RSS

 

Atlantic-community.org's Policy Workshop Competition 2010, sponsored by the U.S. Mission to Germany, challenged students with an engaging question with not just transatlantic, but global significance: "How can Europe and the United States cooperate in creating incentives for action against climate change"

The six best submissions were published and intensely debated with over 80 detailed comments. Afterwards, the six authors Jan Schierkolk, Julia Grauvogel, Edson Ziso, Philip Strothmann, Dominik Hübner and Salvador Santino Regilme Jr wrote the following policy memorandum. The editorial team of atlantic-community.org facilitated and moderated their online collaboration utilizing a wiki, text chat, and a conference call.

Transatlantic Leadership by Example: Toward Inclusive Climate Change Policy

INTRODUCTION

One year ago, the world's expectations were crushed by the results of the UN Climate summit in Copenhagen (COP 15). As a result, not only has the attention for this year's COP 16 in Cancun dropped significantly, but the negotiators themselves did not expect any groundbreaking achievements. These developments point even more to the necessity for addressing systemic and policy matters that can overcome the deadlock and create the chance for concrete progress.

One barrier to success within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the primary forum to coordinate global action on climate change, is the traditional North-South divide. While a lack of transparency and good governance structures in developing countries raises concern in developed countries, conversely, developing countries criticize the strategies of the West. Issues raised include the ongoing unsustainable use of natural resources as well as the inability of Western governments to fulfill financial promises or their conduct of linking them to political support.

In order to overcome the most crucial political obstacles, this memo contains policy recommendations which deal with the above mentioned problems and address the relevant stakeholders in various sectors and at different levels within the European Union and the United States.

Re-establishing a responsible and strategic leadership-role, based on a common EU-US strategy and mutual understanding for each other's concerns and constraints, is key. Embracing the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" has to be a cornerstone that will enable both partners to lead by example in establishing moral authority. Consequently, both should not only focus on global, but also on domestic actions.

Accordingly, sustainability concerns have to be mainstreamed in all policy areas and renewable technologies, like solar, wind, and wave technology have to be applied within the EU and US. Moreover, focusing on smart grids and electricity storage solutions is key. To this end, economic incentives that support research and application of said technologies have to be implemented on various state levels.

In addition, to enhance not just climate change mitigation but also adaptation, as well as sustainable development, technology transfer is key. Including developing countries' experiences is crucial. This fosters universally beneficial and empowering knowledge-flows in all directions and on all levels. Those ends appear best served by a novel wiki-based global patent pool with innovative collaborative incentives and democratic governance.

Also, Western governments should introduce more stringent environmental compliance standards on transnational corporations and ensure equitable participation of developing, emerging and developed countries in the governance structure of the agreed upon Copenhagen Green Fund.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The European Union and the United States Need to Lead by Example

1.1. President Obama Should Focus on Achievable Initiatives in the US

Given current Congressional opposition to any progressive national and international climate legislation, the Obama administration should focus on achievable goals such as the promotion of renewable energy, necessary infrastructure for smart grids and improved storage technology. This could be endorsed even by Republicans, if the economic benefits and increased energy security aspects are highlighted strongly enough.

Moreover, the administration should take a clear stance with regard to supporting the Enviroment Protection Agency (EPA) and defending the agency's powers in Congress. Another key component should be the reduction or elimination of state level subsidies for fossil fuel technologies. In addition, it is crucial that the administration backs progressive states that are ahead of national legislation such as California.

States, regions and cities that are willing to take progressive action should be encouraged to build alliances and forums for sharing knowledge both within the US and with external stakeholders. Existing regional climate initiatives should be linked together, and initiatives such as the German-US-Canadian Climate Bridge should be supported. Successes should then be highlighted by the Obama administration to showcase the benefits and change attitudes in Congress.

1.2. The EU Has to Create a More Cohesive and Progressive Approach

The EU should evaluate its own position within the international climate regime more self-critically and take a more coherent stand in international negotiations. To this end, the "basket approach" for sharing emission reductions, which was successfully put in place for the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, should be revitalized.

