by Alex Evans | Dec 19, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity, Influence and networks
David and I are publishing a report today entitled “Climate Change: the State of the Debate“. It’s essentially intended to catalyse a deeper discussion about why climate change has become a big political issue; what’s driving awareness of it among diverse publics; whether climate change will stay high on the agenda; and how future perceptions of the issue might evolve. It does not try to set out definitive answers to these questions, but instead explores questions of who influences whom in the global conversation about climate change.
The report, published by CIC’s Climate Change and Global Public Goods program, forms part of the London Accord, a major climate change research initiative which launches today (Wednesday 19 December), and which involves organisations including ABN AMRO, Credit Suisse First Boston, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, BP and the Corporation of London.
The paper begins with a survey of the history of public perceptions of climate change since 1900, arguing that these perceptions have much deeper roots than is often realised: Time magazine ran a cover story on the idea of a warming world as long ago as 1939, for instance. The history section also stresses that perceptions of climate change have always been subject to peaks of interest followed by subsequent declines, and a constant ebb-and-flow of public attention. Above all, the history of climate change shows that perceptions of the issue are by no means driven only – or even primarily – by facts, evidence and rational argument: images, narratives, relationships and values matter at least as much.
Section two of the paper looks at a sample of recent polling data in an attempt to discover whether perceptions of climate change really did reach a ‘tipping point’ during 2006, as many media commentators believe. While opinion polls do appear to show a global public consensus that climate change is real, urgent and driven at least in part by human activity, the perceptions of what needs to be done – and by whom – are much less clear-cut. As well as examining polling data, section two explores the findings of qualitative research methods, which suggest that instead of attempting to understand ‘public opinion’ about climate change, it is essential to realise that there are diverse publics involved in the issue – all with different ‘prisms’ or ‘frames’ through which evidence, facts, arguments and discussions are filtered.
The paper concludes that while climate change may have reached a tipping point of sorts in 2006 as far as perceptions of the problem are concerned, the same definitely cannot be said for perceptions of the solution. So far, we lack answers to fundamental questions such as which solutions will be favoured; who will back them and who will resist them; how much they will cost; and what benefits they are likely to deliver. As we argue, the direction of this debate will depend on how deep public concern is, and on whether what people ‘want’ (either consciously, or as expressed by their behaviour) in different countries diverges or converges.
So before any actor – whether government, investor or advocate – can seek to influence the climate debate effectively, it is essential to understand the drivers of that debate. For deal makers, knowledge and information about the politics of climate change is itself a global public good: the lack of clarity favours those who would prefer inaction. Here, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides a model. Just as the IPCC has informed and then stabilised the ‘problem debate’, so we now need a similar knowledge bank on the perceptions and politics that make up and drive the solutions debate.
We also conclude that governments and businesses face huge political and financial risks as they navigate the climate debate. At present, their actions are based on vague, and mostly intuitive, views of what is driving change. Many professionals assume they know more than they do, or that climate change is basically a scientific and technical problem. This view is mistaken – and now is an especially good time to correct it. The push for a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol is now beginning in earnest. This will place stress on existing beliefs, force apart current coalitions, and create the circumstances for new ones to be born. That’s why it’s now time to understand, study and track the state of the climate change debate.
by Alex Evans | Dec 19, 2007 | East Asia and Pacific, Global system
This was the arresting discovery made last year by Lester Brown at the Earth Policy Institute. How could he tell?
I know Santa Claus is Chinese because each Christmas morning after all the gifts are unwrapped and things settle down I systematically go through the presents to see where they are made. The results are almost always the same: roughly 70 percent are from China. After some research, it seems that my one-family survey is representative of the country as a whole.Let’s start with toys. Some 80 percent of the toys sold in the United States—from Barbie dolls to video games—are made in China. Talking toys that speak English learned the language from Chinese workers. Electronic goods—from Apple’s iPod to Microsoft’s Xbox—are made in China. Clothing—from the latest cashmere sweaters to gym suits—is also likely to have a “Made in China” label.
The Christmas tree itself may come from China. While real Christmas trees are grown in every state in the United States and are marketed locally, many families now gather around artificial Christmas trees. Eight out of every 10 artificial Christmas trees sold in the United States are made in China. Last year Americans spent over $130 million on plastic Christmas trees from China.
This year Americans will spend over $1 billion on Christmas ornaments from China. And in perhaps the greatest irony of all, even nativity scenes are made in China. Last year Americans spent more than $39 million buying nativity scenes shipped in from the East.
