RSS

December 1, 2010

Julia Franziska Grauvogel, University of Tübingen, Silver Contributor (38)

Dear Edson,

Thank you for our interesting points of view. Unfortunately I already came across a statement in your first paragraph I don’t agree with. Albeit certainly an important force driving human action (and states behavior) I don’t think that self-interest is the only aspect to be taken into consideration. What about norms? I has been shown in many case studies in international relations, that states adhere to norms (at least to a certain degree) for a number of reasons: it makes them an accepted member of the international community, they are socialized into accepting those norms (for example by “talking the norms talk” first and unconsciously adapting to it) etc.

Accordingly, I don’t share your assessment that the US does not take the Kyoto Protocol (and the entire UNFCCC process) seriously. It is certainly true that the US is uncomfortable with and even rejects many of the regulations. However, this does not mean they don’t take it seriously. Even under the Bush administration that forcefully rejected the Kyoto Protocol, other initiatives such as the Major Emitters (later Economies) Forum were started in order to demonstrate a certain degree of commitment. As with the norms example cited above: states (and the US in particular) might not comply to climate change regulation, but (in general) they don’t openly question the importance of the issue as such, try to create the impression of a certain degree of commitment or a least justify why they don’t take the actions asked. I think this is a useful starting point for engaging the US, rather than dismissing its determination entirely.

Moreover, I understand your concerns that “will be difficult for the European Union and the United States to speak with moral authority on climate change”. Nevertheless, I believe that even the historical big emitters can gain some moral authority from taking credible action – a development that could already be partly observed in case of the EU. Thus, it is important that EU (and also USA) follow this path, instead of rejecting the possibility that they will ever be able to speak with moral authority.

I agree with your general point of view that technology transfer is absolutely crucial. However, I was a bit surprised that you – arguing based on the self-interest of states – present technology transfer to China, the EU’s and US’s biggest economic competitor (that by the way has already bypassed the US in terms of global emission and is not going to in the near future as you suggested) as an easy exercise. Maybe you can clarify how this is supposed to be taken place in more detail? Similarly, I would be glad if you could outline concrete steps towards the political will that you emphasize as crucial, since I guess we all agree that this is needed, but as always the devil lies in the details.

As regards technology transfer you outline that this could have the double effect of fighting poverty and resulting in real development aid. I agree on the overall importance of this issue. Nevertheless I would like to point out, that developing countries are very much concerned with the issue of additionality when it comes to redirecting development aid towards adaptation and mitigation projects, so technology transfer should be only regarded as additional to current levels od development aid. In addition, even though I agree in goal of poverty reduction, one cannot forget about potential adverse effects on the climate (cp. for example the rise in meat consumption in India and China due to a growing middle class and the resulting increasing in production with its severe effects for global warming).

Finally, I would like to bring up an issue that we have already debated once again: the US and EU are not one monolith as you seem to assume when stating that “bridging the gap between the EU/US and the rest of the world seems to be a very remote idea”. I rather believe that examining their different interests, but also approaches towards climate change policy and bargaining positions towards “the rest of the world” while at the same time working towards a common transatlantic position will be helpful in overcoming the current deadlock.

I am sorry that this became so long… But I am looking forward to your clarifications and answers!

Julia

December 1, 2010

Ntambaazi Williams George, University of Osnabrueck, Germany, Silver Contributor (41)

Dear Edson,.... Dear Julia,

In a way of agreement with most of what Edson has documented, I would like to start withsome points of information on Julia's brilliant rebuttal on a few points:

i) KYOTO Protocol (embedded in political norms)
ii) Clean technology transfers

i) KYOTO: Collegues will most likely agree with me that, the mutual suspicion and fear of the then perceived negative economic implications embedded in the failure to wholeheartedly embrace the KYOTO Protocol by the US, nearly one and half decades ago, sowed seeds of insurmountable obstacles in convincing the rest of the world including very ambitious and color blind China to to adhere to future climate change treaties. We donot blame any international actor, for having its domestic or national priorities overriding the global ones but when nations act basing on their perceptions of day-to-day realities, they tend to overlook the discrepancies between subjective and objective global norms.This is the challenge of our time as we try to overcome our selfishness (atleast according to Edson), to reach the desirable world first class standards (China in this case applying its norms to overtake EU /US miraculous progress).

ii) Clean technology transfers

The EU/US added value on climate change will forever remain underutilised, even though they are the world's largest international donors, for as long as many developing nations are still wallooped in poverty. In his article above, Edson pointed out the issue of our people doing whatever they can ..including deforestation...which is today unheard of in the western world, so as to have a decent meal! But, compare this to the so called reckless over use of gas or ström, or the luxurious lifestyles in modern world. There seems to be a link between the mentalistic actions and norms of a poverty stricken person struggling to survive in a rural closed area with those of a so called morden luxourious guru accustomed to a pomp lifestyle in an open-knowledgable society. Contrally to the pronouncements of increased bi-lateral assistance, significant progress in most developing nations is a long way off.
Clean technology transfer should not only be regarded as addition to current development aid but we should as students or leaders of developing nations strategically patner with the EU/US already set up structures and institutions to come up with strategic ways of helping our people fight poverty through ensuring sustainable development by giving outmost care to the preservation of the environment.