In addition, better strategic coordination before and during negotiations is crucial. COP 15 in Copenhagen showed that despite common positions, different initiatives pursued by a number of EU member states created an image of disunity that heavily weakened the EU position.

Agreement must be reached on certain substantive issues where EU member states have diverging interests (disagreements of land use and forestry being one), in order to be able to speak with one voice in a credible manner.

Furthermore, the EU must intensify its leadership beyond the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which currently accounts for approximately 50 percent of its emission reductions to become more credible in its climate policy efforts. Equally, regarding efforts in the US, the EU should further promote energy efficiency and renewable energy on an even larger scale.

In order to enhance the application of renewable energy across the European Union, all member states must agree on a common market based on the necessary smart grip technology and an incentive scheme which ensures that sustainable technology is applied best where it is most efficient, for example, solar panels in southern parts, wind energy in costal regions etc.

2. Commitment to Sustainability Should Shape Diplomatic Relations

2.1. International Treaties and UN Leadership

The United States and the European Union should ensure that sustainability is taken into consideration in every international treaty. The United Nations Environmental Programme  (UNEP) should be provided with the means and mandated to assess a treaty for environmental impact and provide a thorough analysis for the parties involved. Recommendations should then be made public on a dedicated UNEP website to put any defaulting parties under public pressure.

Sustainability and climate change (in-)action, relative to a country's capabilities, has to be made an explicit and consistent criterion in international diplomatic relations. To that end, membership aspirations in international organs such as the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the Human Rights Council, should be supported by the US and EU based on a country’s sustainability record and agenda.

Such a policy should strictly be applied to all countries regardless of strategic alliances. In addition, countries that fulfill or excel on sustainability criteria by exceeding emission targets should be granted further tangible benefits, like trade, aid, and defensive security assurance.

2.2. Adapting WTO Rules

The transatlantic partners should lobby for amending the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to explicitly account for climate change-related trade issues. In their current form, rules and precedence are not clear enough and require urgent action. Given the potential stakes, having a WTO Panel or the Appellate Body decide such issues as they arise undermines the acceptance of and thus, the stability of the entire international trade regime.

Climate change considerations should be part of a successful conclusion of the current Doha Round, for which the EU and US should make substantial compromises. If that remains impossible, a separate agreement has to be pursued, as time is essential.

2.3. Creating a Transatlantic Carbon Permit Trading Scheme

The EU and US should lobby for an integrated, transatlantic carbon permit trading scheme, which is modeled after the SO2 (sulfur dioxide) trading scheme, as implemented by the US, by taking worldwide experiences with existing schemes into account. This will help to avoid economic disadvantages between globally competing and open markets.

2.4. Including Bilateral Agreements with BRIC Countries into UN Framework

The EU and US should actively work towards including all BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries in negotiations that seek to incorporate existing and future bilateral accords into the UNFCCC process. To this end, the EU must emphasize the priority of the UN as the ultimate forum for climate negotiations as it is the only one capable of establishing legally binding commitments.

At the same time, the EU should not perceive bilateral negotiations between the US and China as a threat but should encourage this new partnership, while itself improving bilateral climate policy relations with these two partners.

3. Knowledge and Patent Pool to Increase Technology Transfer

The EU and US should create and fund an open patent and general knowledge pool for sustainable technology, with additional funding coming from the Copenhagen Green Fund, and other public and private partners. Such a pool would buy existing or put up flexible tenders for new innovations, especially those that allow easy, cheap, and sustainable production, use, maintenance, and recycling/disposal. 

All pool contributions should be made freely available globally, even for commercial use, under one condition: Either directly, or after a short period, any refinements and improvements based on them would have to re-enter the pool, and thus contribute to the ever accelerating technology cycle.

