In a world where capitalism and neoliberal discourse hold great sway, where many, if not all, dimensions of contemporary existence are submitted to economic rationalities1, and economic growth and the market are the “organizing and regulative principle 1” of national governments, global environmental issues can be said to be very prone to market and political failures.
With the economy and market then being the key focus of national governments, it should go without saying, and come as no surprise, that though they have been able to raise awareness of environmental issues (over time), international organizations and the conferences they sponsor have had little effectiveness in bringing about real change and any significant new approaches to environmental concerns, though they have been able to increase awareness and discourse on these.
If real change is to occur with regards to environmental policy, then a variety of factors and forces will need to come together to effect change.
At present we live in a world, where the markets and economies of the world take precedence over all else, where imminent financial crises are responded to with greater sums of money, vigour and media attention than an imminent environmental one is. Global environmental issues can then be said to be very prone to both market and political failures, both failures being heavily connected to one another.
The majority of markets do not take into account the externalities of their goods/services on the environment; further to this these externalities are not figured into the market price of their goods/services. There are numerous examples of this, and it could be argued that any form of human endeavour will have externalities that will affect the environment.
If it is then failure of the market to take into account the externalities of its good/services, it is the failure of national governments to impose a cost/tax on the market for these externalities, thereby improving environmental outcomes. The fact that national governments have yet to impose a cost/tax on externalities, validates Wendy Brown’s assertion that the “market is the organizing and regulative principle of the state and society.1”
Political failure is not limited to the national level, but also extends to the international as well. When economic growth and the market are the primary focus of national governments, it should come as no surprise that nations will defend these priorities and be unwilling to curb practices of their markets, if growth of their economies will be affected on the international stage. This is especially so if competitors in other countries are unwilling to change their own market practices or if competitor’s governments prove unwilling to change their own laws.
International conferences attended by national governments such as Kyoto and Copenhagen have proven to be very unsuccessful at harnessing consensus among countries, let alone in achieving real change on environmental issues. Though there have been many environmental conferences held since the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (1992), none has achieved any real, long lasting, break through on environmental policy.
Conferences of this sort have continuously failed, (the inability to setup mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions in Rio, the United States failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and Copenhagen’s divide between the developed and developing countries of the world) and have concluded with little progress, finger pointing and token statements of commitment towards the environment made, while business in individual countries is allowed to continue as per usual.
Though social liberal discourses (sustainable development, renewable energy etc) have been introduced into debates on the environment, neoliberal discourse has come out on top time and time again. Copenhagen is case and point.
Though the European Union (EU) and United States (US) fought for reductions in carbon emissions, 50% on 2000 levels for developing countries and 80% for developed countries by 2050, countries of the South, notably India and China, were unwilling to cut emission levels if economic growth of their countries was to be sacrificed.
This should not lead to finger pointing towards China and India. Their standpoint should not be seen as the sole reason why the Copenhagen failed. Copenhagen’s failure rests on the shoulders of every country in the world, both developed and undeveloped, but perhaps even more so on the shoulders of the developed countries, as the terms of the accord were unequal, favoring the developed countries of the world over the undeveloped.
In real terms the developed countries of the world would need to reduce their emissions levels by not 80%, but rather between 200-400% to make a deal at Copenhagen “minimally equitable,” to the 50% reduction in emissions, asked of developing countries2. Should the EU and US’s proposed cuts in emissions still then be seen from a social liberal perspective? Or rather from a neoliberal perspective, for the purposes of keeping economic and market power in developed world? If the EU’s and US’s desire for environmental change truly so serious why not reduce emission levels further to coax developing countries into agreement?
Ultimately national interests have superseded concerns for the greater environment and the global commons, having effectively hijacked opportunities to effect change through international organizations and the conferences they sponsor.
If little has been achieved from these conferences, what then has been the benefit of them? Firstly they have served to raise awareness of environmental issues throughout the world. It was not long ago, that the environment hardly figured into countries/individuals decision-making processes, conferences have helped create and reinforce this shift in environmental consciousness, towards a more stable future. Secondly, conferences have served the purpose of putting pressure on national governments to take active measures to decrease their effect on the environment, rhetoric on the subject is demanded (unfortunately action is not yet) and due to the fact that environmental summits are regular events, governments are not able to wipe environmental issues under the carpet. The downside of these positives is the fact that the rate of environmental degradation is much faster than the political progress made towards reversing it and that once countries of the world reach a stage of wanting to effect proper change it may be too late.
What key forces then will play a part in shaping environmental policy? There are many, and without the cooperation of all, successful change will not occur to the benefit of the environment.
Above all what would seem to be the key factor in shaping environmental policy is the environment itself. At a time in history where the market is “organizing and regulative principle1” of states and society, it will unfortunately take further instances of changing of weather patterns, environmental degradation/destruction, impacting adversely on human life, for the effects of human actions on the environment to be taken seriously and combated against through environmental policy.
Change will neither occur if it is not demanded by the chief beneficiaries of current unsustainable practices, the general public. If change were to occur it would need to be demanded by a well-educated public, in the developed world, that has seen the peril in its current unsustainable practices and deems them to be no longer viable. Without the consent and understanding of the public, policy is doomed to fail. In demanding change the public would need to understand the costs, both to their wallet (potentially) but more importantly to their lifestyles (definitely) if environmental policy were changed.
Civil society would also play a key role in shaping environmental policy: from education of environmental issues/policies to the public, to aiding them in the organisation and realisation of demands for change to environmental policy. Civil society would serve the purpose of informing the public of current news/issues affecting the environment, and act as a pressure group on business, government and the public themselves with regards to unsustainable environmental practices. An example of Civil Society helping the public organise and demand change from the government is GetUp’s current campaign to highlight the Rudd’s Government failure to take Climate Change seriously in the 2010 budget3. Campaigns such as these will only increase in the future and so will their effectiveness.
The media will also be a key force in shaping environmental policy. Apart from informing the public on current state of the environment and environmental policy, the media, like civil society can also act as a pressure group on business, government and the public for change. The media has the power to analyze and commentate on the pros and cons of business, government policy/regulation and society in general, highlighting further actions needed if successful environmental outcomes are to occur. Without the media little progress can be made towards more successful environmental policy.
Government, both on the national and international level, will also play a large part in shaping environmental policy, if not the largest. Policy could be enacted by governments, due to pressure from the above factors (environment, public, civil society, media) or through government’s own proactive steps. What seems likely is that policy enacted will be a combination of the two, pressure being applied to governments, from the above, and governments responding to pressure applied, by taking steps towards greater environmental policy. Policy and regulations enacted both on the national and international stages could be very far reaching. From the implementations of cap and trade schemes on the international level, to the implementation of meat taxes within national boundaries, the steps taken towards more sustainable environmental policy as plentiful as externalities within the market.
Lastly the market will also be a key factor in shaping environmental policy. Changes to market practise and the figuring of externalities into the cost of goods/services will be resisted by the market. The market will state that it is already taking active steps towards more sustainable policy and that new policy enacted will only result in a loss of jobs and damage to the economy. Concerns such as these will have to be seriously considered by governments, and factors already mentioned, before policy is enacted.
Ultimately this is the debate we currently find ourselves in. Should change occur if the economy might be adversely affected by new environmental policies?
References
1) Brown, W, Neo-liberalism and the End of Liberal Democracy, Theory & Event - Volume 7, Issue.
2) Khor, M, Blame Denmark, not China, for Copenhagen failure, The Guardian, 28 December 2009.
3) GetUp, Can You Make The Call?, viewed May 12, http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/ClimateActionNow&id=1057
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment