Author: Keziah Groth-Tuft

Posted on

The ICLEI: Making a Difference One City At a Time.

[youtube_sc url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLO2Z-J0Zxo&list=UUFcmN7CK6BV9lbr_H8C-pQw&index=1″]

Once the issue of global climate change became apparent through publications like the IPCC’s first report, international groups around the world saw it in their best interest to take action in combatting climate change. The UNFCCC is one result of this thinking and the ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) is another. The ICLEI, under its tag line “local governments for sustainability”, is a network of 1,000 local governments in 84 countries aiming for more sustainable, resilient, resource-efficient, bio-diverse, and low carbon communities and green urban economies. In fact, the ICLEI (created in 1990, put into action in 1991) was taking action before the UNFCCC was even created. In its 22-years of existence thus far, the ICLEI has been fairly successful in reaching its aims as far as anyone can tell, but like many other transnational networks, the effectiveness of the ICLEI’s efforts are next to impossible to check, making it harder to determine its overall level of success.

Transnational governance involves taking action against climate change outside of international regimes by networks made up largely of local and sub-national governments and NGOs, mixing both the private and public sectors (Bulkeley and Newell, 53-56). Because transnational networks do not have the same level of legality as international regimes to enforce compliance, to reach their goals they rely on “soft” powers in the realms of information-sharing, capacity-building and implementation, and regulation (Bulkeley and Newell, 56).

Just as Bulkeley and Newell write, the ICLEI works towards climate change governance through the three above-mentioned soft powers. All member-localities share practices and experimental projects carried out in their communities, allowing others to learn from their experiences. Capacity-building and implementation efforts include training local leaders in sustainability initiatives and distributing expertise from leaders in sustainable fields. ICLEI’s soft regulations consist of the membership requirement of making self-determined sustainable development goals, paired with network framework for actions and alliances (“Who is ICLEI?”). Additionally, ICLEI increase international cooperation as well, partnering with national governments, foundations, educational institutes, international institutions, private companies, NGOs, and other networks of local governments (“Our Members”).

The progress of the ICLEI is hard to track. Because ICLEI’s members are not in a box, it is hard to determine which efforts can be attributed to ICLEI membership versus other network memberships, or even the country’s UNFCCC membership.  There have been some remarkable efforts, though, that the ICLEI has been able to track. One of the first programs under ICLEI, Cities for Climate Protection (CCP), has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 6 million tons of CO2 equivalents (“Who Is ICLEI?”), or about 5x the amount of Mexico’s 2011 annual greenhouse gas emissions (Boden, T.A., G. Marland, and R.J. Andres).  In terms of capacity-building and implementation efforts, there have been over 1,000 capacity-building projects carried out since the start of ICLEI (“Who is ICLEI?”).

Looking at these successful data, one can see that the ICLEI has had success in helping to govern climate change by giving various actors a voice. Instead of just working with nation-states as international regimes do, the ICLEI and other transnational networks work with all levels of actors from all different sectors. Transnational networks will not be able to combat climate change on their own, but as the recent history of the UNFCCC and COPs like COP 15 exemplify, the nation-states are not doing as well as many hoped in combating climate change on their own either. Thus, as long as transnational governance efforts like ICLEI are doing no harm, which from their data this looks highly unlikely, any help they can add outside of the international regime’s work is greatly needed and appreciated. Only a truly cooperative and interconnected, multi-lateral, multi-sector effort will have shot at combating climate change at the levels the earth needs.

Works Cited

Boden, T.A., G. Marland, and R.J. Andres. 2011. Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A. doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2011

“Our Members”. ICLEI: Local Governments for Sustainability. Web. 27 Sep. 2014.

“Who Is ICLEI?”. ICLEI: Local Governments for Sustainability. Web. 27 Sep. 2014.

Posted on

The 411 On the UN Climate Summit

take climate action button

UN Climate Summit- Catalyzing Action video

Up to 400,000 people joined my classmates in New York on Sunday and millions more from around the world marched as well for action to address climate change. This global march addressing global climate change kicked-off “Climate Week- NYC” based around the Tuesday September 23rd UN Climate Summit, called by Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon.

Ban Ki Moon called this summit on September 2, 2014, calling on a variety of leaders to come together to take more definitive actions against climate change. The UN Climate Summit is separate from the UNFCCC and thus separate from COP politics. Ban Ki Moon quoted his frustration with climate action lacking ambition thus far pushing his goal for this summit take_climate_action_button-248x300bring more ambitious climate work to life.

