Environmental Politics: Scalar Governance, Energy, and Corporate Power
Lecture 11 – Scalar Politics & ‘Local’ Environmental Governance
1. Context: Global environmental governance: the norms, rules, laws, expectations, and structures to guide behavior (GEP as complex interactions).
Rescaling of GEP: Increasing linkages, issues that cross traditional boundaries, shifting political action across geographical space from local to global.
From the global to the domestic: Pathways of influence:
- International rules (treaties, international organizations – compliance mechanism, role of civil society).
- International norms (logic of appropriateness & consequences for behavior – boomerang [when domestic NGOs reach out to intl allies to pressure states to comply).
- Markets (direct action [boycotts] & indirect [certification schemes] – use of market mechanisms (e.g., ecosystem services) + liberal environmentalism e.g., carbon pricing).
- Direct Access to Policy-Making processes (funding, capacity building – transnational organizations, e.g., lobbying, research & capacity for govs).
A. Payment for Ecosystem Services
Paying landowners for the preservation or enhancement of ecosystem processes (benefits from ecosystems).
REDD+: Incentivizes developing countries to reduce emissions from deforestation & degradation.
Critiques: Reduces nature to market-based framework, economic valuation language, procedural issues in implementation (indigenous rights), social exclusion, north.
B. Buen Vivir
Living in harmony with nature, rather than dominating nature or removing human presence through conservation.
From local to global: TUNGURAHUA watershed reform – local norms of EM (harmony) VS dominant intl norms (growth) – institutionalized in ecuador’s new 2008 (“good life” constitution & bolivia – norms of sustainable development reimagined at local level. indigenous national uprising in 1990. rather than rejecting, developed own version.
Rights of nature (not just an idea): Nature as new rights holder -> shifts burden/responsibility to industry to prove actions not harming (precautionary principle).
Hydrodevelopment in bolivia: rositas energy project, no consultation, indigenous communities evicted (no compensation), wetland, biodiversity loss, right duty to consult.
Lecture 12 – Scalar Politics & ‘Local’ Environmental Governance Part II
REDD+: Reinforce competencies of central gov. not decentralization but strengthen state ability to manage resources, no mention of local governance, clear authority.
Transnational city networks: different spheres of governance, C40 network hasn’t changed much since cities are complicated actors.
Tungurahua watershed reform: education, not tax, natures as rights holder, rejected western NGO proposal (commodification)-> trust, volunteer/donation based scheme.
Nature-Based Solutions (NbS)
Actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural and modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits (e.g., land restoration, organic farming).
Whose lands?: Who is designing NbCS? respect indigenous rights?. conservation = colonialism (terra nullius) e.g., national parks. fortress conservation (gov), colonial dispossession, monocultures, non-native species, carbon offsetting-> illusion of listening to indigenous wisdom w/o changing extractive capitalism colonial systems.
New approach to NbCS: Land back, recovery of sovereignty, empowerment and building back indigenous power, reconnect with land, what land is telling you-relationship.
2. Paradox of global capacity & CI case Milne Bay – from global to domestic (pathways of influence)
– 4 pathways: international rules, international norms, markets, direct access to policy-making processes.
– Paradox of global capacity: NGOs will fail at local level because focus too much on problems at global level → disconnects them from local problems. bridging capacity = cross cultural understanding. NGOs have rich developed capacity networks but lack local level context/history and intercultural understanding which takes lots of time
Conservation International: Global environmental norm “biodiversity hotspots”, transnational NGO that shapes global norms.
Community-based coastal & marine conservation in Milne Bay (PNG): Participatory management processes, community-managed marine protected areas (MPAs), funding global environmental facility (GEF) – 2 phases, engaged with local communities, CI worked with UNDP and PNG gov but project ended in 2005.
What went wrong? Lack of bridging (between national steering committee and CI)- long documents, meetings, no understanding of cultural expectations + prioritizing investment in global communication (capacity) with technical reports (bureaucratic funding reqs for GEF) + sidelining local knowledge and expertise (e.g., interviews with locals not in reports, western dominance) + leadership lacked intercultural knowledge (happening on the ground).
How can paradox be overcome? Empowering local NGO projects, removing funding reqs for global reporting, takes time, projects where locals have knowledge
Lecture 13 – Great Power Politics & Energy Transitions
1. North-south conflict and dichotomy: Global north: core developed industrialized western VS global south: exploited by colonial/imperial powers (3rd world, periphery).