Pool policy decisions should initially be made by a steering board-like structure, where every member would have voting power according to their financial contributions. However, the pool should increasingly operate through a wiki- and social network-based system by which governments, firms, and individuals contribute technology and related knowledge, assess each others' contributions, and openly discuss all aspects of pool policy.

With growing general appreciation for action on climate change, the most active contributors would see their global reputation increase, which in such transparent circumstances would serve as an additional incentive for participation. This principle, when increasingly combined with constant grass-roots democratic technology rating and pool governance, can also boost not just the usefulness of technology but also contributions by states, firms, and even individuals.

The pool is not meant to impede improvements on already existing technology transfer and global sustainability promotion mechanisms, such as those already put in place under the UNFCCC. In addition, both the EU and US should dramatically invest more funds in climate change-related capacity building in developing countries, for instance by increasing graduate scholarships for promising environmental governance leaders.

CONCLUSION

Effective leadership is required by the United States and the European Union, but has to be earned and inclusive, not just claimed and defended. This needs to be done through considerable domestic action, a joint push for transparent international treaties and bodies that take sustainability criteria into account, and backed up by a genuinely democratic technology pool which will benefit all concerned. Actions on climate change now look likely to set the tone for this still young, truly global century.

Jan Schierkolk a Masters of International Affairs student at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. You can view his article entitled " Sustainable Development Through Climate Change Tech Pool", here.

Julia Grauvogel is studying for an MA in Peace and Conflict Research and International Relations at the University of  Tübingen. You can view her article entitled "The EU Needs to Take the Initiative" here.

Edson Ziso is a student of the MA Public Policy program at the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy, University of Erfurt. You can view his article entitled "Clean Technology Transfers are Needed" here.

Philip Strothmann is a student of the MA Public and Private Environmental Management program at the Free University of Berlin. You can view his article entitled "EU and US Should Lead by Example" here.

Dominik Hübner is studying Sustainable Development at the University of St. Andrews. You can view his article entitled "Learn from Mistakes of Past International Treaties" here.

Salvador Santino Regilme Jr. is a student of the MA program in Democratic Governance and Civil Society at the University of Osnabrueck. You can view his article entitled "Identity, Incentives and Action: A New Approach to Climate Change" here.

For more information on this competition, please click here.

Graphic by Pierre Marcel, nc-nd 2.0

December 14, 2010

Ekaterina Katsarova, Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, Bronze Contributor (12)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

An effective partnership between the EU and US is simply not possible,because the Americans do not take climate change seriously.

At the beginning of the climate regime formation under the Kyoto Protocol, the US was the structural power, because it defended and pursued its own interests. After the rejection of the treaty by the US, the EU took a proactive role and became the structural leader, by using its global role to attract other countries to join its programmes. Today the EU is emerging as the intellectual and entrepreneur leader, because of the creation of the new Kyoto phase. As for the US it is more likely to emerge as a structural leader, as it continues to pursue its interests. Climate change is simply not on the US agenda. Obama faced the most difficult geopolitics problems such as the making of new financial regulations,working on preventing war and the health care system. Today, the US focus is on these issues,but not on climate change.
The US commitment to environmental issues is criticized, because they use their structural power to pursue their own interests. As a result, the European Union is thus commonly seen, in both theory and practice, as the main counterweight to or at least moderator of US influence. For this reason, bringing the European Union into the picture is a much more promising approach for combating the environmental problems. To this end, the commitment of the EU to meet the Kyoto Protocol requirements within its first phase from 2008-2012, by reducing its total emissions of greenhouse gases by 8% compared to 1990 levels makes the EU both an intellectual and entrepreneurial leader. Therefore, the EU is at the forefront of international efforts to combat climate change, because it plays a very active role to address the environmental problems and find solutions for them. T