I thank you

December 1, 2010

Philip Strothmann, Free University Berlin, Gold Contributor (76)

Dear Edson, Julia,

in order to follow the idea of being concise and to the point I try not to reiterate points already made. To this end I - once again - agree with the spot on comments by Julia, thus not going into detail on her points :)

Still, let me go into more detail on some of your statements, Edson. To begin with, I unfortunately does not have the feeling that you provide a real and applicable strategy but rather remain vague when it comes to precise policy recommendations.

Having said that, I question your point that neither the EU nor the US have the possibility (thus option to gain it) to speak with moral authority. Certainly you are right with regard to their development path, but they still have the chance to lead by example, as outlined in my article.

A truly worrisome comment you make is that "it is no longer about reducing emissions, but rather creating viable alternatives." To this end I would really like to know what the alternatives are and how and when you envision them to fall from the sky? If this entire issue is not about emission reductions anymore, what is then about?

Moreover, Julia already pointed to your false assessment that the US won't take any serious steps. Always bear in mind that "the US" is not only the national level, but that there are several more stakeholders to take into account, e.g. states, cities etc. These are the progressive actors and their actions need to be recognized for a just assessment of "the US".
With regard to China, I would like to point you to the fact that a) there are already several joint initiatives between US-China and EU-China in place and b) that I doubt that there is any country that is less advanced in getting technology transfer from the "western states". To this end China has several regulations that allow foreign investors only to access their market by agreeing to joint ventures with Chinese companies (always with a max of 49% share) and thus ensures that technology is shared. The success of this strategy has been shown in the renewable energy sector.

Despite all this criticism, I like your approach of taking the consumerism in the west into account. That's a very valuable point, though again I question your proposed action. As commented on Santino's piece, neither decreasing taxes as he proposed nor increasing taxes is feasible. In the US given the political situation and in the EU given that taxes are no matter of EU policy. However, in order to provide some proposals, I would encourage the application of Sustainable Public Procurement policies. The EU already as a Directive aiming on SPP in place and this Directive could be strengthened. Taking into account that western states spend between 25 and 40% of their GDP on Public Procurement, greening this area would have a considerable effect. Moreover, again, this would serve as a well-advised showcase for developing countries.

Finally I like your idea of taking the development perspective into account which I touched upon in my comments yesterday. Including climate policy aspects into development policies is key.

Looking forward to your clarifications.

Philip

December 1, 2010

Edson Ziso, Willy Brandt School of Public Policy, University of Erfurt, Silver Contributor (46)

Dear Julia

Thanks indeed for raising the above concerns. You basically raise up to 7 of them and i will attempt a response hereunder.

I do not recall ever stating that 'self-interest is the only aspect to be taken into consideration'. Rather, i chose to mention it as a very outstanding and altogether useful point of departure in understanding exactly why the environment is everyday polluted despite knowledge that this is causing serious climate change problems. Yet answers will be found by finding common grounds of co-operation among these selfish interests. This does not in any way mean that i suggest it is the only aspect at play. Just to exemplify, countries may go to war in pursuit of national interest, but all is finally settled by a process of give and take. Answers to climate change policy therefore are only possible if different interests are appreciated but there are many points of common ground.

As far as Kyoto is concerned, i really did not expect you to have difficulty understanding that the US is did not take it seriously. I do not know what other word i can use when a country refuses to adopt the greatest international agreement on reduction of greenhouse gases when it is arguably the world's biggest polluter. President Bush did not mince his words that he would not support environmentalism as long as it hurt the American economy. The current administration is also struggling especially given the power of the Multi-National Companies as well as big business that have influence in policy making. This argument is clearly in sync with my thesis that national interests play a significant role in these dynamics. I do not in any way try to play the blame game, but i remain unmoved that the US (like the EU) have to assume the greatest responsibility.

We probably basically agree on the moral authority predicament that the EU and the US face in leading the climate change agenda. But the best possible way out is to begin to show that they really care and that is either by beginning the first, meaningful steps in carbon emission reduction (and the EU has done fairly well) as well as incentivising on pollution outside their borders. Given the fact that some parts of the world like Sub-Saharan Africa are already bearing the costs of climate change, which apparently is not of their own making, it is only moral that incentives accrue to them. Already, these are “imposed costs” for sub-Saharan African and they be should be supported by strong financial obligations from the West following the standards set by the UNFCC through GEF but also through further improvements to current funding regime strategies that will enable more active participation of African states.

Your concerns on the impossibility of the US ever appreciating technology transfer to China only reinforces my considered opinion on selfish national interest. But i am encouraged to propose this as a good incentive within the overall context of the need to, as much as possible, make the US a central player in climate change policy. It is an important country. Given the fact that most US industries are either relocating to, or opening branches in China due to among other factors low labour costs, i am tempted to believe that technology transfer to China and indeed other parts of the world is possible and could be beneficial to the US itself.

Then you want details on political will. Experience has shown us that political will is critical for any action that has the potential to produce tangible results. To move forward, political leaders will have to take decisions that imply risks, and political costs. Multilateral organisations are ideal vehicles to move forward; because in a multilateral framework such political risks and costs are shared. Developed countries are concerned that taking giant steps on climate change policy will harm their competitiveness. However, if they work in close coordination with other international organisations, a framework is provided that lowers the political costs and generation of necessary decisions.