Specifically there are two goals of the Climate Summit. One, “to mobilize political will for a meaningful universal agreement at the climate negotiations in Paris in 2015” and two, “to catalyze ambitious action on the ground to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen resilience to the changes that are already happening”. (Ban Ki Moon 2012).

Although the UNFCCC is separate from the Climate Summit, there are many parallels in the frustration with (lack of) progress thus far and the need for wider-reaching agreements, both in participants and commitments. Ban Ki Moon specifically invited not only governmental world leaders but also business, finance, and societal world leaders. By doing this, he aims to encourage multi-lateral, multi-player actions as many theorists (such as Bulkeley and Newell) claim. Furthermore, the Secretary General called on attendees to bring with them “make bold announcements” (Ban Ki Moon 2012) regarding new commitments to combatting climate change.

Addressing recent requests by developing countries to include other action policies besides emission mitigation, the summit will address the political possibility for a stronger 2015 agreement, emissions reductions, and adaption to climate change.

The bottom line, Ban Ki Moon sees his Climate Summit as a way to kick-off more ambitious, accelerating negotiations and actions against climate change. It will be interesting to see if world leaders arrive tomorrow with this idea in mind, or if it will be as sticky as COPs have gotten in the past.

Throughout the summit, you can follow the conference via the web here.

Posted on

Stopping Climate Change for Free?

Last Tuesday, the New York Times published an article on the just-published report of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, appointed by Colombia, South Korea, Sweden, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Norway, and the United Kingdom. Created to measure the costs of measures to limit current emissions, the commission’s findings proved less-conservative and more positive than this year’s earlier IPCC report.

The bottom line from the commission’s report: with all of the byproduct benefits from more renewable energy such as lower fuel costs and fewer serious illnesses from air pollution, the monetary benefits from reduced emissions could balance out the costs of changing infrastructure to more “green” technologies.

According to the commission, $90 trillion will be spent on infrastructure in the next 15 years. If such a large portion of budgets are being spent on infrastructure anyways, what is the big deal about spending on green infrastructure anyways? Governments and agencies simply need to plan to do all development in a greener manor than they are currently.

This article points out, and I agree, that the biggest step towards a zero-cost emissions reduction program is to stop subsidies to fossil fuel industries, a step much more easily said than done. If done too fast, like in Libya, subsidy cuts will cause riots. Furthermore, in democracies with such strong lobbyist presences like in the U.S., the government is under tremendous pressure from large fossil fuel companies to continue subsidies.

Sadly, no matter the possibilities of a more carbon-neutral and cost-neutral future, governments stuck in their old ways will block findings like those of the commission from ever coming to fruition. I hope in Lima states more green-development-friendly will use these findings as a rebuttal to those arguing that changing infrastructure will be too costly and thus unrealistic. The bottom line is, nations will have to build new infrastructure no matter what, and unless global climate change is mitigated, the need for new infrastructure will just grow more and more.

Gillis, Justin. 2014. “Fixing Climate Change May Add No Costs, Report Says.” The New York Times, September 16, p. A12.

 

Posted on

Realism Loses Touch with Reality

Cartoon on realism from “International Relations Theory Illustrated.” Honeymonth. WordPress, 8 June 2012. Web. 10 September 2014.
Cartoon on realism from “International Relations Theory Illustrated.” Honeymonth. WordPress, 8 June 2012. Web. 10 September 2014.

 

There are three main paradigms of international relations theory: realism, liberalism, and constructivism. Realism states that all states are driven to act in their own best interests in unchangeable world of anarchy, requiring a large military at times to maintain security (Bova 8-19). Liberalism states that global cooperation and movement past realism is possible through three main ways- international institutions, commerce between states, and the spread of republics less likely to sway towards war (Bova 19-22). Constructivism states that although states tend towards power-seeking opportunities, the anarchy of international relations does not necessitate such behaviors and furthermore, new norms and non-state actors such as transnational organizations and individuals also play a part in whether states follow a realist path of action or not (Bova 24-26). These paradigms are used to understand behaviors and interactions between actors in the international arena. Thus members of each paradigm have a different take on how global politics will play out in regards to global climate change. Dr. Russell Bova, in his textbook “How the World Works,” writes “in short, for realists, the expectation that global environmental crisis will lead to cooperative responses is both naïve and contrary to the record of human history” (249-50).

Efforts thus far in governing global climate change include, among other things, forming the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, and hopefully soon, a new mitigation agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol in COP21 in Paris in 2015. However, these are not the only methods by which states and other parties in the world address climate change. Other efforts include private encouragement of sustainable, renewable energy development (Held, Roger, Nag 19), sub-national government efforts like carbon trading within individual U.S. states, and NAMAs, or National Appropriate Mitigation Action. Evidence from efforts to govern global climate change do not support this realist view, and in fact, none of the above paradigms perfectly explain the global climate change international responses and governance. Nevertheless, liberalism best describes the recent history in global climate change governance while constructivism describes the near future of global climate change governance.

Nation-states and interstate governance is only one facet of addressing global climate change. Any paradigm focusing on states as the main/only actor in international relations ignores some of the most important actors global climate change governance. Thus, realism which argues nation-states are the only actors in the international relations arena fail to acknowledge key actors in global climate change governance and thus do not explain current trends in global governance. Liberalism proves more hopeful in terms of its acknowledgement of non-state actors, as exemplified by institutional liberalism. Institutional liberalism looks to the formation of formal international governance bodies and laws to turn the world away from a realist fate. Such institutions include the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol. However, as Bulkeley and Newell point out in their introduction, the multi-scale, multi-actor nature of global climate change problems requires a “shift away from the position that the nation-state is the only or necessarily most important unit of climate politics” (4). Thus the institutions that liberalists propose still do not align with newer attempts to govern global climate change including non-state actors. Looking backwards, liberal institutionalism explains the Kyoto protocol and UNFCCC but fails to explain what the future might hold if politics are to go down the path Bulkeley and Newell suggest.

Lastly, constructivism may be the most promising paradigm to explain current attempts at global climate change governance as it touches on the need for inclusion of non-state and transnational actors as they promote ideas which promote moving away from realist state behavior. The key to constructivism is that it does not require a structural change such as international law to govern a state’s behavior away from realist tendencies (Bova 27). Therefore, it offers a third option to addressing climate change on a global level besides institutionalism (liberalism) and war (realism). Because constructivism does not require a state-centered governance structure, it falls along the line of Bulkeley and Newell’s thinking that future politics will move past state-centered governance structure as more and more types of actors hold important parts in mitigation and adaptation efforts.

Realism developed to explain countries’ actions in post WWII and Cold War politics (Bova 8) and has lost its relevance as issues like climate change require a cooperative multi-level, multi actors approach to solve the problem. Consequently, the newest paradigm of constructivism, best explains why global governance regarding climate change is going towards a less state-centric approach. Wide-scoped problems call for wide-scoped responses as is reflected in a turn to the constructivist approach to global governance problems.

 

Works Cited

Bova, Russell. How the World Works. Longman Publishing, 2011. Print.

Bulkeley, Harriet, and Peter Newell. Governing Climate Change. New York: Routledge, 2010. Print.

Held, David, Charles Roger, and Eva-Maria Nag, eds. “Editors’ Introduction: Climate Governance in the Developing World.” Climate Governance in the Developing World. Malden: Polity Press, 2013. 1-25. Print.

Posted on

Bringing Back Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood

Community members of Lambertville, NJ enjoy Community Kitchen- a great way to foster the community-mindedness McKibben percribes.
Community members of Lambertville, NJ enjoy Community Kitchen- a great way to foster the community-mindedness McKibben prescribes.

Eaarth by Bill McKibben is definitely a must-read for anyone interested in living through climate change. Focusing on what we need to do as a society and personally to adapt to our new planet, Eaarth, McKibben brings some hope to an otherwise hopeless subject. Just like any probable solution to adapting to a changing world, McKibben prescribes a paradigm shift, this time a shift from a centralized, ever-expanding society to more decentralized societies aiming to sustain community, not expand it. My sister and I were “raised by a village”. Growing up in a small town, the daughter of a folklorist and homebody, neighbors have always been an important part of my life. We are just as comfortable in our home as we are in the local library or other places we volunteer at. We barely ever get through a spontaneous baking job without borrowing a cup of sugar from one neighbor or a teaspoon of vanilla from another. Thus, McKibben’s prescription of more community-based efforts like micro-grids for power and local food initiatives resonated with me but even more so, the idea that we will need to rely on our neighbors for help as we continue to face climate changes hit close to home.

Already with Hurricane Sandy and losing power for 10-15 days in town, being neighborly became a requirement. Volunteering at the Community Kitchen in town, where there was no lights but still hot water and a working stove, we cooked everything that started to defrost from the freezer and must have fed the whole town at least twice. Everyone came out for the hot meal, not just the usual crowd. And those who did not show up, we brought chili to the charging station at City Hall. Just as McKibben claims, when we were hit with a disaster debatably a symptom of climate change, the whole town became neighborly as we could no longer rely on central power or central authorities to come to our rescue. The bottom line: people like to be neighborly once they give it a chance. When push comes to shove, they will reach out to help and get help not just from the poor half way across the world but those right across the street.