he EU’s first significant initiative was the development of the United Nations Framework Convention Climate Change in 1992 and its Kyoto Protocol, ratified in 1997. Afterwards, the launch of the European Climate Change Programme in 2001 was a great scenario for further initiatives. The main proposals were the use of alternative fuels such as biofuels( natural gas, hydrogen and fuel cells) in the road transport sector by 2020. Additionally, the European Commission proposed further solutions for combating climate change such as the establishment of an EU-wide CO2 emissions trading scheme, support to renewable energy sources, high energy taxes, the promotion of energy saving in buildings and the creation of further policies for technological developments. The cornerstone of the Climate Change Programme was, however, the emission trade regime launched in 2005. Additionally, the EU set out proposals for keeping climate change to manageable levels after the expiring of the Kyoto Protocol emissions targets. This most recent proposal by the European commission was created to tackle problems of global warming. It commits the EU to reduce its emission of greenhouse gasses by 20% by the year 2020 (compared to 1990 levels) and 60% by 2050. The EU has 3 main goals concerning its energy policy - combating climate change, limiting the EU's external vulnerability to imported hydrocarbons, and promoting growth. The European Commission proposed such actions in January 2007 in its Communication “Limiting Global Climate Change to 2° Celsius: The way ahead for 2020 and beyond”. The present ongoing energy discussions shows again the entrepreneurial role of the European Union.

So it is the European Union that has risen as a structural, intellectual and entrepreneurial leader in the present climate change regime. The United States, of course, is an important strategic partner, as well. In the end, they both share the same commitment- the reduction of the global greenhouse gases. However, different perceptions and approaches to climate change tend to undermine a genuine EU-US partnership. The Americans are not taking seriously climate change. This is because the system of the US governement works only when there is a crisis.The US was united on 9/11,for example. In a crisis the US do very well and the government is very effective. Climate change is acknowledged as a problem by the Americans but it has not become a crisis yet. Give them a crisis and they do well. The Americans do not anticipate problems,they deal with crises. That is why, unless climate change becomes a crisis, the EU will be emerging as the only leader who will be taking actions on climate change.

December 17, 2010

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

• 4
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Ekaterina,

thank you for your comments. You seem to be well-versed in EU climate initiatives. To some of your remarks:

Yes, an “effective” climate partnership between the U.S. und EU indeed does currently not seem very likely. The fact that climate change now is not much (and still decreasingly) on the U.S. agenda is regrettable, but well known.

Accordingly, acknowledging U.S. constraints is crucial, and I think we did so. Anything else would be out of touch with reality. However, as climate change is essentially an equity- and collective action problem, relying on only one actor alone (here the EU) risks to equally dismiss the issue. Here, failure to act of either one of the big transatlantic two, especially as chief historic emitters, can substantially block any significant global progress by discouraging others. Which does NOT mean the EU should wait for the U.S. in case the latter keeps lagging behind, as we wrote. And yes, current EU targets, let alone efforts to achieve them, should be much more ambitious.

You say that “As for the US it is more likely to emerge as a structural leader, as it continues to pursue its interests”. This, if I understand you correctly, is completely contrary to our point: climate leadership, structural or not, means leading by example, and not by holding everyone else hostage. And even from a realist perspective this would backfire, both in terms of diplomatic influence, as well as eventually in hard power terms. But two paragraphs below you call the EU the leader, for being ambitious, i.e. the precise opposite. The terminology aside – could you explain what you mean?

Lastly, on a different (and seemingly less directly related) note, I don’t agree that the U.S. system handled 9/11 particularly well: that “effectiveness” squandered unprecedented sympathy in the entire world, got the country and allies into two major wars, none of which are over (no, neither Iraq), plus a few minor and covered ones, a lot of freedom and democratic values (i.e. also: leadership) lost at home and abroad in the process, and a defense budget that at least the next three presidents will have a hard time getting back to anything near reasonable proportions (the main creditor for all this: China, of all countries…). All of which exacerbates what you rightfully seem to see as distractions from climate change. And here, I believe, Europeans should re-discover and then promote their way of handling things the civilian way more. The point is: as climate change is a global issue, we cannot afford to let ourselves be continuously distracted by seemingly more immediate issues, like baseless suspicion of “foreigners” whose cooperation we need on other ends, or hardly more than cosmetic fixes to our financial systems - to which climate change, at the latest, will deliver final blows. Likewise, climate change should not distract from any of those problems. But taking it into account more may have healthy side-effects on many other issues – which is what I (or: we?) also hope to contribute to.

