The Politics of Climate Change

Without significant international political commitment to combat climate change, its worst potential effects will become a frightening reality. Swift and effective action by our governments is essential to tackle the problem. We are promised that developed world leaders have the situation in hand, so what steps have been taken so far towards preventing disaster?

Page contents:

  1. What needs to happen?
  2. Principal political action so far
  3. Kyoto Agreement
  4. Blocking international action to stopclimate change
  5. What practical attempts to block politicalaction have been seen?

1. What needs to happen?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, see below) says we need an immediate 60-90% cut in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in order to prevent further damage, and stabilise the amount of greenhouse gases (ghg) in the atmosphere at double pre-industrial levels. That would mean keeping atmospheric CO2 at 450 parts per million volume (PPMV), a high concentration, but hopefully low enough for survival and to avert the worst predicted imapcts.

To achieve this stabilisation of CO2 through massive cuts in emissions, international political action is necessary. All countries must agree the targets, and implement plans to secure them.

2. Principal political action so far

3. Kyoto Agreement

Signed by 150 countries and intended to bind members to detailed action on climate change.

It was agreed that the total phasing out of CO2 emissions was necessary, yet after intense negotiations, it only managed to secure a 5.2% cut in overall levels below those of 1990 (their ‘base year’) as the target for 2010. This would only achieve a 0.1°C impact on global warming, thus falling well short of its stated aims.

To secure a 5.2% overall cut in emissions, countries were given individual emissions targets based on current usage. In addition it set out the grounds on which emissions cuts would be recognised, and extra tools (known as ‘flexible mechanisms’ but more like loopholes) to achieve them.

For example:

In order to be implemented, it also needed to be ratified by at least 55 of its signatories and those 55 countries between them needed to be responsible for more than 55% of industrialised country emissions. Few countries are on track. The US, rather than implementing a 7% cut, has seen a 30% rise in emissions in the period since Kyoto. George W. Bush has refused to ratify the treaty and the US has withdrawn from the Kyoto process.

The Kyoto Protocol does not currently provide the equitable and effective framework for action necessary to prevent major climate change suggested by most experts, known as ‘contraction and convergence’ (see Equity of Climate Change, but it does represent the only international treaty to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

4. Blocking international action to stop climate change

So far, a mixture of ideology, self-interest and denial has blocked real political progress.

i. ‘Ideological’ opposition

The neo-liberal economists of the western world have consistently argued that restrictions on emissions, which would involve a dramatic reduction in the use of fossil fuels, would destroy development and our economy. Some stubbornly disagree with regulation in principle. Many even argue that climate change is an irrelevance, as by the time it really hits, we will have a world rich enough to deal with it.

ii. ‘Self-interested’ opposition

The so-called ‘Carbon Club’ of multinational fossil fuel firms has lobbied western governments hard to prevent action to cut emissions and regulate their industry. Some, such as ExxonMobil, have spent millions supporting the minority of sceptic scientists and running campaigns to persuade the general public that climate change is not an issue.

A scientist who authored a report on temperature data for the Sargasso Sea, which has been used by ExxonMobil to refute the claim that climate change worldwide was happening, has said I think the sad thing is ExxonMobil is exploiting the data for political purposes.

The American “International Climate Change Partnership” is an example of a front organisation set up by fossil fuel and related industries to attack the credibility of climate models, and create hysteria about the economic impact of emissions cuts. Corporate power in the political system of those countries most responsible for CO2 emissions such as the US, Australia, and Canada, is blocking real moves forward.

In addition, oil producing nations such as the OPEC members, and others who are pinning economic hopes on natural gas reserves such as Iceland and Norway, are fighting against change.

iii. Denial

Apart from those blocking action on climate change for political or self-interested reasons, there are those who simply refuse to face up to the reality of climate change, sticking their heads in the sand.

5. What practical attempts to block political action have been seen?

Obstruction of political action for the variety of reasons laid out above has already been manifestly clear in the political process. Two key examples of the methods used to block progress are:

i. Byrd & Hagel

The US has exploited the position of developing countries in this mess to excuse itself from action. In 1997, a few months before Kyoto, two senators, Byrd and Hagel, succeeded in passing a resolution in the Upper House which prevented the USA from acting to reduce emissions without ‘meaningful participation’ from developing countries. This has been interpreted as allowing the US to carry on as normal while those countries which cannot develop without increasing emissions from their current tiny levels protest that to demand such involvement from them is manifestly unfair and unjust from nations which relied on fossil fuels for their own development.

For more on this see:

ii. Kyoto & ‘Flexible mechanisms’

Better labelled ‘loopholes’, these tools for reducing recorded emissions levels without actually cutting fossil fuel use have been used to great effect by the USA. Some examples are:

iii. Industry front groups

The Global Climate Coalition, or GCC, took a lead role in undermining initiatives to solve climate change.

The American Petroleum Institute, API, ran a $7 million public relations offensive in 1998 to undermine scientific consensus on the threat of climate change. The plan stated that “victory will be achieved when those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear to be out of touch with reality.” Among other tactics, API planned to recruit and train “independent scientists” without any track record of participation in the climate debate to undertake media work against established climate science and the Kyoto Protocol.

The US Council for International Business (USCIB) is a corporate lobby group that actively supports the Bush Administration’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. USCIB wrote to Bush on 11 April 2001, suggesting that “the US should move quickly to chart a path forward that will avoid the Kyoto Protocol’s unrealistic targets, timetables and lack of developing country participation.”

So, it can clearly be seen that political progress so far has been negligible, if not non-existent. While the international bodies set up to monitor Climate Change have increasingly pointed to what needs to happen, the corporate lobby has just as doggedly defended its interests and ignored those of the rest of the world.



© People & Planet. 51 Union Street, Oxford OX4 1JP. +44 (0)1865 245678. Contact us. People & Planet Limited - A not for profit company No. 3076463 - Chair: Joe Saxton, Treasurer: Kate Graham, Director: Ian Leggett
People & Planet Trust - A registered charity No. 326008 - Chair: Lucy Russell