This week, Clapp and Dauvergne take us through a general history of global environmental politics and perspectives along with various paradigm shifts over the years. One theme the authors discuss is the role of economic globalization as well as the dynamics between developed and developing countries. They follow this theme through a number of international summits from Stockholm to Rio, and how the debates and agreements that come out of these talks try to recognize a middle ground between different national interests and responsibilities. Clapp and Dauvergne then move to identifying the main actors on the global scale of environmental politics. They put the state at the core, as the other authors in this section also recognize. For better or for worse, states are dominant in our current system even with the participation of international institutions, NGOs, and businesses. Clapp and Dauvergne do mention the challenge posed to the system by global issues like climate change, but seem content with the tradition and offer up ways that change can be made within the sovereign state framework. Despite the past failures, continued weaknesses, and lack of urgency in the global environmental arena, the authors cite growing influence of non-state actors, potential for partnerships, and ideas coming out of the market and from local levels as key steps for the future of addressing global scale environmental problems.
Paul Harris is more critical of the sovereign state system, taking the perspective that we cannot work within it effectively without reform. As he puts it, "the Westphalian system creates and reinforces an obsession with the interests of the nation-state above all else" (138). This is inherently at odds with the approach needed for a problem like climate change that transcends boundaries and national interests. Perhaps we need another "Spaceship Earth" moment to galvanize us in seeing past these constraints, but it won't be easy and it likely wouldn't have the staying power that the long-standing and deeply embedded sovereignty system does. We need a massive response and global rather than national interest to prevail, because "business as usual" or even incremental changes and shifts in the right direction are not enough. Harris goes so far as to call the Westphalian system a cancer, and that "the cancer has made that response feeble relative to the seriousness of the problem" (143). It is a depressing image, but certainly evocative.
Richard Falk goes even further and essentially rejects the Westphalian system altogether. Bitterly, he asserts: "Despite the marvels of the modern world, there is an increasing realization that mankind has strayed from the pursuit of its own welfare, perhaps decisively, with little prospect of recovery and a growing appreciation of urgency" (144). I thought of our exercise in class where we chose between going forward in time three hundred years or going back three hundred, and realized that in a single statement Falk made me decidedly uncomfortable with my choice of going forward. Past this, his insights include the sovereign system as "unable to cope with endangered-planet problems" (144), that only a common and personified enemy could unite the world politically, and that we can't even agree on the issues on our agenda much less how to solve them. Falk describes Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons," another reading for this week and an oft-cited concept, and uses it to forward the notion of the "paradox of aggregation" and its dangers regarding ecological catastrophe. I have read Hardin's classic piece along with Susan Buck's response before, and enjoy the comparison in perspectives as well as Buck's attack on historical inaccuracies leading to the prevalent "commons" term. Her hope for a remedy based in a new perspective on the commons is refreshing. I've always found Hardin's piece too coercive and one-sided particularly in his arguments on reproduction, much like the Ehrlichs of the same worldview. But back to Falk, who is compelling in his urgency and warns of the motivations that come with exploitation. I hear his warnings and agree that "voluntary compliance" (149) is not enough to address all our problems, but I am not sure I'm ready to buy into the complete rejection and overhaul of the current system...yet.
Boring but pragmatic, I read the system maintaining, reforming, and transforming systems respectively and identify with the seemingly middle option of reforming. All the perspectives have insights to offer, but I do think we need a different approach than the current one and I find it most practical to look at serious reforms to the system before trying to throw it out altogether. An ultimate transformation could bring radical change for sure and with a clean slate we could find solutions that don't have to fit into a framework that wasn't meant to even address the problem. Considering the growing influence of non-state actors, the sovereign state system does seem outdated. However, I think a reformist perspective would garner more support from different stakeholders so it would actually be more effective than the transformative. With our history, it is safe to assume that barring an alien invasion we won't be dissolving political borders in the near future. A transformation sounds ideal in the long term, but since we need solutions now we don't have a tangible option other than to take the structures that we have already and make them better - make them fit the answers rather than the other way round. The state can be a part of environmental governance, but it should not be the only or even the most prominent one. Bottom-up and grassroots movements should be given the same consideration as the ones coming from the top. The voices and perspectives informing the dialogue should come from all stakeholders in a forum that enables participation, especially from those voices who have typically been excluded from decision-making in the sovereign state structure. These are not new ideas; they just need to be fully incorporated into a reformed system as an effective means for change.
No comments:
Post a Comment