Julia you are also concerned that poverty reduction in developing countries e.g Africa will also cause further effects on climate change. I will repeat, for emphasis' sake, that any human progress comes at a cost, and in this case, environmental costs leading to climate change. This is important because apart from blaming emissions etc, we cannot be blind to the proportional benefits that this also brings along. To answer your question more directly, i propose cleaner forms of development assistance. Africa is not simply a basket case but is also a crucial player in fighting climate change. Against this background, we cannot concentrate on introducing climate policies in some countries e.g Russia, US, China, India or some in the EU. No, these companies will simply relocate to Africa or Asia and still pollute the same environment with gusto. I am talking about preventing carbon leakage.

In view of the above, we therefore need the 'development first' approach to be integrated into climate change incentivising policy. The Development First approach in dealing with climate change could open up the prospects of developing countries to implement policies that address development priorities in a climate safe and climate friendly way. International funding policies should provide incentives for sub Saharan African countries to move in a direction where adaptation policies will enhance development policies. This will ensure lessening vulnerability whilst adhering to set targets of socioeconomic development set by the UN’s Millennium Development Goals. This can be done by implementing initiatives such as the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) which will enable local indigenous people to participate in mitigation whilst not hindering access to potential benefits from exploiting forests of which they are custodians to.

Lastly, you are uncomfortable with my characterisation of the EU and the US as monolithic. Of course they are not, my point was simply that history has shown us that usually the 2 act in unison, more often than not. I think this is the reason why this topic also is looking for their co-operation given their traditional bond. However, and contextually, i mentioned this is a cautionary statement because it is also true that the EU and the US have enjoyed a priviledged position for a very long time through many ways (including imperialism) and many people in some parts of the world have great misgivings on their willingness to bridge the huge development gap in the context of the whole geo-political and strategic interests matrix. Reference is made here to post-colonial studies for example. The crux of the matter being,expecting EU and US to approach climate change issues via development in other parts of the world is a difficult but necessary step in our time.

Lastly, and in general, i think our ideas should not really be about what policy makers would want to hear, but ideas that lead to serious introspection and total rethinking of the way in which the world is organised. To that end, ideas that make climate change an urgent priority not piecemeal reforms: Ideas with impact

December 1, 2010

Edson Ziso, Willy Brandt School of Public Policy, University of Erfurt, Silver Contributor (46)

Dear Ntambaazi

Thank you for your contributions. Your clarifications on the US and Kyoto as well as the need to integrate climate change policy with sustainable development in the South is greatly appreciated

December 1, 2010

Edson Ziso, Willy Brandt School of Public Policy, University of Erfurt, Silver Contributor (46)

Dear Phillip

Thank you for your comments as well as the questions. I believe they are important in so far as they assist us clarify given the space limitations of the original effort. Your input on technological transfers from US to China is quite plausible. I had responded to Julia on that aspect above and i think you have just assisted greatly. My regards are also in order for highlighting the SPP initiative.

Then Phillip, that the EU and the US faces a legitimacy problem for leading progress on climate change is beyond dispute. We all know that trust is important in international intercourse. This does not mean that they cannot lead, does it? By beginning to adopt measures, some of which you and other colleagues have suggested, surely they can. Further, it would be very useful if you also attributed statements correctly. Honestly to suggest that I, at any point mentioned that 'the EU nor the US has the possibility to speak with moral authority' does not help anyone, save to take the debate into unnecessary territory.

Without necessarily disowning my bold statement, when i mention that its no longer about emissions ONLY, i am sharing a common concern over attempts to over-emphasize emissions reduction as the only focus. Once again, the mere fact that it is just hard to reduce emissions (and reduce them meaningfully) is enough evidence that we need to be thinking outside the box to encourage innovation that will substitute these environmentally devastating options. So, in essence, i support a two-pronged approach, 1) working to reduce emissions and most importantly, 2) encouraging innovative strategies of cleaner technology

Lo and behold!, they will not fall from the sky. Throughout history, man has been adapting to his environment, one way or the other. This is the same in the world of science and technology. So, these alternatives will come if governments across the world prioritise support for research and development on technological breakthroughs. Already, there are calls for solar energy, hydro-power, wind power and other forms of renewable energy just to mention a few as a viable alternative for example. Environmental finance should now feature prominently on national and international budgets to support these and other initiatives.

Lastly, you have reservations on taxation which you allege is not feasible and is no longer part of EU policy. I can only say that the inability to take political risks by shying away from results-oriented strategies like taxation is central to the problem and never part of the solution. In my response to Julia i indicated that developed countries seem to be unwilling to face political costs that come with meaningful approaches to climate change policy. Not only does this indicate retrogressive behaviour, it further saves as a chilling reminder that probably until the effects of climate change begin to bite, will developed countries' political leaders consider sound and impactful stances at cost to their political fortunes but of great assistance in saving the earth.

I thank you

December 1, 2010

Jan Schierkolk, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Gold Contributor (86)

Hello everyone,

I have a very split opinion about this article. On the one hand I completely agree with some of the underlying general directions of this greatly written paper, but then it does not offer much concrete (or viable) recommendations, like Philip said, too, I believe. Again, given the nature of this exercise, I will criticize more in detail than I praise. Please understand that, and don’t overrate it, Edson.

To begin, one little stylistic critique: too much space is dedicated to obvious things, emotional fluff and historic analogies, on which I will not comment in detail. This is done well, but it fits a political speech better than a policy workshop contribution, where it is only prone to distract us – which, looking at the discussion - I believe already happened in some instances. Pardon the candor. I’ll concentrate on your specific proposals and only selective (as needed) underlying assumptions, Edson.

