The Effectiveness and Purpose of Social Movements

Last weekend I had the privilege of attending the People’s Climate March in New York City. The organizers were only expecting 100,000 participants, but roughly 400,000 people attended. This was the biggest climate march in history, with a purpose of demanding climate change action during the September 23^rd United Nations summit. However, during our in-class discussion on Monday, it was evident that many of my peers did not believe that activism in the form of public demonstration is effective.  I believe that it is effective in producing change, and that it is an important part of our democratic ideals.

            The UN summit was considered by many to be a success. Several European nations announced plans to reduce carbon emissions by 40% of their 1990 levels; the U.S. announced a new climate change initiative and China pledged to increase its use of fossil-fuel alternatives. Additionally, over 1,000 companies backed an initiative to develop new technology that would “reflect the true costs of emissions and other forms of pollution.” [1] Why would countries and businesses choose to reduce emissions if there was not public pressure to do so? It is evident that it is not within the economic interests of anyone to reduce their emissions or to employ new eco-friendly technology, since it is time consuming to develop and costly to implement. I believe that the reason why many companies are capitalizing on environmentally conscious methods of expansion is because they realize that it is what the public wants, and that the public will support eco-friendly businesses, if not now then in the future. Nations are leaning towards less environmentally harmful sources of energy to meet rising public demand.

            Obviously every social movement is different. Some protests, such as the People’s Climate March, are organized by informed leaders and planned well in advance; some marches are spontaneous. A study through Stanford University showed that social movements do have an effect on the actions of congressional leaders[2]. Congressmen and women are more likely to schedule hearing and roll call votes on issues when there is a social movement surrounding the it. However, the study explains that protests are most effective during the earlier stages of policymaking, before the congressional agenda is set. This gives great insight into the inner workings of our political system. Dr. Sarah Soule, Professor of Organizational Behavior at Stanford, explains that this is due to how lawmakers feel that there are fewer consequences for introducing a bill that protesters would support, yet there is more at stake in the later stages of the policymaking process.  Some constituents may not like the newly proposed bill, causing the potential law to become much more controversial. However, it is important to note that when the timing is right, protests can cause legislators to introduce bills that they otherwise would not have.

            I believe that social activism is an important part of living in a democratic state. We are a representative democracy for a reason- we elect policymakers to represent the desires of the people and to translate those desires into law. While calling or writing to your congressional representative may be somewhat effective in swaying public policy, it is undoubtedly more effective when 400,000 people gather in the streets of New York City to demand action. To my classmates who disagreed with me I pose the following question- if not through social activism, then how?

---

[1] All information on the 2014 U.N. Climate Summit was gathered from the official United Nations website www.un.org

[2] Professor Sarah Soule Explains Social Movements, http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/bmag/sbsm0909/kn-effective-social-movements.html

NYC Climate Change Summit in Success from Failure

“As one of America’s governors has said, ‘We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change, and the last generation that can do something about it.’” – President Obama at the United Nations Climate Change Summit on September 23, 2014

            Radoslav Dimitrov offers a dismal behind-the-scenes glance of the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. He claims that “the conference was a failure whose magnitude exceeded our worst fears.” (Dimitrov 2010, 18) However, Dimitrov exposes a potential silver lining of the damaged UN climate process as a significant progress in aggregate climate policy; thereby poses the question, “Can political failures have positive policy impacts?” Based upon the recent United Nations Climate Change Summit in New York City on September 23, 2014, I argue that there is the possibility that political failures at one level can facilitate policies at other levels. However, these improvements also hint at the necessity for a philosophical shift in international environmentalism if the positive policy trajectory is to continue.