Debating the frame: Political construct (not geographic), evolving socioeconomic conditions, binary vs hetereogenous category of global south, “strategic essentialism” as victim of colonialism, too state-centric masks differences within countries (class vs development status), ‘us’ vs ‘them’ & western exceptionalism/superiority
A. Making (& Unmaking) of NIEO: Context for Divide
Cold war (1945-1990) east/west divide: Non-aligned movement (NAM): newly decolonized states independence from east/west- peace, cooperation & self-determination, sovereignty. (1955) badung conference/principles “declaration of world peace cooperation”, UNG77 (1964)
(1974) New international economic order (NIEO): UN adopted, stemmed from economic oil crisis (OPEC), push for economic decolonization, common interest developing
-> passed by UN but implementaion failed- commodity prices falling, sovereign debt, SAPs, WB IMF-> rise of neoliberalism (1950s-1980s), condition of neoliberal policies
B. North-South Relations in GEP
UN stockholm conference on human environment (1972), our common future brundtland commission (1987), UN conference on environment & development (1992): western environmentalism as subjugation, burden on south, economic growth, polluter pays (responsibility of north)- unfilled promises, G77 so north confronts responsibilities, common but differentiated responsibilities, lack of financing from north (new intl economic order)
2. Emissions: Whose responsibility is it anyway? Individuals, corporations, UNFCC negotiations focused on territorial emissions: responsible produced within territory
– fuhr argues earlier north more responsible (historical emissions), projections suggest need to pay attention to shifts and role of south as major polluters
– but historical emissions doesn’t account for differences in population size -> alternative approach “fair share” in planetary boundary of 350ppm % of global population
Lecture 14 – Greater Power Politics & Energy Transitions II
Green Industrial Policy
Efforts to build specific industries in ‘the green economy’ and the development of “environmental technologies” to achieve climate goals. includes investments, incentives (grants, subsidies), regulations, and policy -> helps steer markets, both development/social and climate (co-benefits), green growth
Mechanisms for green growth:
- Green stimulus packages
- Market-correction or price-based policies
- Green industrial innovation R&D
Green New Deal: Renewable energy, investment in EVs, rail, stop transfer of jobs overseas, domestic manufacturing, reframing industrial policy in terms of envr and social
2. Great powers – china/US case: US climate leader or laggard? climate inaction (1992 kyoto rejection, paris, obstruction), largest oil & gas producer, IRA (2022) – largest investment in climate and energy, domestic manufacturing, secure supply chains, signal to private sector for renewables china leading solar wind cost declines, manufacturing EV batteries, BUT continues to build new coal power plants, banks lender to developing countries via belt&road initiatve (human rights, neo-colonization)
china-US competition: green capitalism (riofrancos), biden ‘chip war’, tensions IRA tax credits for EVs, G7 leaders vs china, stop financing coal, domestic actions->global
Lecture 15 – Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)
1. Effectiveness of Intergovernmental (or intl) Organizations: Includes at least 3 states, activities in several states, created through FORMAL intergovernmental agreement, e.g., treaty, charter or statute- UN agencies, not NGOs that operate internationally or informal international organziations. Often nested within international regimes: set of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules, & decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge
Multilateral environmental agreements: treaties, conventions, protocols, and other binding instruments related to the environment
How effective are intl envr institutions? UNEP- mixed performance given constraints (no binding decisions or funding allocations), influence through informal means (norms), monitoring & assessment (intl negotiations)
Theoretical approaches on IGOs: Theoretical institutionalist: IGOs reduce transaction costs of intl cooperation & ‘free-riding’. Constructivists: autonomous, often exceeding mandate. Foucaldian: summit or political theatre realizing power relations
Impacts & effectiveness: issue (scope, scientific consensus, feasibility, solutions), institutional setup, position within regime complex, agreement/design (binding, funding), diplomatic strategies, power politics economic interests/incentives, normative context (liberal environmentalism)
2. Unambiguous success: CFCs/ozone protection. 1987 mtl protocol: clear scientific consensus, universal ratification, binding commitments, funding mechanism for developing countries, broad stakeholder participation, revisability, monitoring of performance, benefits exceeded costs, alternatives available (dominant institutional order)
3. Mixed success: the Paris agreement. climate summits 1992 COP, kyoto (first legally binding), 2007 bali road map, COP15 2009, 2010 cancun compensation
Features of Paris: set specific global limit, all parties with NDCs 5 years (“ratchet” pledge & review), flexible, legally binding but room for ambiguity, evolving differentiation
Didn’t make Paris: financing (commitment to $100bn annually but no timeline) and loss & damage
Why Success?: Secrecy (compelled to sign because no chance to lobby before) france’s role, transparency?, less institutional opportunity to obstruct. compromises
– 2014 bilateral agreement (china/US) – club approach: key agreements with main actors. then pressure states to join/ foundation for paris
– 1.5C & climate vulnerability forum & coalitions of the willing + 186 national pledges (not from scratch) + diplomatic process e.g., org tactics (secrecy?) & entrepreneurial leadership (french) + persuasion e.g., EU win-win, framing BUT still obstructionism
Implications: “dangerous incrementalism” (too much flexibility, short timeline), passing responsibility to non-state actors, aspirational vs substantive
– climate overshoot commission, broken record report UNEP 2023: emissions gap, inequality in climate emissions
Lecture 17 – Supply-Side Climate Action
1. COP29: azerbaijan (petrostate), controversial, regional approach (take turns holding COP), russia (larger geopolitcal context), greenwashing for authoritarian gov
2. Comparing demand & supply climate action: Net-zero: when no longer adding to total amount of GHG in the atmosphere by removing as much as they emit
Limits of current climate action: production gap (gov plans to do/increase and what is consistent with target) because of territorial emissions. Limits of net zero: carbon offset reliance, unproven tech (CCS), greenwashing, not reducing extraction/production of FF.
