by Alex Evans | Sep 24, 2008 | Cooperation and coherence, Europe and Central Asia, Global system, Influence and networks
Over at the UN in New York, where it’s the annual jamboree that is the General Assembly, Nicolas Sarkozy has been calling on world leaders to hold a summit later this year on building a “regulated capitalism”. Four thoughts:
1) if this summit were to go ahead, it would mark the continuation of a trend towards head of state / government level summits on specific issues (as opposed to gatherings that cover a whole range of foreign policy issues, like the G8 or the Security Council). Earlier this year heads of government turned out in force for the FAO food summit; last year, Ban Ki-moon got a good turn out for his high level event on climate change at the UN.
But there’s only value in getting heads engaged if a) their involvement is needed in order to join up the dots between different areas of ministerial or department responsibility within their goverments (e.g. cross-sectoral bargaining that involves energy, climate and trade all at once), or b) their political clout is needed to forge a deal. I’m not sure that either of those conditions applies here – in which case, wouldn’t it make more sense to leave such a summit to finance ministers?
2) Sarkozy also said at a press conference yesterday that “we cannot wait any longer to turn the G8 into the G13 or G14, and to bring in China, India, South Africa, Mexico and Brazil”. Interesting to see this idea reviving; the scale of the current crisis (‘perfect storm’ etc.) might appear to militate in favour. But as ever, the big questions are less over who would be around the table and more about what it would do, how it would work and – above all – whether it would be any more effective than the G8 (which hasn’t achieved very much lately). More on this in a paper I wrote on new global leaders’ forums a while back.
3) While Sarkozy knows he wants a summit, it’s also clear that – so far – he doesn’t have any specific proposals for multilateral action. You can bet this will cause a frisson or two at Number 10, given that Gordon Brown does have a set of proposals for international financial reform, but so far lacks a coalition to push them. There might be potential for France and the UK to team up quite effectively here, not least given that Sarkozy will have recognised that without at least one major financial centre involved front and centre, his idea’s dead in the water (n.b in that regard that Sarkozy mooted London as a possible venue for the summit, along with NYC, Paris and Brussels).
4) Whether Brown’s proposals are the right ones to deal with the current crisis is, of course, a separate question. Looking at them again, the main impression is of the lack of specificity: calling for a “common approach to handling major global market disruptions”, a “clearer, more authoritative watchdog” or “common principles, shared analyses and information and collaborative management of crises” is all very well, but if there was ever a case of the devil being in the detail, this is it. (As for his calls for a global early warning system for financial crisis – by all means, but is now really the time to be thinking about that?)
It’s good to see that someone’s asking the big questions about long term prevention and looking to facilitate a serious high level conversation about where we go from here, and the UK should certainly get involved and think seriously about offering to host. But it’s way too soon to be thinking about shared operating systems or even shared platforms at this point: the key tasks now are a) to put out the immediate fire and then b) to build up shared awareness of what’s happened, why, and what we want to achieve as we consider a new financial architecture.
(For explanation of shared operating systems, platforms and awareness, see here.)
by Alex Evans | Aug 30, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, North America
From a Newsmax interview done before her nomination as McCain’s running mate:
What is your take on global warming and how is it affecting our country?
A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.
Wow. That is so not where John McCain is on climate. It’ll be fun to watch this pan out…
by David Steven | Aug 29, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, Middle East and North Africa, North America
All the buzz today is that Sarah Palin, Alaska’s governor, will be McCain’s vice president pick. Interesting to see how close she is to him on climate change…
Interesting, also, that the first rumours appeared to have popped up on a pro-Hilary and now pro-McCain website… and [update 1] are now being reported as untrue. With Romney now also said to be out, McCain is doing a masterful job of building up suspense… but [update 2] it’s now confirmed…
Update 3: She doesn’t like polar bears… but she is into creationism.
Update 4:This is what she said before she got offered the job:
[A]s for that V.P. talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the V.P. does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that V.P .slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question.
