Paul and GEPEDers: In response to Paul's post concerning questions about environmental governance ...
Perhaps the greatest difficulty we all face on this one is that environment doesn't really grapple effectively with the nature of the problem. Frankly it's very much bigger than most of the other issues that usually go under such labels as environmental governance. The Ozone protocols will eventually work, assuming no one starts CFC production anytime again. The NOPE strategy (Not on planet earth) of a complete permanent ban on production is the way to go in that case. Numerous other pollution agreements eventually seem to get a handle on at least some of the things they are trying to regulate, but carbon fuels are so ubiquitous that such measures simply aren't likely to be effective, or so it seems. And yes, my students repeatedly ask me what I think about climate change. I ended up writing that little book I did for Polity (for which I circulated the advert some months ago to this list) partly in response to questions that they were posing to me and which I wasn't answering very well. You all know the logic of "well if its so serious shouldn't we think about this as a security issue... rather than just environment that is a low political priority." Yes back to that security debate one more time ... But in rethinking all that for the book it was necessary to ask if it is so big and so serious how do we put this in the appropriate context, it became clear that we are, albeit inadvertantly remaking the biosphere, literally shaping the future of the climate. This in short is a production problem, literally a matter of what we are making. Hence should we not perhaps treat this as a matter of industrial strategy, requiring a series of policies to shift the industrial mix, and start mass producing the things we need, rather than what the market determines ... Nicholas Stern had some things to say about market failures and climate change a few years back. So ... And those Germans have an industrial strategy to make solar panels and windmills on the large scale. So (In the Canadian context) if the big auto manufacturers are seeking bailouts, well why as part of the rescue packages don't governments specify that some of those idle SUV plants be converted to make solar panels, windmills, public transport vehicles, which when coupled to badly needed infrastructure stimulus spending on smart grids and related technology, would begin to make things that don't make carbon fuel use worse. Eventually we need solar powered solar panel factories of course but in the meantime ... In recent weeks the cover story on the November issue of *Scientific American* on how literally to make a solar society has been a useful prop to such provocations. Add in the simple point about the fact that we recently became an urban species, that our practical survival depends on infrastructure to feed and fuel our cities, and that hazards and storms turn into disasters, and political messes when the infrastructure fails, add a few pictures of post Katrina New Orleans, and of course a plug for Stephen Graham's new edited collection on "Disrupted Cities: When Infrastructure Fails" just out from Routledge, and students in urban universities begin to think about how they fit into all this. These classroom ploys may work better with Canadian students than with folks elsewhere in the biosphere, but in terms of how we think this problem through it gets students focusing on what is getting built how and where, and what is needed to power their habitats. It's not governance as traditionally understood, but it is certainly about politics, in the sense of how decisions are made about our collective fates. It is about production, but then on reflection that too was in fact what the Ozone protocols are actually about! None of this is an effective answer to all your questions Paul, but it does get students thinking about what kind of an issue this is. Get them using the Anthropocene as a concept to put it all in appropriate context and thinking begins to move along other pathways than the traditional "make a treaty, write some laws, apply technical regulations, put a scrubber on it, price it right and all will be well" arguments. For goodness sake don't let students get into "if Copenhagen fails we are all going to die" thinking; apocalyptic thinking is too easy (and yes the tipping point, guard rail, 350 (or 330?) arguments do have a do or die quality to them which is unnerving I admit. But the point is that COP 15 is well, 15, not the end of the process. And even if we get a good deal in December the hard work still has to be done on implementation. I hope this stimulates some useful classroom ideas. Enough from me for now. Simon On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 9:04 PM, HARRIS, Paul Gordon <[email protected]>wrote: > Dear GEP Colleagues, > > I am trying to rethink global environmental governance, and to encourage my > students to do likewise, especially in the context of climate change. While > I know that some of you won't agree, it's my feeling the practice of global > environmental governance surrounding climate change has been a failure. This > is not to discount positive developments and steps forward, but is (by my > estimation) a fact revealed by warnings of natural scientists and apparently > by ongoing environmental changes. Thanks to hard work by many governments > and nongovernmental actors, etc., things won't be as bad as they might have > been. But I think they'll be very bad nevertheless, especially for the > world's poor. > > Assuming I am correct (even if you don't agree), do you have ideas for how > we might rethink global governance and climate change, or conceive of global > governance in this context in very new ways? What are you saying to your > students in this regard? What do you say when they ask for alternatives to > the incrementalism of climate change diplomacy? Are their practical > alternatives, or desirable ones that may appear to be impractical today? > > Many thanks for your ideas. > > All best, > > Paul > -- > P.G. Harris > Department of Social Sciences > Hong Kong Institute of Education > 10 Lo Ping Road > Tai Po, HONG KONG > General Office Tel.: +852 2948 7707 > Direct Tel.: +852 2948 6763 > Fax: +852 2948 8047 > Email: pharris @ ied.edu.hk > http://www.ied.edu.hk/ssc/en/index.htm > > -- Simon Dalby, Ph.D. Professor, Carleton University www.carleton.ca/~sdalby Co-editor of Geopolitics http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/14650045.asp http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/fgeo Author, Security and Environmental Change http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9780745642918