FF treaty: policy based on theory that reduce demand, carbon price increase, market with alternatives (cheaper, constrain supply), market distorted by tax breaks & subsidies. FFNPT: equitable, managed decline. scientists, cities have endorsed it. compared to weapons treaties. opens new discussions, complement demand side
3. Case of supply-side action: pipeline resistance: mega pipelines, mega resistance: coalitions influenced political, regulatory, commercial dynamics, protests, legal
Industry fantasies versus organizing: canadian petroleum expansion w/o new pipelines. Campaign coalitions: constellation of actors that agree to work together for specific purpose (legal challenges, protests, research & resources, lobbied = long term high levels of involvement), big green ENGOs, indigenous communities, grassroots
Indigenous ambivalence: variety of indigenous responses, industry “consults” & negotiates (power, resource, info asymmetries), no UNDRIP, inevitability to regulatory
Coalition lessons:
- Strong foundations
- Linked to public salient issues (leveraged disasters)
- Leveraged political opportunities & key moments
- “Ecology of tactics”
Picking & winning transformative fights: transformative (improve material conditions, avoid harm, undermine corporate power) & winnable (feasible pathways) fights
4. How KIIG movements gained salience with intergovernmental commitments (BOGA). emergence of KIIG: bans on oil and/or gas exploration or production. movements against FF in mid 1990s in south, bans in global north. Gaining momentum: BOGA, intergov association, signed, endorsed by civil society and norm entrepreneurs, set of govs that have publicly committed to limiting oil & gas production & not support new projects. friends of BOGA, islands states, sub-states
Beyond oil and gas alliance: costaricadenmark COP26, FFNPT, core members expanded, ending new concessions, licensing or leasing of oil & gas production, set date
Lecture 18 – Supply Side Climate Action II
– Green paradox: climate policies, aimed at reducing emissions, instead have the opposite effect: anticipation of policies causes FF owners to accelerate extraction now
Lecture 19 – Corporate Power
1. Role of businesses: producers, supply chain managers, innovators, investors, marketer, ‘climate leadership’, ‘corporate citizenship’ or political activity, employers
Types of corporate power: Economic or structural power: capital accumulation, neoliberalism capitalism, economic dependence on corporate investments.
Instrumental power: lobbying, power to directly & indirectly influence, donations – Corporate diplomacy: influence negotiations as observers and/or through trade associations. Discursive power: capacity to influence policies by shaping norms and ideas (language and framing of issues), social constructivism
#exxonknew: denial toolkit from tobacco, misled americans about climate change, casted doubt on science, discursive strategies like both sides approach to confuse
– BP came up with personal carbon footprint to shift blame to individual level, demand problem -> shift attention from industry’s role
Threat: 80/90s: rampant climate denialism, coalitions to oppose negotiations, industry funding to discredit IPCC, business-funded ‘astroturf’ eNGOs, studies GDP loss
Opportunity: mid 1990s shift, new green products, corporate social responsibility, risk management, forming partnerships & working with NGOs (CDP)
Corporate social responsibility: broad term that includes various sets of responsibilities, actions taken up by corporations (corporate citizen, voluntary), Environmental, social governance: how corporations & investors integrate E,S&G concerns into their business models (expansive, measurable, e.g., certification schemes)
2. (Corporate) Greenwashing: false, misleading, or unsubstantiated environmental claims- vague, wishful thinking, hidden trade-offs, lack of proof, irrelevant (trash bags), lesser of 2 evils (fuel-efficient SUVs), overinflated phrases (50% more), selective disclosure (mining), suggestive imagery- e.g., pathways alliance bus, apple, patagonia
What makes a credible eco-label? Aiming big (target large downstream retailers or global markets), inclusive, transparent, independent, verification
3. Corporate climate pledges: e.g., T mobile net-zero, difference between scope emissions ([in]direct, upstream, downstream), standardization, offsetting?, near-term, credible, disclosure & verification, company support or lobby climate policy?. AMAZON climate pledge friendly: partner 3rd party certifications and create own standards
Carbon disclosure project: grade reflected off of disclosure and plan to manage emissions (denial, delay, delusion)
4. State strikes back- regulating greenwash: canadian competition bureau: enforcement priority, amendments to competition act, criminal and civil tract (fines, imprisonment), e.g., keurig, non-recyclable coffee-pods, RBC- new amendments to competition act: role for regulation & holding accountable but state intervention