Since it is being discussed anyways: especially the notion of not focusing on directly mandated emission cuts ONLY (if I understand you correctly, Edson) is a very much needed one in my opinion, especially regarding developing countries. For those who have indeed little moral authority (so far, Philip) in the issue to offer them help to go green has to be the main way.

Hitting on Western consumerism, to, is important. I unfortunately had to take a quite similar section out of my contribution due to space constraints and preference for more detailed description of my proposal.

The problem here, however, is that legislation that too openly or to quickly constrains consumer’s choices will almost invariably run in to huge political problems, i.e. in turn: easy distraction from climate change itself. And: I argue that, leaving levels of well-being aside, consumerism since long is no unique Western guiding philosophy anymore – if it has ever been. Maybe it is precisely the West, where it is already farthest on its (still long) way out. If you want to tackle that problem at its root, this points out the need to curb it elsewhere, too – which would in turn lead us back to problems with and undesirability of measures that force others to adopt certain regulations. All of this lets me conclude: now globally defined SOCIAL STATUS, as itself too much determined by consumption, will have to be re-defined. I’m curious to hear your ideas on that. NOT saying it’s the only way, one way to contribute to this is a central part of my own proposal, as you will see.


On taxing the polluters: economically it is hugely more efficient than carbon trading with all its uncertainties and flood gates for fraud and political interference. And what should happen if with carbon trade we create just another casino waiting to melt down and be bailed out by us, then under the threat of dragging down or ecosystem with it because emission permits would be too cheap after a bust. Therefore this would NOT be just another market, and we’d closely have to watch it and if necessary step in as governments, no matter what more turbocapitalist peers then say. BUT: out of those two classic conventional market-based approaches, emissions trading for political reasons is still by far more viable than carbon taxes in most places and circumstances. Sparing you repetitions, here I’m with Philip: at least in the U.S. you can FORGET anything remotely resembling carbon taxes (and thus also transatlantic integration under it) in any near to mid-term future.

If you continuously say to reservations like these that “such reaction will make headlines for sometime of course but will gradually die down”, Edson, do you assume a governments’ inevitably “dying down” by not being re-elected, too, in the process? Or are you arguing for regime changes towards authoritarianism with more “political will” at the top? I hope not, and I don’t assume you do. But given the persistence with which you reiterate in your responses that “shying away from results-oriented strategies” (like carbon taxes) even if in order to be able to pursue more viable options, or any options to the same end, make me wonder. Seriously, how should this voluntaristic approach work?

On another note, I believe you do very well in stressing the centrality of technology transfer. And I’m with you in finally giving them preference over food aid unless in the case of disasters and acute famines. But again: how do you actually want to do this? I agree when you say that “[t]he transfer of technology to developing parts of the world is an essential overdue incentive”, IF you mean that transferred technology could under certain conditions greatly incentivize indigenous development. But the important question here is: how can tech transfer ITSELF be incentivized to begin with? Because if that weren’t needed, transfer would happen by itself and we wouldn’t have to worry about it. Any thoughts on that?

Julia, the fact that China is now a major competitor and polluter should in my opinion make it more of a target for transfer of sustainability technology, not less. Please see the analysis section of my piece on Friday and comment then if you like. Edson’s example therefore is totally fine with me. And Philip, even China’s being the undisputed world champion in attracting tech transfer, CDM projects, etc. can hardly keep pace with its historically UNPRECEDENTED rate of industrialization. I may have understood you wrong (?), so don’t be offended. But just to clarify, there will increasingly have to be (eventually huge) contributions by China, too, but not helping them develop SUSTAINABLY now is simply not an option for anyone who plans to keep living on something resembling our current planet. I mean this drastic expression, just look at the numbers, at their proverbial new power plant per week, or look at any of the immense multiple decades-impacting investments they are doing right now. So we better be creative here and find ways to completely share relevant technology and profiting from it, too. Maybe we can discuss this better if you see what I mean on Friday.

Summing up, that was much criticism, while I really like your opinions and the direction of the article, Edson. The problem is just that in its current form it doesn’t lead me much further. Even if often correct in my view, you essentially assign responsibilities (to the West) without charting technically - and above all politically - viable ways for it to live up to them. I hope I didn’t misinterpret you (?). In any way, especially because of your viewpoints I’ll be very curious to hear your opinion on my piece. Because there, too, may be much common ground. The same probably goes for the rest of you, like e.g. Philip, when he (rightfully) stresses the importance of sub-national actors.

Cheers everyone, looking forward to future contributions

Jan

December 1, 2010

Salvador Santino F Regilme, University of Osnabrück, Germany, Gold Contributor (77)

Thank you for sharing some your clarifications and views, Edson.

I suspect that there would be no need for me reiterate a lot of constructive criticisms that have been raised regarding this entry- pointed out by Julia and Philip. Nonetheless, this entry also shares the same idea with prior discussions on how important clean technology transfers could be in the developing world. But let me just share some of my insights that I have thought of as I reflect upon the views presented here.

Regarding the “European Union and the United States to speak with moral authority on climate change given the fact that they have reached their current levels of development by causing many of today's climate problems”. I think this is indeed a very insightful and thought-provoking idea that trans-Atlantic/Western discourse may not be so keen in discussing that intensively, at least based on impressions, phenomenologically-speaking. Thus, I suppose that by taking a look into the very long historical trajectory of global development may push us to think about how compelling the moral impetus could be for Western/Atlantic powers to invest strategically in the developing world; that is, pushing for ‘green development’ in other countries.