Oh – and she has a baby with Down’s Syndrome, who she took to work as governor so she could keep breastfeeding:
When we first heard, it was kind of confusing. It was very, very challenging. [But now,] it just feels like he fits perfectly. He is supposed to be here with us.
by Charlie Edwards | Aug 29, 2008 | Africa, Climate and resource scarcity, Conflict and security, Cooperation and coherence, East Asia and Pacific, Economics and development, Europe and Central Asia, Global system, Middle East and North Africa, South Asia
The new report on Humanitarian Implications of Climate Change: Mapping emerging trends and risk hotspots, which was carried out by CARE International, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and Maplecroft is definitely worth a read.
The map below shows overall human vulnerability based on a combination of natural, human, social, financial and physical factors. Areas shown in darkest blue are likely to be most at risk if exposed to extreme weather, such as floods, cyclones and droughts, or other impacts of climate change.
From the report:
The study used GIS mapping to understand how the projected impacts of climate change will intersect with existing patterns of human vulnerability or so called disaster risk hotspots.
This allows the identification of current and future hotspots of climate change risk. The results illustrate the implications of climate change for humanitarian assistance so that policymakers can grasp the nature and scale of the challenge we face and humanitarian actors can begin adapting their response strategies to the realities of climate change.
by David Steven | Aug 27, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, North America
Uniting the Republican Party and John McCain on climate change is a fiendishly difficult task, as a fascinating article by Stephen Spruiell shows.
By the time you’re done, you’ve scratched through so many lines and penciled in so many revisions that the document is barely legible. I wish I could show you my copy of the energy section of the 2008 Republican Platform’s working draft. You wouldn’t be able to read it, but you’d see what I mean.
The original draft accepted the reality of climate change and argued for ‘measured and reasonable’ action, while cautioning against “the doomsday climate change scenarios peddled by the aficionados of centralized command-and-control government.”
But it has proved contentious in committee. So what were the rows about?
Firstly, and most strangely, the word ‘global warming’ has proved controversial. Of course, experts tend not to use the term and prefer climate change (which helps “to convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures.”)
But Republicans are nervous about the warming word for another reason. They are unconvinced the world is getting hotter. The phrase “increased atmospheric carbon has a warming effect on the earth” has therefore been excised from the draft platform. And climate change has been used in preference to global warming throughout.
Compromise was also necessary to keep the door ajar for McCain’s preferred policy of cap and trade:
The working draft purposefully left McCain enough room to continue his support for an artificial ceiling on carbon emissions. The subcommittee improved the working draft by specifying that any proposals “should not harm the economy,” but it did not add anything that explicitly precludes McCain from supporting cap-and-trade. McCain is still free to argue that a cap-and-trade regime wouldn’t inhibit economic growth, and conservatives are still free to disagree.
Any cap and trade scheme must have no economic downside, in other words. (Or could any downside be balanced against the economic impact of unchecked warming?) Policy responses must be ‘global in nature’ as well, which would probably translate into a tough policy on China.
But this may not be enough for base. To sample its thinking, head over to the Republican Party site that solicits grassroots opinion on the platform. Here are extracts from the five most recent contributions that mention global warming:
Do NOT add “global warming” to the GOP platform. Do not fall for this nonsense. Its a fraud.
Under no circumstance should the platform even mention global warming, unless its a statement to acknowledge the evidence that we aren’t causing it.
I just saw on Drudge that there is to be a plank for global warming. If the Republicans fall for this false science, I have no one left to vote for and our economy will be ruined. Read what Senator James Imhof has to say about it all. He knows.
I cannot believe that the GOP is adding global warming to its platform. How can I respect my party if it can’t even come up with its own scams to increase the size and power of government, but has to adopt scams from the like of Al Gore.
Global Warming is a hoax! Why would we get on Al Gore’s bandwagon?
I would say there’s 80% agreement with the statement: “Man Made global warming is the biggest lie ever sold to the U.S. and the world.” For McCain as President – or for any President who bought a treaty home for ratification – there’s a long struggle ahead.
