Why the United Nations Climate Change Conference failed

Why did the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen fail? An answer to this question has to take account of the following two aspects: The connection between great power politics and climate politics and the domestic instability of many rising countries. Taken together, these two points never allowed the summit to be a substantial success and offer little hope for similar endeavors in the future.

Stopping climate change is supposed to be about the climate only, but in fact, much more is at stake. There is a link between climate politics and the economy. Climate protection and environmentally friendly production is seen by many states as a danger to the growth or stability of their economies. Many developing countries, but not only these, are fundamentally dependent on industries especially climate unfriendly. Since economic power is linked with military power, there is a link between climate politics and security politics, too. Climate politics is thus “high politics” for many states, and climate summits are not very different from old-style summits attributed to power politics. This is, indeed, a provocative thesis. After all, climate change is supposed to be about public goods and common interests, isn’t it? But if it is, why can’t we tackle it? Recent theoretical approaches would expect cooperation through international institutions to be able to get hold of such issues. Even more importantly, some international institutions have proven to be working, such as the WTO. But climate-cooperation is not working. I argue that in climate politics (in the individual measures to take, not the target!), like in security politics, gains are relative, while they are absolute in other fields such as the international political economy.

Recent evidence shows that rising countries such as India, Brazil, and most importantly China have been the main actors hindering a success in Copenhagen. The Guardian, notably one of the best informed papers during the summit, reports that Chinese delegates were the one’s blocking any major breakthrough. More recently, audio evidence has appeared that shows how India, China and other rising countries deny any commitment to climate politics. This is not surprising. Many rising countries are restraint in their foreign policy decisions because of their domestic instability. China, for instance, so far managed to get hold of this instability through double-digitted economic growth. The main driving force of this growth are industries which would seriously suffer from any substantial, binding climate change agreement. The question for China thus is not if it wants to stop climate change or if it wants to suffer from the potential implications climate change may have in the future. Rather, it is a decision between immediate or mid-term problems. China decided to await the implications climate change will have and to avoid the immediate implications of internal disruption. To the “normal” aversion towards a climate change agreement thus came additional restraints on China’s ability to contribute to a substantial solution in Copenhagen. But as one of the main polluters, China’s cooperation was vital to a success of the summit.

Taken together, the relevance of climate politics for “high politics” and the domestic instability of many rising countries account for the most part of the failure of Copenhagen. It is very unfortunate that states are unable to come to terms about a problem so vital to all of us. We can learn two things from Copenhagen: First, we live in a world where (often confronting) national interests and great power politics still prevail. Second, rising powers pose serious problems in the present and near future. While minor developing countries can be sufficiently influenced to cooperate in important questions, a country that has reached a certain economic and military importance is likely to be not as cooperative. Globalization and the international economy do not just have positive influences on international politics, but also bring up new actors which then ascertain their positions. Although there is by no means anything intrinsically negative in these developments – to the opposite, the rise of any country principally has to be applauded! - this raises tensions and complicates international relations. The world moves towards multipolarity, and we should be very aware of the potential problems this development brings along.

There is one major positive aspect in the above: Our generation will be able to witness both the rise and fall of great powers and the tragedy of great power politics. What interesting times we live in!

(Originally published on December 23, 2009)