Certainly, a more active and unprecedented level of support (from the EU and the US) must be given towards research, technology-transfers and capacity-building initiatives that promote ‘green development’, or at least specific ways in order to dramatically reduce carbon emissions and environmental degradation, while at the same time uplifting millions of individuals struggling with less than a dollar a day. I think that it is indeed urgent for various institutions to rethink on how to concretize in specific public policies a balanced paradigm of promoting development in many poor countries at the minimum possible cost to the environment.

On a less important note, although I acknowledge some insightful ideas explained in this article as mentioned above, I have serious reservations as to the over-all strategy of the article in terms of responding to the general theme of the debate/discussion. I felt that the article has explained a lot of things that are somehow too obvious to be stated – something that Julia or Philip may have noticed. Nonetheless, thank you so much for sharing your insights.

Kind regards,
Santino

December 1, 2010

Edson Ziso, Willy Brandt School of Public Policy, University of Erfurt, Silver Contributor (46)

Dear Jan and Santino

Thank you for your observations and indeed your respectful requests for clarifications.


Santiago
To begin with, you attack my writing style as, in your words, characterized by "emotional fluff and historic analogies". These are your personal feelings that you are entitled to but i see nothing emotional anywhere. The brief historical analogies that you may be referring to were partly solicited for by other contributors in terms of discussing EU and US challenges in leading this noble fight. Be that as it may, i wonder how you ignore history in any important discussion. It would be interesting to also know how you understand history because even events of last week are history for some.

I am so sorry i do not seem to understand your argument on consumerism, nonetheless because you seem to be undecided. But reading down on the respective arguments of carbon taxes and political will (which you prefer to dirty as 'strong governments'), i can only assume that you are aware of the problems but simply unprepared to face them head on. In this instance, my fears are confirmed that ideas with impact are not politically correct. This is very useful. My response to your concerns therefore would be that climate change policy simply requires hard choices and readiness to accept the dangers of our actions and indeed dealing with them by sacrifices. So, yes, taxes and strong government action that may be unpopular in the short to medium term, but it is the way to go. Climate change is a political problem and requires political will. I honestly dont see how your hypothetical 'uncertainties and flood gates for fraud and political interference' are enough reason not to implement these strategies. Which realm of political or economic activity is without corruption?

Further, when i say 'citizens' reaction will make headlines for sometime of course but will gradually die down' i simply mean that citizens will feel the pinch and complain, but only for a while. This is the political risk that politicians can take. Political will is the space where action starts; it is the DNA of new and better realities. Governments have the power to influence deliberate national policy and the primary role of making citizens understand such policies. This is guided democracy in various literature. Otherwise we will continue to be trapped by the status quo and proffer piecemeal reforms that essentially dont have any impact.

Incentivising technology transfer as i said assists in the whole development agenda for the South. In other words integrating climate change policy with overall development process makes such transfers more acceptable. Climate change is not a stand-alone policy, at least in the developing world. At play are various development concerns that could be a priority above climate change. So how do we make it an overriding concern? Simply, technology transfer must not be for free but must be made available accompanied by strong commitments on recipient countries to other development priorities.In the same vein it could be tied to developing countries to, meanwhile, (as net importers of finished products) shunning products from polluting industries, just the same way blood diamonds are shunned in certain markets as a sanctioning measure to discourage their bloody generation.

Fighting climate change should be incentivised to be attractive to developing economies. I will give you an example: the unfairness and little benefit that the UNFCC initiated programmes such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to African states. The CDM functions as an institution by which developing countries can earn income from reducing GHG emissions in developing countries, with Africa barely participating and benefitting. This is attributable to the lack of sub-Saharan African capacity to prepare or implement credible CDM proposals that can be funded particularly on the investment factor in the scheme to which nation states cannot meet. Most of the projects that attract funding under the scheme are related to energy, industrial and synthetic gas sectors where Africa is of little significance. I would rather advocate for the inclusion of projects such as afforestation/reforestation and conservation particularly in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), hydropower, solar power, waste disposal, forest management and conservation projects. African capacity to participate in the CDM as presently constituted can be enhanced through knowledge dissemination, skills development and technical assistance from the developed world.

Your concerns on my assigning too many responsibilities to the West are of course guided by the theme itself that is Western focused. The theme is looking for a TansAntlatic led solution. I have tried to respond to many of your concerns via other responses. As for allegations that i offer 'obvious' things, well, those are personal opinions you are entitled to, but i certainly dont share them.

Regards

December 1, 2010

Salvador Santino F Regilme, University of Osnabrück, Germany, Gold Contributor (77)

Hi Edson,
Just a miscellaneous correction, I did not say ""emotional fluff and historic analogies". Based on this exchange, it was Jan's commentary that you might be referring to. Thanks. Kindly refer to the earlier posts.

December 1, 2010

Ntambaazi Williams George, University of Osnabrueck, Germany, Silver Contributor (41)

Hellos,

Caution: Please let us maintain a very health debate. We should, as intellectuals, try as much as possible to desist from trivials. The language we use here should be respectful of each others views, keep us in line or define a health line of separation.

We should not misuse the free, democratic, open and analytical space in debating the tough transatlantic issues of our time.

A very good night to you all

December 1, 2010

Edson Ziso, Willy Brandt School of Public Policy, University of Erfurt, Silver Contributor (46)

Dear Salvador

Oh! Kindly accept my most humble apologies. That certainly was an unintentional error and i take it back. Thank you for pointing that out, am only realising it now.