            The 2009 Copenhagen Accord has been criticized as futile for being too weak and nonbinding. Not only did seven countries oppose the Accord as “undemocratically created and too weak to save the world” (Dimitrov 2010, 20), but the US, Brazil, China and India successfully removed the “legally binding” reference from the negotiation outcome. With many seemingly insurmountable obstacles, the greatest hurdle has been the stalemate between developed, or the ‘North’, and developing nations, or the ‘South’. Developed nations - primarily the United States - insist that developing nations should be predominantly responsible for making the greatest efforts to combat climate change because they include the world’s largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters. Conversely, developing nations – primarily China – maintain that the industrialized nations of the West are historically liable for the brunt of greenhouses gases emitted since the Industrial Revolution. If one hope for the Copenhagen Conference was to resolve the North versus South dichotomy through cooperation towards sustainable development, Adil Najam would argue the Accord outcome presented “one more instance of hope triumphing over experience”. (Najam 2003, 373)

            Contradictorily to Najam’s despondent theory that reconciliation between developed and developing nations was impossible due to their governments’ “lack of willingness to embrace global environmental cooperation” (Najam 2003, 372), the events of the NYC UN Climate Change Summit point “to a changing dynamic between the two countries [United States and China] on the issue,” (Duggan 2014) and offer a potential collision of hope and experience.  President Obama asserted the United State’s most ambitious participation in global climate change policy with his unequivocal support behind a 2015 agreement demanding emissions cuts from all nations. "We can only succeed in combating climate change if we are joined in this effort by every nation, developed and developing alike. Nobody gets a pass." (Friedman 2014) Rather than resisting the accusation of responsibility, Vice Prime Minister Zhang Gaoli said, “As a responsible major developing country, China will make an even greater effort to address climate change and take on international responsibilities that are commensurate with our national conditions.” (Landler and Davenport 2014) Although China’s choice of a climate plan will be based on the perceived stringency of the American plan for emissions cuts by 2050, China’s pledge includes “the peaking of total carbon dioxide emissions as early as possible”, which is the first time such a high-ranking Chinese government member mentioned a peak emissions target, according to Shou. (Duggan 2014)          

  China’s air quality catastrophe serves as one straightforward example of Dimitrov’s proposition that the failure at Copenhagen could expedite policy at other levels. China’s recent ‘airpocalypse’ of dangerously high levels of domestic air pollution resulted, in part, from its rising fossil fuel consumption, which now contributes to almost 30% of global CO₂ emissions. Without Copenhagen’s legally binding GHG emission limitations, China has been able to ‘freely’ develop, thereby advancing their air pollution crisis. This health and safety repercussion has ultimately led to an unfamiliar urgency from China to address universal climate change, as evident by 2014’s record as China’s lowest coal consumption growth in a decade. This decrease in fossil fuel consumption occurred without the intervention of an international environmental organization. The incentive was simply reaching a pain threshold, beyond which economic benefits could no longer justify the environmental costs. Additionally, global businesses have become markedly active in the climate negotiations for the first time at the Climate Change Summit, with hundreds of companies such as Apple, Ikea, and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. committing to climate initiatives including a price on carbon, increasing renewable energy mechanisms, and even setting goals such as Wal-Mart’s to end forest losses by 2030. China’s initiative to foster more sustainable development, and the private sector’s lead on efficient policies, suggest that the power to invoke pro-environmental policy change depends upon a fundamental philosophical shift towards a more universally comprehensive perspective of world environmental issues; albeit by virtue of irrefutably dire environmental consequences, or perhaps adopting the responsibilities perceived to be deferred by other parties. Dimitrov alleges that, “Stakeholders who see they cannot expect much needed adaptation or mitigation action from the global level may increase their self-reliance and strengthen policy efforts at local, subnational and regional levels.” (Dimitrov 23)

The core challenge of the international climate change policy debate is global fragmentation. A simplified purpose of a World Environment Organization is to allow for a ‘unified’, global conscience to address environmental concerns in the interest of the extensive greater good. However, in order to truly prioritize defense against the globally unbiased, imminent threat of climate change, parties must recognize the entangled, dynamic, holistic nature of international environmental issues. Only an (realistically) altruistic international body can truly accomplish change on a global scale. This comprehension is possible through a variety of means including NGO information sharing, marketing from environmentally-conscience companies, and increased interaction between Northern and Southern states. However, without the efforts of the other levels of policy (for instance local governments and the private sector), and continued broadcast of the need for effective policy by virtue of the failing international body, this comprehensive ecocentric revelation will arise out of future environmental disasters with the risk of it being too late.

Sources: 

Dimitrov, Radoslav S. 2010. “Inside Copenhagen: The State of Climate Governance.” Global

Environmental Politics. 10(2): 18–24.

