A Whole New World?

 

Environmental Governance

•         Governance includes both government and civil society, it’s the informal and formal regulation of activity and implementation of programs

–     Environmental crisis is not a technological one, it is a political crisis of governance, institutions and the limits of modern identity

•         International Environmental Governance Successes include: Montreal Protocol on CFC’s and the Convention on Trade of Endangered Species

–     Shows that with will (and US leadership) things can change

•         Climate Change is a tough negotiation

–     Do you stop luxury emissions of Northern consumers and methane emissions from subsistence plot in the same way?

–     North got rich off of CO2 emissions; South says why not us?   U.S. then said that if everyone doesn’t play the same, we won’t do anything

•     Buying carbon credits might see First World owning and controlling most Third World forests; allows massive Russia and Canada to pollute at high per capita rates

•     Should gas flared off by Shell oil in Nigeria be paid for by Nigeria, Shell or consumers in countries that use the gas?

 

Kyoto Protocol

•          Stage set by UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, hashed out at Rio Earth Summit, 1992

–      Was non-binding, but  structured so protocols could be introduced that would be binding

•          Kyoto, in 1997 set the stage for

–      Reduce emissions of CO2 & greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading

–      Divided world into Annex I (who had to reduce emissions and do an annual greenhouse gas emissions) and Non-Annex I (who didn’t have to reduce emissions, but can have development aid from Annex I countries to reduce emissions in exchange for Annex I countries not reducing their own)

•      China and India were Non-Annex I

•      Goal is to get Annex I to 5% below 1990 levels

–    Germany and UK there, b/c of deindustrialization

–      Australia (coal), U.S. (coal, cars) hold out

•          Recently, US and China made a limited agreement on US reducing emissions by 25% of 2005 levels by 2025; China reaching peak emissions in 2030

–      It is good both of the biggest emmiters are setting goals ahead of global talks in Paris next year (which hopefully go better than the last attempt in Copenhagen).

•          There is the potential that if things don’t change, our planet could be a vastly different environmentally, which will change it socially and economically as well. 

 

Big “remappings” due to globalziation – i.e. what has changed

•                  Reconfiguration of capitalism with new division of labor, enhanced role for finance, and new possibilities  of control through communication and computing technology innovations

•                  Promotion of markets as allocation systems in an era of deregulation

•                  Challenge to state sovereignty

•                  Constructions of new civil societies

•                  New transnational environmental politics

•                  Centuries’ old faith in automatic social progress being

•                  Ability to connect across space.

 

Making Changes

•         We are conditioned to think in terms of the nation state, but now a lot of power to change also in the hands of cities, supranational organizations, transnational corporations. 

•         What thwarts local decision making, is lack of

–    Autonomy in deciding how to use time or talent

–    Control over resource base

–    Systems of production that meet the needs of everyone without killing the environment

–    Maintain a demographic balance (neither too many new people (migrate in or out) nor too many leaving)

•         Again, just so you know, globalization has not eliminated all scales below the global (or just left global and local), instead it has formed new connections across multiple scales

–    This is where a potential lies, in networking to other localities, into regions, through global institutions

 

Making Changes (cont.)

–     Can individuals still make a difference?

•     Yes, the gender equality movements are good example – things have changed radically in the last 50 years not just in formal rights, but in wide social acceptance of changing gender roles which involve all of us

–   We are seeing the same things right now with GLBT equality (around marriage, acceptance in media, access to benefits), only the changes have come in the span of a decade.

•     People at the local level everywhere at least know their interests, and are often able to draw from tradition and modernity equally, and if the equitable and sustainable support structures are in place, they will make the best decision

•     Use whatever little power we have to help others, even if it is your power as a consumer

–   People in your generation want to live in walk-able cities and public transportation; because of that, cities are actually changing for the better.
–   No, it is not systemic change, but a bunch of a little actions can add up to a lot.