All the best,

Jan

Tags: | climate change | United States | European Union |

December 18, 2010

Ekaterina Katsarova, Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, Bronze Contributor (12)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Jan,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

My point is that the U.S. and EU have been both leaders in recent years. And that is why, I am focusing on different modes of leadership. But my concern is that I cannot see either cooperation or inclusive climate change policy, because of disagreement over values. The U.S. is well known for its technological innovation and aspirations to make money from it. And indeed, it appeared to be a very big supporter for using technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. has been subjected to harsh international criticism, because it declared that the use of technology was the only solution to climate change problems. On the contrary, the EU citizens find the emission reduction policies more sustainable than the technological projects of the U.S. Therefore, the EU is the more powerful leader by example as it seeks to promote activities with the aim of improving environmentally friendly measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And as I have mentioned before, the EU is taking actions towards climate change while the U.S is not so much involved in the problem. I am just skeptical of future collaboration between the U.S. and EU on working together on a joint environmental programme. The world will still welcomed U.S. leadership, but it must be exercised with greater care.

You are absolutely right that the U.S. system did not handled 9/11 and its aftermath. But at least the Americans were united on that day, because it seems to me that the polarization of the U.S. is now more bitter than it ever was.

All the best,

Ekaterina

December 20, 2010

Florian Nikolai Yves Kurzmann, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, Bronze Contributor (14)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I believe that you cannot leave Multinational Companies out of the equasion. With their amazing and global influence in decision making, the market place and innovation, with power over resources and capital, these companies have to look at the damages they have done in the past, restore the environment where possible and help develop the shape of the future world, with a more social and environmental focus.

There is a huge incentive for developing and marketing of environmentally sustainable energy sources and mentioned President Obama knows best. I can remember his webpage during the presidential campaign. He was basing some of the financial recovery of the US on the rewards of some of the campaign's ideas for a 'better' climate.

This incentive originates from the global awareness for climate change. Be it not as strong as in Europe or Japan, the USA is a huge market place with enough room for cleavage of issues. Consumers, businesses and governments everywhere, are growing a concious and want for products and energy solutions, which protect the environment and decrease the extent of the utility bill, at the same time.

Unfair not to mention that companies like Shell have made advances in renewable energy sources, in an effort to control a share of the market. No wonder, any business entity, which were able offer a product and service that beats oil and other fossil fuels with its four Ps right now, would ultimately hold a lot of power on a global scale.

This expected profit and power, organised around the ownership of the patents, is the issue, which makes a shared patent pool from an official source unlikely. If it were to be created, patents in it would probably not be valuable and key technological advances and patents would not be included.

There is a danger of other countries prioritizing renewable energy and beating the USA and Europe with their progress. For this reason non-governmental scientific unions and other groups should create such a patent and technology pool, much to the same or even better effect than governments could.

Maybe the people of the USA and Europe have to learn that they have to handle some things on their own, before they drown in the inactivity of their respective governments, quite literally. Also, that they are on better terms and closer culturally with Europeans and the other way round, than the relationship their leaders communicate. Diplomacy and international relations can work on a smaller level, in the sphere of civil society and social-networking.

Governments have to re-call that life does not only happen at conferences and in parliaments. They seem far from undestanding now, but any one person has the potential to change the world with a bit of luck, help and determination - this is not a process exclusive to politicians doing politics, during office hours.

Ultimately, we also have to prepare for the possibility that a 2° limit etc. is not enough, or that we will not reach our goals. Either way, it is about time to start thinking about living in a different climate zone, without moving house. Once these redevelopment costs are being calculated, a fair comparison and judgement can be made.

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org