Duggan, Jennifer. "China pledges to cut emissions at UN climate summit," The Guardian, September 24, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/chinas-choice/2014/sep/24/china-pledges-to-cut-emissions-at-un-climate-summit

 

Friedman, Lisa. "Global business leaders back carbon price at N.Y. summit," E&E Reporter, September 23, 2014. http://www.eenews.net/special_reports/global_climate_debate/stories/1060006275

Landler, Mark and Coral Davenport, "Obama Presses Chinese on Global Warming", The New York Times, September 23, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/world/asia/obama-at-un-climate-summit-calls-for-vast-international-effort.html?_r=1

Najam, Adil.  “The Case Against a new Environmental Organization”, Global Governance, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2003.

Was This Years Summit Even Worth It?

There is a national debate about climate change and the steps needed to create international fundamental goals. In Government 306 and Government 459 (Seminar of Comparative politics) students have been discussing whether or not adequate change will come about in the future.  With the current UN Climate Summit just happening its important that new objectives are created to focus on reducing carbon dioxide and other green house gas emissions.

In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was created as an international agreement. Developed under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Kyoto was created to reduce emissions on green house gases. The goal of Kyoto was to mainly prevent dangerous emissions that were human made and have green house gas emissions reduced by 5%. However with very few incentives and poor technology replacements Kyoto did not accomplish its goals that were set out. Over time emissions in countries increased, and States who originally ratified the protocol pulled out of the agreement.

Even as Kyoto was not perceived as successful, I do believe that it was a stepping stool for climate change. After Kyoto, the Montreal Protocol was formed. Signed in 1987 and effective in 1989 Montreal is considered a more successful agreement in fighting climate change. The Montreal protocol, had incentives for compliance, and technology replacements (wind/ solar power). This protocol specifically identified a problem and a specific gas—Chlorofluorocarbons.

For an agreement to be successful it must possess these three things:

            1) Attract a broad participation

            2) Deter countries from not complying

3) Have substantial action required for all countries to participate and comply too

(How Not to Repeat the Mistakes of the Kyoto Protocol, Scott Barrett)

            A major key difference that is noted within the Kyoto Protocol, Montreal Protocol, and even the UN Summit is the idea of Pusher States, Dragger States, Intermediate States, and Bystander states. Without the help of powerful states pushing for specific ideas, an overall agreement can fail. This is seen within the Kyoto Protocol when the United States and China were classified as dragger states.

            Recently the UN Climate Summit was held on September 23^rd in New York. However, on the day of the summit, not all international leaders were in attendance. Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron; Indias Prime Minister, Narendra Modi; Chinas Premier, Xi Jinping; Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin; India’s Prime minister, Narendra Modi; and the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Modi we not there. Out of 190 potential world leaders, only around 120 were there. From the leaders listed above, representatives did show up in their place. (Link to the article titled below)

            I do not believe that these states listed above are “draggers” but I definitely do not believe they are extreme pushers. As China is rapidly developing within industrialization, and India is constantly developing in population, these two states have historically produced high emissions (11 slide in Lecture 8). Even as Britain has their own Carbon Budget established through the Climate Change Act, and Russia is dealing with foreign affairs (Ukraine), I do think that for these two countries the Climate Change Summit was not a major priority. If huge political leaders in these countries do not show up, it does show that climate control is less of an importance. 

            Apart of this argument I do believe that emission reductions will stay small and only gradually reduce. I think that at this point until new technological booms advance, the reduction of green house gases will plateau.  For example, France decided to donate 1 billion to the Green Climate Fund. The Green Climate Fund was created to allow developed countries to transfer money to developing nations. The money being transferred would assist in climate change practices, projects, programs, and policies.  The Green Climate Fund is a great idea, however, I do not believe it will significantly reduce climate change. Even as it will prevent progressive climate change in other countries, I do not think it will adequately make an influence on developed nations with their climate control.

            For a significant reduction in climate change, all state actors need to be involved. When other states 1) have other priorities or 2) believe that they have done enough, it makes for a steady but small increase in change.  As much as I like to believe green house emissions will reduce, I think the progress in the next years will be ineffective.

