How to Get an Agreement at Copenhagen

by Elizabeth Malone 23. November 2009 11:20
My new book, Debating Climate Change: Pathways through Argument to Agreement, deals directly with how to move from the bewildering array of “positions” likely to be taken during the Copenhagen Conference of the Parties to ways of identifying and building on agreements across positions – in other words, to actually come out of the debate with ways to move forward. In this comment, I give some background and then a relevant example of how the method of the book might be used at Copenhagen.

For the Copenhagen conference, it’s all about talk. When confronted with issues that are hard, that must include multiple kinds of knowledge and multiple perspectives, we human handle it best by talking (instead of, for instance, fighting or being quiet and wishing the issue would just go away).

One understudied aspect of climate change is the talk about it – the many-voiced, confusing, technical, ethical, political, economic, even religious debate. Analyses of various positions on what a Copenhagen agreement might or should look like are plentiful. But how to make sense of all of the positions together? Once we move from understanding the differences among them and winners/losers, we – from negotiators to advocacy groups to the rest of us who are interested and may be affected – lack understanding about how to sort out where there may be good potential for agreement.

A couple of years ago, one could almost hear a sigh of relief as the struggle seemed to be over – that is, the struggle for acceptance of the idea that climate change is real and at least partially caused by human activities. But, it turns out, not only have the skeptics not given up, but advocates for emissions reduction and adaptation strategies are quite willing to fight just as hard among themselves – about the efficacy of cap and trade schemes, whether climate change action will cost a lot or a little, who should pay, whether current technologies are up to the task or transformation of energy systems is needed, who needs to adapt and how, what and who the Copenhagen agreement must include, and (a cross-debate perennial) what lies are being promulgated.

In fact, if often seems that more energy goes into drawing lines in the sand and pointing out why everyone else is wrong, wrong, wrong, than goes into real argumentation, which seeks resolution.

The problem with talking, for many, is that it sometimes stands in for action. The world’s peoples have been talking, arguing, debating about climate change for decades now, and still we are not doing very much. Not doing much about reducing emissions, despite some brave talk and thousands of small efforts. Not doing much about adaptation either, despite a general acknowledgement that it will be necessary.

So we’re in for more talk. But this time, let’s figure out how to make that talk more productive.

Here’s a simplified example that uses the book’s techniques: The position of the United States is now that all large emitters, including developing countries like China (especially China!), India, and Brazil, must sign on to emissions reduction targets. Thos developing countries, as well articulated by India and China, take the position that they are under no obligation to do so (as laid out in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) and that the vast majority of the human-generated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have come from developed countries.

Given these hard positions, are we stuck? Of course not. The rest of both positions look, in fact, remarkably similar:

·        Both arguments are made by sovereign countries with the capacities to undertake both emissions reduction and adaptation.
·        Both positions accept the reality of climate change and the contribution societies are making to climate change in forms of greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels, land use change, and so on.
·        Both accept scientific evidence about causes and impacts of climate change.
·        Both positions recognize not only that something needs to be done but also that countries have a responsibility to act.

I could go on; but isn’t this quite a bit to have in common? Looking at the debate through the lens of things-in-common helps to diminish the space of disagreement. (In the book, I analyze 100 documents, grouped into “families” of arguments and separated into elements in order to identify points of agreement.)

Why, then, if there’s a good deal of agreement, do we persist in disagreeing? One reason is the partial nature of our analyses:

Political analyses explore where parties are strong or weak, how one can dictate to or lean on others, how alliances can be built and opponents isolated and defeated. Result: we see how wins and losses might add up to various muddles. This is not a criticism of political analyses. Politics, after all, is about power relationships, which are a part of all negotiations. But power relationships are not everything.

Economic analyses give us widely varying accounts of the costs of emissions reductions and adaptation. Of course, each analysis is strongly dependent on assumptions. These analyses are used by negotiators and debates pretty much as we might expect. Those advocating strong actions estimate low costs or great offsetting benefits. Those opposing action use the high cost estimates. Result: a deepening of divides. No much help in coming to agreement from economics. This is not a criticism of economics. Economics, after all, is about costs, which are a part of the debate. But costs are not everything.

Ethical analyses clarify the deep disagreements between market-based, individualistic utilitarians and human-rights-based egalitarians. Result: clarification of divisions but not much basis for joint action. Not a criticism of ethics. Ethics, too, has a different aim than coming to agreement, and ethics are not the only consideration.

No wonder we’re not getting anywhere – we aren’t asking the productive questions, such as where do we agree? And how can we build on that agreement?

In the case of the two positions sketched out above, let’s ask, what are countries willing to do? China and India may refuse to take targets, but, between them, they have announced serious efforts in reforestation, energy efficiency, solar and wind power. Can we find ways to make these efforts equivalent with developed country efforts without actual emissions targets? How about process commitments rather than targets?

Just an example of reframing the debate as pathways to agreement.

Bookmark and Share

Currently rated 5.0 by 4 people

  • Currently 5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Tags: , , ,

Comment / Opinion

E-mail | Kick it! | DZone it! | del.icio.us
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post RSSRSS comment feed

Comments

Add comment


 

  Country flag

biuquote
  • Comment
  • Preview
Loading



Powered by BlogEngine.NET 1.4.5.0
Theme by Mads Kristensen

About This Blog

Welcome to the Earthscan Blog – the place to read the latest news and commentary on sustainability, books, events and other thoughts from Earthscan staff and authors. Enjoy!

 

EARTHSCAN BOOKS HOME 

Share this Blog!

Add us to your social bookmarks, post us up on your SN profile, or send out an email using the widget below.

Bookmark and Share

Add to Technorati Favorites

Tag cloud