Is effective climate change action possible?

http://philbo62.blogspot.co.nz/2013/02/old-king-coal.html

The Wall Street Journal recently released an article claiming that global warming was not as much of a concern as scientists would have us believe.

In a world where statistics coupled with real life evidence of increased natural disasters serve as proof of climate change, how is it possible that countries rely on evidence similar to that used in the Wall Street Journal to  justify their inaction towards the issue?



This World Bank video shows the affect of increased natural disasters on the poor in Mexico. With evidence such as this, why is the world so slow to take effective action?

From a classical realist point of view, the selfish nature of human beings is to blame. The theory of realism developed in opposition to the liberal view that humans were rational beings. As climate change has an effect on everybody the logical action to take would be to all cut down carbon dioxide emissions. This would ensure the survival of a stable planet for longer thus benefiting everyone.

Cutting down emissions comes at a cost to economies dependant on industrialization, the CO2 production heavy process by which many of them gained their wealth. Realism predicts that states will always act in self-interest. National security and the survival of the state are the highest priorities in politics. Economic growth through increased production provides economic stability for the state. 

 This focus on the protection of the state stems from the realist belief that the world is in an anarchy. Without a higher form of authority, the only protection a state has comes from helping itself. With survival being the focus of policy, the logic of prioriting economic growth over a stable climate for future generations prevails.

The problem is that people do not see climate change as affecting them now, so why care about future generations? It can be argued that it is actually affecting them now what with the increased number of natural disasters. Classical realists argue that this is an issue involving only a few. It is not a matter directly related to state survival in the way that lowering production will immediately have an effect on the economic stability of a country. One might argue that there is a moral responsibility to ensure a stable planet for future generations, not to mention need to safeguard even those "few" from increased natural disasters. Classical realists, such as Machiavelli argue that there is no place for moral obligations in politics. According to Machiavellian logic, a leader who lets a few die from these “natural” disasters, would be a just one. It would be more important to ensure state survival through protecting the economy. In this way the ends (economic security = state survival) justifies the means.

This approach was evident in the countries who signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was desiged to set targets for emission reduction within a certain time period. The targets were differentiated based on the countries' historical contribution to emissions measured by their economic growth due to industrialisation. Developing countries, who had contributed least to emissions, were expected to comply but their targets were not legally binding.

The US at the time of the Kyoto Protocol, accounted for 36% of the emissions.  The US signed the protocol, as a symbolic gesture, but never ratified it. The US’s main objection was that all countries should be legally bound. Realists would rightly argue that this objection was not made from a sense of moral obligation. Rather it was the fear that China and India who were exempt from the legally binding targets, would gain a competitive economic advantage. These developing countries were becoming big players in the economic market, and had a chance of catching up with the US.

Emissions at the time of the Kyoto Protocol in 1990, and predicted increases. 

 This brings the realist argument back to being a virtuous leader.  The point is to not to rule morally but to rule well. Machiavelli saw virtue as being able to take advantage of circumstances. The hesitancy of big powers to allow the developing countries to catch up shows the virtue of the leaders in taking advantage of circumstances. 

Realists see the interaction between states being about the balance of power. This is why, realists such as Morgenthau and Thucydides have put little faith in progress in the international system. According to Thucydides, power balance between states will always limit foreign policy options. At the heart of relations will always be competition for power, as is seen in the issue of climate change. 

 To effect real change,  our best bet is the the Hobbesian model of a social contract. States should transfer individual authority to a larger power in order to guarantee security for all. The UN is a useful forum for broaching issues such as climate change. However, they lack the authority to enforce  rules. This was seen in the delay between countries signing the Kyoto Protocol and actually ratifying it, which was the key to the targets becoming legally binding. Progress for issues such as climate change will be slow and inadequate without the presence of a higher authority.