As you may already have guessed, Lester doesn’t feel exactly festive about this state of affairs:
It’s not the fact that our Christmas is made in China, but rather the mindset that has led to it that is most disturbing. We want to consume no matter what. We want to spend now and let our children pay. It is this same mindset that introduces tax cuts while waging a costly war. Economic sacrifice is no longer part of our vocabulary. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt banned the sale of private cars in order to mobilize the manufacturing capacity and engineering skills of the U.S. automobile industry to build tanks and planes. In contrast, after 9/11, President Bush urged us to go shopping.In the United States we are so intent on consuming that personal savings have virtually disappeared. We have an average of five credit cards for every man, woman, and child. Of the 145 million cardholders, only 55 million clear their accounts each month. The other 90 million cannot seem to catch up and are paying steep interest rates on their remaining balance. Millions of people are so deeply in debt that they may remain indebted for life.
The official national debt, the product of years of fiscal deficits, now totals $8.5 trillion—some $64,000 per taxpayer. (See data.) By the end of the Bush administration in 2008, this figure is projected to reach a staggering $9.4 trillion. We are digging a fiscal black hole and sinking deeper and deeper into it.
Each month the Treasury covers the fiscal deficit by auctioning off securities. The two leading international buyers of U.S. Treasury securities are Japan and China. In this role, China is now also becoming our banker. This developing country, where income levels are one sixth those of the United States, is financing the excesses of an affluent industrial society. What’s wrong with this picture?
Um… does the answer involve the words “crunch” and “solvency”?
by Alex Evans | Dec 17, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity, Conflict and security
From yesterday’s Observer:
Britian’s outgoing intelligence chief believes there is a danger of exaggerating the threat posed by al-Qaeda at the expense of equally significant security issues, such as global warming…
There was a danger, he said, of over-emphasising the spectre of international terrorism, which could play to al-Qaeda’s advantage and divide communities.
‘What we shouldn’t do is play into al-Qaeda’s hands by exaggerating the extent and nature of the threat they present globally. This focus is not smart when it comes to dealing with people who are trying to make us think that they are the greatest threat.’
Instead Mottram, who will deliver the annual security lecture at the think-tank Demos on Tuesday, said there was a need to understand the potential impact of a range of strategic risks, of which terrorism was just one. He identified global warming, flu pandemics, the emergence of rogue states, globalisation and its impact on power balances, global poverty and its impact on population movement, energy security, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and serious and organised crime as similarly significant problems.
Update: whole text now available.
by Richard Gowan | Dec 12, 2007 | Conflict and security
After the tragedy in Algiers, the UN hardly needs more bad news this week. But join the dots. In Lebanon, a senior general is murdered – while in the DR Congo, government forces backed by the UN have been beaten by a rebel militia. Although unrelated, these events both point a strategic vulnerability for UN peacekeeping. International forces are often sent into countries to assist weak national armies, but if those armies start losing battles and generals, the blue helmets are at risk.
This may come as a surprise to those who, remembering Bosnia and Kosovo, believe that UN forces typically deploy to protect civilians against marauding armies. And there are places – like Liberia and Haiti – where there is no national army at all, and the UN is the sole source of military security (although Haiti’s corrupt police are trouble enough by themselves).
But in the Lebanese and Congolese cases, UNIFIL and MONUC are both explicitly mandated to help the respective armed forces extend their authority over contested areas. This is a particularly unpleasant mandate in the DRC, as the Congolese army’s record is grim – it committed 40% of all human rights violations recorded by MONUC in the second half of 2006. And, as the latest fighting has shown, it isn’t any good at taking on determined opponents, even with UN fire support.
The Lebanese case is rather different: the army is decent, and its commander is the only man that all the country’s factions can agree on as a potential president. The sort of army one might want to support. But, of course, it’s no match for Hezbollah and if there were to be serious violence in Lebanon, the UN could not expect the army to hold the line.
Of course, the UN is meant to do all sorts of things to improve these situations: Security Sector Reform, capacity-building, and so forth. But there are months where being on the side of the generals just isn’t a very enjoyable place to be.
by Alex Evans | Dec 12, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity
I love it when FT columnists get all catty. Willem Buiter did a blog post about climate change, asking what’s the ideal temperature for the atmosphere, and since then debate has been unfolding in the comments (including yours truly). It was all very civilised. Friendly, even. Until “Dave” came in with a rebuttal of Buiter’s argument:
Was this supposed to be a ‘reducto ad absurdam’ critique of climate change sceptics? Well done.
Of course the change and the rate matters more than the temperature (within limits). We’ve built a complex and precarious civilisation that is dependent on agriculture and trade based on the current temperature.
Concern about this is not called ‘anthrocentric’ it’s called ‘humanist’.
Martin Wolf tried. He really did. But he just couldn’t help himself:
If people cannot get this sort of thing right, one begins to wonder about their other arguments.
Ooh. Watch and learn. Know what Martin calls that in his hood? The Senior Common Room smackdown. Get down wit your bad self.