Best Regards

December 2, 2010

Jan Schierkolk, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Gold Contributor (86)

Hello everyone,

I have a very split opinion about this article. On the one hand I completely agree with some of the underlying general directions of this greatly written paper, but then it does not offer much concrete (or viable) recommendations, like Philip said, too, I believe. Again, given the nature of this exercise, I will criticize more in detail than I praise. Please understand that, and don’t overrate it, Edson.

To begin, one little stylistic critique: too much space is dedicated to obvious things, emotional fluff and historic analogies, on which I will not comment in detail. This is done well, but it fits a political speech better than a policy workshop contribution, where it is only prone to distract us – which, looking at the discussion - I believe already happened in some instances. Pardon the candor. I’ll concentrate on your specific proposals and only selective (as needed) underlying assumptions, Edson.

Since it is being discussed anyways: especially the notion of not focusing on directly mandated emission cuts ONLY (if I understand you correctly, Edson) is a very much needed one in my opinion, especially regarding developing countries. For those who have indeed little moral authority (so far, Philip) in the issue to offer them help to go green has to be the main way.

Hitting on Western consumerism, to, is important. I unfortunately had to take a quite similar section out of my contribution due to space constraints and preference for more detailed description of my proposal.

The problem here, however, is that legislation that too openly or to quickly constrains consumer’s choices will almost invariably run in to huge political problems, i.e. in turn: easy distraction from climate change itself. And: I argue that, leaving levels of well-being aside, consumerism since long is no unique Western guiding philosophy anymore – if it has ever been. Maybe it is precisely the West, where it is already farthest on its (still long) way out. If you want to tackle that problem at its root, this points out the need to curb it elsewhere, too – which would in turn lead us back to problems with and undesirability of measures that force others to adopt certain regulations. All of this lets me conclude: now globally defined SOCIAL STATUS, as itself too much determined by consumption, will have to be re-defined. I’m curious to hear your ideas on that. NOT saying it’s the only way, one way to contribute to this is a central part of my own proposal, as you will see.


On taxing the polluters: economically it is hugely more efficient than carbon trading with all its uncertainties and flood gates for fraud and political interference. And what should happen if with carbon trade we create just another casino waiting to melt down and be bailed out by us, then under the threat of dragging down or ecosystem with it because emission permits would be too cheap after a bust. Therefore this would NOT be just another market, and we’d closely have to watch it and if necessary step in as governments, no matter what more turbocapitalist peers then say. BUT: out of those two classic conventional market-based approaches, emissions trading for political reasons is still by far more viable than carbon taxes in most places and circumstances. Sparing you repetitions, here I’m with Philip: at least in the U.S. you can FORGET anything remotely resembling carbon taxes (and thus also transatlantic integration under it) in any near to mid-term future.

If you continuously say to reservations like these that “such reaction will make headlines for sometime of course but will gradually die down”, Edson, do you assume a governments’ inevitably “dying down” by not being re-elected, too, in the process? Or are you arguing for regime changes towards authoritarianism with more “political will” at the top? I hope not, and I don’t assume you do. But given the persistence with which you reiterate in your responses that “shying away from results-oriented strategies” (like carbon taxes) even if in order to be able to pursue more viable options, or any options to the same end, make me wonder. Seriously, how should this voluntaristic approach work?

On another note, I believe you do very well in stressing the centrality of technology transfer. And I’m with you in finally giving them preference over food aid unless in the case of disasters and acute famines. But again: how do you actually want to do this? I agree when you say that “[t]he transfer of technology to developing parts of the world is an essential overdue incentive”, IF you mean that transferred technology could under certain conditions greatly incentivize indigenous development. But the important question here is: how can tech transfer ITSELF be incentivized to begin with? Because if that weren’t needed, transfer would happen by itself and we wouldn’t have to worry about it. Any thoughts on that?

Julia, the fact that China is now a major competitor and polluter should in my opinion make it more of a target for transfer of sustainability technology, not less. Please see the analysis section of my piece on Friday and comment then if you like. Edson’s example therefore is totally fine with me. And Philip, even China’s being the undisputed world champion in attracting tech transfer, CDM projects, etc. can hardly keep pace with its historically UNPRECEDENTED rate of industrialization. I may have understood you wrong (?), so don’t be offended. But just to clarify, there will increasingly have to be (eventually huge) contributions by China, too, but not helping them develop SUSTAINABLY now is simply not an option for anyone who plans to keep living on something resembling our current planet. I mean this drastic expression, just look at the numbers, at their proverbial new power plant per week, or look at any of the immense multiple decades-impacting investments they are doing right now. So we better be creative here and find ways to completely share relevant technology and profiting from it, too. Maybe we can discuss this better if you see what I mean on Friday.

Summing up, that was much criticism, while I really like your opinions and the direction of the article, Edson. The problem is just that in its current form it doesn’t lead me much further. Even if often correct in my view, you essentially assign responsibilities (to the West) without charting technically - and above all politically - viable ways for it to live up to them. I hope I didn’t misinterpret you (?). In any way, especially because of your viewpoints I’ll be very curious to hear your opinion on my piece. Because there, too, may be much common ground. The same probably goes for the rest of you, like e.g. Philip, when he (rightfully) stresses the importance of sub-national actors.