 

 

Being Neighborly- Lambertville, NJ’s Community Kitchen

Posted on

Sabotaging Progress with Global Climate Change- Merchants of Doubt

The MVP in the Merchants of Doubt Arena
The MVP in the Merchants of Doubt Arena

 

Merchant-of-doubt-scientists do not follow scientific practices regarding climate change. At first glance it seems if they do because they claim to represent larger scientific institutions and coordinate with other acclaimed scientists. With a little more research, as Oreskes and Conway did in Merchants of Doubt, their scientific processes are proven fraud and filled with deception. One National Academy report on carbon dioxide avoided the standard cooperation and peer-review process by splitting up the chapters in the report so committee members did not have to agree on one answer. Thus, even though it was published through the National Academy, the assessment did not include the standard scientific peer review practiced by most academy members. Furthermore, the splitting up of chapters resulted in conflicts with the science of global warming pointing to action and the economics of global warming pointing to inaction, with the final chapter concluding to follow the economic path. Thus, scientific evidence was disregarded, a practice unacceptable in the credible scientific community.

The merchants of doubt are also responsible for creating a global climate change debate. Through the Marshall Institute, three scientists distributed an unpublished paper which they later published into a booklet, asserting that science points to the sun causing global warming, not anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. First, an unpublished paper means that it never went through peer-review process, the process vital to the credibility of science. Readers may have overlooked this, seeing that the article was written by three acclaimed scientists, never mind they had no expertise in the field. In fact, the Marshall Institute itself was created to defend President Reagan’s “Star Wars” against scientists’ claims that the strategy was unrealistic. Thus, it was created to defend policy decisions from questioning scientists. The three authors of the booklet represented merchants of doubt, faking scientific credibility in order to avoid regulation to mitigate global climate change. Sadly, their plan worked to convince White House members that global climate change was natural and raised no need for action. Merchants of doubt are the reason anthropogenic global climate change has just recently been acknowledged by the U.S. president even though the idea was first researched and accepted by the scientific community over half a century earlier.

Posted on

Discovering Global Warming on the Delaware

Lambertville, NJ after Hurricane Irene– Image

In The Discovery of Global Warming, Spencer Weart tracks how the public opinion and science regarding the discovery of global climate change developed hand-in-hand. People started noticing changes in climate at the same time that scientists were discovering it. Living on the Delaware River in Lambertville, NJ, flooding is a part of our annual weather. There are of course bigger flood years than others and some years where there is only minimal flooding. My family and I belong to a traditional haul-seining fishery in town, where we became involved through my mom’s research. Even though my family lives on a hill, making us lucky compared to those downtown, being connected to the fishery, which lies on an island in the river, means we are constantly aware of flooding. Growing up here included flood days, hurricane flooding, municipal sewage failure, and free ice cream when water ruined the ice cream shop’s electricity. Being involved in a 150+ year old fishery, I hear about record flooding past my measly 19 years. The “flood of ‘55” is especially legendary but lately we’ve gotten more and more that I can remember. Notice even the flood of 1955 occurred over fifty years after industrialization, meaning not even it is free from climate change speculation. We’ve also had dry years where there is barely enough water to make a worthwhile haul and my friend in 5th grade could walk to the middle of the river with the water level below his chest. Although single-time events like floods and droughts cannot be attributed to global warming in particular, it seems as though they have been occurring more frequently. The increased frequency could be a result of changed precipitation patterns due to the global climate changing.

Sometimes it may seem as though events occur more frequently when one experiences them in their own life time so I decided to research the frequency of flooding in my area. Although clear records could only be found starting at 1955, a history of the Washington Crossing Bridge near my home was taken down by floods in 1841 and 1903. Although the bridge was newly made of steel, to strengthen it, the 1955 flood damaged the bridge enough to warrant a 3-month closure, indicating comparable levels to the 1841 and 1903 floods (Samuel, 2008). This gives a time period of about 50 years, give-or-take, between major floods. Compare this to my lifetime (1995-present) where notable floods occurred in 1996, 2004, 2005, and 2006. It should be noted that in researched history, no other floods are deemed notable between the 1955 and 1996 floods (Erminio 2006 and U.S. Army Corps). Although it is still possible that the three floods in a row could be an anomaly, they still raised hoopla in my hometown, along with Hurricanes Irene and Sandy, that climate can be threatening and global climate change must be taken seriously.

References Cited

History of Delaware River Floods

History of Washington Crossing Bridge

Flooding Studies by Army Corps of Engineers