The European Model for Climate Change

I have a new article up in the December-January issue of Survival. Its for subscribers only, but non-subscribers can read the first 500 words here.

This is a review essay of David Buchan’s book: Energy and Climate Change: Europe at the Crossroads (a steal at 25 pounds!). My argument is that Buchan’s book should be used as an instruction manual. Policymakers looking to set up aggressive action on climate change – either at the international or the domestic level – should learn from the mistakes and the successes of the EU. Though they’ve had their difficulties and false starts over the past decade in setting up an effective regime, Europe has finally succeeded in creating a climate policy that will allow it to meet its Kyoto targets.

For other important views on climate change in this month’s Survival, I’d suggest reading “Climate Change and Copenhagen: Many Paths Forward” by Paula Dobriansky and Vaughan Turekian.

UN Conference in Copenhagen

After a brief luncheon, the conference moved into a third plenary session, chaired by Alexander Nicoll, the IISS Director of Editorial. This session, titled: “The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen: Should we reassess how ‘security’ is defined for a warming world? Can a UN agreement in Copenhagen guarantee long-term climate security?” Panelists included: Ambassador Steffen Smidt, the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Representative for Climate Change Issues; Ambassador Paula Dobriansky, the former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs throughout the Bush Administration; and James Lee, a Professor in the School of International Service at American University.

Ambassador Smidt began the panel by saying that “an ambitious global climate deal” at December’s summit of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is a top priority for the Danish Government. He stated that climate change is more than just an environmental issue to be addressed at UNFCCC conferences. Instead, it must be addressed comprehensively throughout the government. He laid out a series of areas in foreign policy that should be addressed, including in multilateral forums, development financing, energy security, and international investment policy.

Ambassador Dobriansky focused on the necessity of negotiating a truly global emissions-reduction treaty that is both environmentally effective and comprehensive. It must not undermine the ability of poor countries to develop, but it cannot simply allow large developing nations to continue their emissions with no limits. Unlike Kyoto, any treaty must include real commitments from developing nations that are “Measurable, reportable, and verifiable.” Beyond the environmental effectiveness of a treaty, a successful Copenhagen summit will include new efforts to develop clean technology, will protect against deforestation, and will help to foster good government policies. Finally, Ambassador Dobriansky concluded that the world will not need a new global institution to protect the environment, as the UN process – though in need of reform – will prove sufficient to handle the task.

As the last presenter of the day, Professor James Lee gave a thought-provoking presentation on the long-term security risks of climate change, based on a new book, entitled Climate Change and Armed Conflict: Hot and Cold Wars. Using a map of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s projections overlaid with a map of the world’s largest security risks, he made a persuasive case that – unless global warming is successfully mitigated – the world faces a range of new and potentially very dangerous security threats. Some specific scenarios that he mentioned included an end to ice caps and glaciers, the creation of an integrated ‘Great World Desert’ that stretches 600 miles from the Kalahari in Namibia to the Gobi in Mongolia, the specter of rising sea levels that could swamp existing islands and low-lying deltas, and the possibility of countries aggressively trying to change local and international weather patterns through cloud seeding or other geoengineering processes. Lee’s presentation underscored the long-term necessity of actively addressing climate change before these dire forecasts come to pass.

Overall, the questions surrounded how to achieve a successful result in Copenhagen. Several questioners asked how to involve China; the consensus was that it must be done in every way possible, including regional, multilateral, and bilateral agreements. All panelists agreed that the issue of how to enforce any agreements would be an important part of an agreement. One questioner asked why nations should continue to negotiate in the UNFCCC, when the Major Economies Forum, involving the 17 largest global emitters (85% of emissions), is moving towards crafting its own agreement. Dobriansky answered that it was most important to build capacity and governance through the UN process. All panelists agreed that, in the short-term, the UN process is sufficient, and there is no need for a new international environmental enforcement body. This panel provided important detail in how the international community could move towards a comprehensive treaty at December’s Copenhagen Conference, and it also talked about the dangers if we fail to act.

Resources for Climate at State

The Guardian's Environment Blog has an interesting post on the resources devoted to Climate Change at State. They say:

Todd Stern, her special envoy for Climate Change, is getting only half a dozen
aides. That's just two more than the special envoy for Guantanamo.

They compare that with Holbrooke's 50 staff and $8.5 million budget.

However, I think this mis-represents the issue. Holbrooke's authority in Afghanistan and Pakistan is the sole responsibility of the State Department. On the other hand, responsibility for climate change policy is shared across the government: including by the EPA, the Department of Energy, the White House Council for Environmental Quality, and the National Security Council.

It cuts across so many lines because Climate Change is not just an issue of diplomacy, it is also an energy issue, an environmental issue, and -- increasingly -- a security issue.

Report on Bangladesh's Environmental Security

It has come to my attention that the Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies (BIPPS) authored a briefing last August on Environmental Security in their country. The report can be found here.

Among the findings of the briefing is that climate change will "negatively impact food security, health security, and economic security" in Bangladesh. It states that a one meter rise in sea level (above the IPCC's 2007 estimate, but within range of current estimates) would inundate 5,609 million acres of coastal land- about 15% of Bangladesh's total area (see image for detail).

The BIPPS concludes that the Government of Bangladesh has yet to produce an "integrated disaster management approach" to deal with climate change. The report recommends that Bangladesh needs to increase its diplomacy at international events, particularly in the UNFCCC, by seeking out alliances with like-minded countries. Finally, it recommends that the Bangladeshi government implements a new strategy -- coordinated throughout the government and private sector -- to adapt to the security effects of climate change.

New Center in the British Government

The British Government's Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has opened a new "Centre of Excellence in Understanding and Managing Natural and Environmental Risk."

Although I generally am a little skeptical of government bodies calling themselves "centers for excellence" (it all sounds a bit Orwellian), it does show that the British government is interested in adding some facts and numbers to the debate. It is important for politicians and policymakers to say that Climate Change is a national security risk, but it is even more important to have some serious research and numbers to back-up that statement.

Hopefully the new Center will be 'excellent' in doing that.