Cheers everyone,

Jan






Hey Edson,

Yes, “emotional fluff and historical analogies” was my expression. Stylistically, if that offended you then I apologize. I thought I had sufficiently balanced this negative candor on such a minor issue with enough positive remarks for you to not take it personally, even as an “attack”. But that call is yours to make, not mine. All I can say is that it certainly wasn’t meant that way.

However, you are also right when you say that at least content-wise I am entitled to my opinion. It’s ironic that my intention was exactly not to get into commenting Westphalian statehood descriptions or even more Kyoto interpretations, or dissecting sentences like
“This article posits that since humans have conspired, willingly or unwillingly to damage the environment, it is also the same humans who will be creative enough to avert potential damage in the medium to short term.
The technological revolution, especially at the turn of the millennium, which made life relatively easier while creating new problems, is not very different from greenhouse emissions and their effects that so concern us here. Human beings create and solve their own problems.”
I don’t have that much against them, all I was saying was that unlike previous commentators I don’t like to comment. Maybe I shouldn’t have been so clear about my very subjective reasons for that. Or just said nothing (probably the best. Just didn’t want to simply ignore previous discussions). Then I would not have offended you. So again: I’m sorry and I mean it. Especially as this type of conversation now was exactly what I wanted to avoid.
Next point: I *explicitly* did not mean to say you wanted a “strong government” with negative connotations, but your brushing aside of any political feasibility indeed made me wonder how you would actually enact, say, a carbon tax in the U.S.. And here you still don’t convince me. Your questioning my personal resolve to act against climate change when I say this shows that you didn’t understand me, so here a clarification: this is not about my (or our) own but the readiness for action and sacrifice of OUR SOCIETIES. Displaying that willingness to act yourself can be called noble, but simply projecting this readiness on others against all evidence is not prone to get you anywhere even in the pursuit of noble goals. If you still disagree here, lets agree to do so respectfully and that was that. I don’t see how we get farther here, especially since I already wasn’t the first to hit on that point.

“Uncertainties and flood gates for fraud and political interference'” referred to the potential dangers of emission trade, i.e. an argument (although then overturned) to support YOUR preference for carbon taxes; not a blanket argument against any bold measure. I hope you were the only one misunderstanding this.

Just in case there was another misunderstanding: I wasn’t doubting the need to incentivize action on climate change, or of development, for that matter. I was asking how exactly you would incentivize tech transfer. About your African example: you would certainly not see me defend the CDM (in its current form).

Often you make mostly valid points, but seem to direct them against something I said. But looking closer, I don’t see them running against anything I said. If that is intended, and I was meant, then yes, I agree. Thank you.

But the last paragraph of your comment, at the latest, lets me doubt that a) you are not partly confusing me with someone else, like you addressed Santino instead of me before, or b) you really didn’t read my contributions well enough (e.g. when I was openly taking your position in advocating for developing countries’ views). Maybe this would explain your strong reactions after I had also much positive to say about your piece. I’m really a bit puzzled now.

Maybe it would help to not address two people at the same time without differentiating between them in each sentence or para. In general, we are getting terribly sidetracked like this, exactly what I wanted to avoid. Thanks Ntambaazi on that note.

All the best,

Jan

December 2, 2010

Jan Schierkolk, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Gold Contributor (86)

Oops, sorry for the repetition of my first comment before the second one (:

Good night indeed,

j

December 2, 2010

Edson Ziso, Willy Brandt School of Public Policy, University of Erfurt, Silver Contributor (46)

Hie Jan

Your clarifications are welcome, so are your other remarks.

Maybe just to make it better for everyone, my last comment was respectfully dedicated to you in trying to address the numerous concerns you had raised. Then the last paragraph was directed to both yourself and Santino as i felt you shared the same view on me actually offering 'obvious`' things. I categorically failed to agree with this even though i suspect that you may have felt that when someone calls for a renewed revisit of past strategies, then they are offering nothing new. My understanding being that there are a lot of good strategies lying on tables or in policy makers' drawers that offer a useful starting point only that they failed due to several reasons. So, even though i offered new approaches, i was not blind to the potential gains that we could get if political will (which i explained) is brave enough to re-look at past strategies with new vigour that were never given a fair chance.

Again, it is possible that somehow we missed each other's points as you point out. If that is the case, it is unfortunate but am sure also possible in a debate where we write, rather than speak, to each other. This may go down to our different writing styles, among other things. I certainly would have accepted your apologies Jan but i have not taken anything personally at all. Only i write emphatically which is misunderstood as emotion. The debate is also about brevity. That in my view is perfectly normal.

Finally, since we clearly agree on some aspects, we should agree to disagree on some. What is important as Ntambaazi said (and i thank him) is to keep the debate as academic as possible

Good night to you all and am thankful for all the contributions

Edson

December 2, 2010

Philip Strothmann, Free University Berlin, Gold Contributor (76)

Dear all

let me get back to your comments as brief as I can :)

Edson, I'm sorry if I exaggerated your comment on the moral authority question, I guess I understood it in a more drastic way than you probably meant it.

In addition I misunderstood your "no longer emission reduction" phrases as well (maybe I shouldn't comment at three o'clock in the morning…). As applying renewable energies, cleaner technologies and so on falls for me under the "emission reduction" theme, I interpreted your statement as a hope for geo- or climate-engineering solutions, which we discussed the day before. Sorry for that.