(Leaders under fire for failure to attend post-UN climate summit meetings http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/24/leaders-under-fire-for-failure-to-attend-post-un-climate-summit-meetings) 

Culture at root of environmental problems

The issue of climate change has been on the international agenda since the late 1980s with the creation of the first Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. Almost thirty-five years have passed, yet we are still facing the same issue. I am interested in exploring a) why the issue of climate change is so difficult to address, and b) the general public's reaction to the People's Climate March and whether it was successful in swaying the public’s opinion on climate change. I believe the reason climate change has been so difficult to address is because it is a problem of our global society's culture and traditions, and that the People's Climate March was a step in the right direction toward resolving the issue, but that much more needs to be done.

Climate change persists as a global problem today, not because of a failure in the design of the climate change regime (the Kyoto protocol), but because of the very nature and complexity of the problem. Unlike Prins and Rainer, who criticized the design of Kyoto, I align more with the argument in the Barrett reading. Seemingly less complicated issues, such as ozone depletion, are easier to tackle because they are not entrenched in a society’s customs. The issue of ozone depletion could be solved, not because of a perfect regime design, but because it was easy to change the behavior of the individuals causing the problem.

While the majority of our readings have presented a top-down approach, offering different arguments for the reasons why states do or do not care about an environmental issue (such as Sprinz and Vaahtoranta’s interest-based model), analyzing an environmental problem from the bottom-up is more effective. Climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions that, I believe, can ultimately be traced down to the individual. Since the industrial revolution, we have become accustomed to a code of conduct that dictates that the more you produce and consume, the better off you are. For example, owning the latest model of Apple’s iPhone shows that you, as an individual, are better off than someone who owns an older model (even if just last year’s model!). This reinforces a feedback loop in which companies provide individuals with rapidly changing designs and products; they keep prices down, keep people buying, and keep the inventory moving. As a result, individuals buy and consume as a way of life and as a way to measure social status. This means that if you don’t own or buy a lot of “stuff,” you don’t have value in society. This rate of consumption as a cultural norm has many repercussions, namely increased greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.

A similar situation can be seen with the issue of whaling in Japan, which we discussed in class. While Chasek et al.’s chapter in Global Environmental Politics argued about the effectiveness of the design of the international whaling regime, I believe the problem lies in the issue itself. The reason international actors have had trouble halting Japan from whaling is not because of a deficiency in the regime design, but because whaling is and has been a large part of the Japanese culture for centuries. Expecting Japanese individuals to change their habit of purchasing whale meat, or their byproducts, is no easy feat.

The People’s Climate March, which occurred on September 23^rd, drew over 400,000 activists to New York City to raise awareness on climate change. While the march did not aim in any way to alter individual’s consumption habits, it did try to alter the current status quo of ambivalence toward climate change action. It was said to be the largest march for climate action in all of history, but what did the general public think? Did the march, and the media surrounding it, sway any opinions on the importance of climate change? USAToday asked the same question. The company asked their twitter followers to tweet their reactions on how effective they thought the rally was in urging action on climate change, and published their responses in an article two days after the march (LINK TO ARTICLE). The responses varied greatly, yet of the ten tweets published, only four of them were positive reactions. One person tweeted: “The march is very effective when people organize peacefully for a common cause. The news media cover it, and politicians are on notice.” Yet, another said: “Having a march to solve global warming is like trying to solve poverty with a concert. It's not going to work.” Another person agreed, tweeting: “Did Occupy New York change anything?” USAToday’s article proved that, unsurprisingly, proposing a societal change such as climate change action is more difficult than it seems.

The success of an international environmental regime is dependent on the nature of the issue itself. Furthermore, the level of entrenchment of the societal customs that caused the issue to arise in the first place largely dictates the ease with which the regime can solve the issue. The fundamental issues causing climate change stem from our society’s cultural habits, which make the problem extremely hard to solve. The People’s Climate March was a step in the right direction toward not only gaining media and political attention, but the public’s attention as well. Although the general public’s responses to the march were not overwhelmingly positive, I believe that people are slowly beginning to change their individual actions, which will eventually have a ripple effect in changing our global society’s attitudes toward climate change action.