing a potential ‘positive-sum’ game between the two actors. The EU’s unique ‘soft power’ role as the world’s largest trading bloc means that a successful model could be copied elsewhere, following the IPCC’s best scenario for tackling climate change and maintaining greater common welfare.
Historically a major source of natural resources for European economies, trade relations of the past between the EU and ACP states have not significantly aided such development but rather constituted a relation of dependence through tariff concessions and aid packages often unsustainable in the long term. Whist a societal knee-jerk reaction has been provoked in European societies into awareness-raising and campaigning, consumerist changes are forcibly guilt-driven and climate skepticism is even growingly prevalent. Petty nationalist attitudes remain in dealing with what is an international public good and ever-more complex ways of outsourcing emissions are sought by more developed states fearful of ecological debt having to be repaid as part of a zero-sum game to the developing world.
For these reasons, it can be ascertained, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol drifted away from being a tool of mutual regulation and harnessing opportunity to one resembling a commercial boon, and the main negotiation text for the Conference of The Parties (COP) 15 meeting in Copenhagen meeting in 2009 then covered 199 pages compared to Kyoto‘s 30[3]. Indeed, the relationship between the EU and ACP states and the developed and developing world in general have suffered from an atmosphere of mistrust, symbolised by the apparition of a leaked ‘draft’ prior to the conclusion of the Copenhagen meeting whereby plans to force poorer states to accept future emissions reductions imposed on them and current emission reduction targets from the major polluters being taken for granted were exposed prior to being agreed upon. This prompted accusations from across the tables of both sides that either China had scuppered a binding deal from being reached, or that the big states had never held the intention of finalising a deal in the first place.
This may have rendered the likelihood of a legally-binding deal on emission reductions at the next COP meeting in Cancún this year or the kick starting of trade, including agricultural, negotiations to the Doha round of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), as improbable as ever. Neither have as of yet evoked a sprit of solidarity in coherent positive-sum games that offer lasting sustainability.
As warnings from the IPCC Panel on climate change persist on the increasing costs of delaying action, we shall see that a zero-sum approach remains apparent in the behavior, if not the rhetoric, of all actors involved.
[1] Delhi Climate Justice Declaration, December 2002, Available at: http://www.indiaresource.org/issues/energycc/2003/delhicjdeclare.html (Consulted on 12.02.10)
[2] Presentation by ROYO, Toni; New Approaches To Climate Change and The Concept of Development, 1st ASEFUAN Dialogue on Sustainable Development and Climate Change, Barcelona, November 2009
[3] EGENHOFER, Christian; 100 Days to Copenhagen: Time to Panic?, Centre for European Policy Studies: Brussels, 1 September 2009, p.1