Moreover let me get back to you on the taxation point. I just commented on this very issue on Santino's piece. The taxation question has nothing to do with taking a political risk. There is simply no way that member state of the EU will give up their right to levy taxes. The EU is not a state and though it has both supranational as well as intergovernmental structures, taxation questions will not fall into its domain in the foreseeable future. Accordingly your assessment that stakeholders in the EU are not willing to face political costs is invalid - at least with regard to the taxation issue.

In addition, I share most of Santino's and Jan's criticism. I feel that you disregard political realities in many of your proposals and thus don't see how your actions could be implemented. That is not to say that I don't agree with you that these actions SHOULD be taken, however, we should remain careful in our suggestions not to propose too idealistic positions.

Finally, let me get back to Jan's comment on China. Again you seemed to have misunderstood me. I was not at all trying to argue that we should not assist China given the situation Julia and you correctly pointed to. Rather more I was pointing to the fact that China indeed already has policies for technology transfer on a national level in place, something I find helpful and necessary. Moreover, while you're certainly right that China's development path has to be taken very seriously, China is doing way more than the international public believes (not saying that that's enough though). To this end you simply have to believe me, as my study on Chinese climate and energy policies I'm about to finalize for the PIK would be a bit too lengthy for this comment… ;)

I hope that I could clarify the raised points and again my apologies for interpreting some statements in a different way than they were intended by you, Edson.

Philip

December 2, 2010

Edson Ziso, Willy Brandt School of Public Policy, University of Erfurt, Silver Contributor (46)

Hi Philip

A very good morning. Firstly i note your acknowledgement that you misunderstood me on some points. As i have already said, via my response to Jan, it was somehow unavoidable given the nature of this debate. This has been the case since Monday but the most important thing is the positive that it has helped us understand each other better, hopefully.


You remain adamant, and infact dismiss as 'invalid' my argument on political risks and taxation. But i thought at a multi-lateral level, the grouping can act unanimously on relevant proposals for the harmonisation of indirect taxation. I stand to be corrected but i thought environmental taxes were an area of concurrent jurisdiction.

I am very much aware of the need to awaken to 'political realities' too. I do mention it in my piece too. Just as an opinionated caution, whenever most commentators raise this issue, in most cases it is just a very comfortable hiding place ignoring real issues. Exactly how far do we say this is a political reality, and on what basis? For purposes of maintaining focus, I will not state numerous examples of many so called political realities in my part of the world that have been overturned and exposed as myths after risky and thorough political action but which has produced results.

I am extremely encouraged by your authoritative stance on China. Indeed i have no option but to believe you as you assert you are doing specific studies in that regard that are relevant to this discussion. I hope i am not wrong that we also dont seem to differ much in principle, hence your additional informed emphasis is extremely helpful.Thank you very much Philip

Best

December 4, 2010

Ralph Buchanan

Hello everyone,

I would like to state on behalf of my southern neighbours and my own country (Canadian here!) that we will never submit to a global regime dictating carbon emissions. Please look up what occurred on July 4th 1776, and on December 11th 1931 for the reasons why. Until the global community ceases its childish endeavour to compromise our sovereignty by positing that we must obey the UN and other global regimes such as Kyoto, we shall never take the global community seriously.

Let us remember that the North American economy is more than three times the size of China's and still pollutes less, perhaps our efficiency is something to be lauded? In Alberta, I have personally seen former oil tailings ponds be restored to their previous lustre, something I don't believe the Chinese do when they are finished mining in an area. I ask you all why is it you are hounding us to curb our production, do you not understand that if we stop producing, other countries will pick up the difference? Far more polluting countries like China? Should we shut down our oil fields so the Nigerians will produce more? And then when you fill up your Peugeots you will be importing more than just oil, but blood too. This is not a fringe attitude in North America, but a massive political base who thinks that we should return to our old isolationist ways; let those who would be our allies be our allies, and let those who embrace this socialist sophistry find their own way in the world.

I do not mean to be mean-spirited or condescending, but I am becoming incredibly distraught at the audacity of Canada's supposed allies. When people make statements like "[the US and Europe] have reached current their levels of development by causing many of today's climate problems," I get incredibly sad. We did not become developed by causing the world's problems, but rather by having an open and accountable society with the rule of law. This is the secret to our economic growth and nothing more, there is no nefarious scheme to pollute the world or an evil American Empire out to ruin your countries.

I may have gotten off track and ranted but please excuse me. I wish to display my respect for those who truly are interested in helping reduce pollution, but before you preach please examine your own backyard and tell me that you spend as much time taking care of it as we do in North America.

I would also wish that people stop asking for handouts, no one gave Ford a factory to start making cars in, rather he made an investment and with some ingenuity and luck built an empire. Now in China, I am sure they can do the same and buy clean technology if they are interested, but they aren't. The whole reason China has any comparative economic advantage at all is because they pay slave wages and pollute.

Again I apologize for any incoherence in this post, it is such a broad subject and I wish only to illuminate the opinions of many of my countrymen and neighbours.

Every good wish,

RB

December 4, 2010

Edson Ziso, Willy Brandt School of Public Policy, University of Erfurt, Silver Contributor (46)

Dear Ralph

I have read and understood your concerns as always the opinions therein. In short, i have resisted the urge to accordingly respond on this forum precisely because i feel your arguments are basically so varied and hover eventually, around a particular subject in political economy. Assuming that i understood you well, i would very much welcome to debate such issues on a relevant, different platform. Responding here will indeed dilute the whole debate that so concerns here.

But thank you for sharing the opinions of your countrymen and neighbours.

Best Regards

Edson