Climate Change Makeover

GG 2020 - 25th June 2010

The politics of climate change have not exactly been reinvented in the aftermath of Copenhagen. But the debate of the past weeks and months is characterized by some remarkable qualitative shifts. And the good news of all of this is: We might actually start to see some real progress – even without a formal post-Kyoto regime in the near future. 

This time it’s personal

Climate change is still thought of as something primarily for national governments and their representatives. All the preparatory meetings, hearings, working groups and summit negotiations literally boiled down to the question when will the ministers and/or the heads of states arrive to take over and work it out in all night shifts. The UN logic of ‘one country, one vote’ provided the institutional setting and led to highly politicized debates on sovereignty issues, national interests and the usual north-south, east-west, south-south power politics.

Thomas Hale and Scott Moore, two of my Global Governance 2020 colleagues, advocate a different approach. They call for a ‘coalition of the willing’ that actively sidesteps this intergovernmental deadlock and the formality and centralization that comes along with the UN system. In other words, climate change concerns every one of us. Especially after the Copenhagen tragedy, there are no more excuses for not stepping out of our individual comfort zone and starting to make a difference. The UN, national governments and all the G-somethings - G2, G8+, G20, G77, you name it… - will of course remain important and influential players. Yet they will have to be complemented with new and seemingly unorthodox alliances and networks of change agents such as cities, regional authorities, civil society, small and big businesses, media and, last but not least, inspiring individuals like you.

 Taking a detour

For years, the politics of climate change have been working with people’s fear. Our future seemed gloomy, to say the least, and the apocalypse was always just one small step away. Popular culture, including Hollywood productions such as ‘The Day After Tomorrow,” helped create a melodramatic atmosphere. Take-it-or-leave-it-propositions replaced more seasoned and pragmatic strategies, with the paradoxical result that the policy space of various actors was diminished. One reason for the failure of Copenhagen was that the international community quite simply ran out of time and room to maneuver. The overbearing agenda and unrealistically high expectations fuelled in part by politicians, the media, business, and civil society prevented even the smallest compromise.

 The authors of “The Hartwell Paper: A new Direction for Climate Policy after the Crash of 2009” convincingly argue that “the current framing of climate change and climate policy has ‘boxed us in’.” To avoid the Copenhagen blues again, the international community first has to recognize a major misunderstanding.

“Climate change was represented as a conventional environmental ‘problem’ that is capable of being ‘solved’. It is neither of these.”

The researchers behind the Hartwell Paper instead propose multiple framings or narratives that allow the emergence of politically attractive (small steps which offer rapid and demonstrable pay-back), politically inclusive and relentlessly pragmatic solutions. The way forwards sounds revolutionary simple:

“Rather than being a discrete problem to be solved, climate change is better understood as a persistent condition that must be coped with and can only be partially managed more – or less – well.”

And...always look on the bright side of life...

Speaking of framing and narratives, when was the last time that you heard a good joke about climate change? I know, climate change is serious stuff. First, there is all this rather complicated science, the different models, scenarios and projections. Next are the economics of climate change, a field that has flourished in the wake of the famous Stern report. But the language used is not very accessible or appealing. There is ample reference to natural disasters, reductions, cuts, limits and costs. Moreover, the media hype surrounding events such as Copenhagen with its thousands of delegates and spokespersons did not add up to a coherent and up-beat message.

After Copenhagen, there seems to be a new consensus emerging. Climate change is naturally still seen as a major scientific, technological as well as a financial challenge. But it is also increasingly viewed as a much broader cultural challenge. In his recent book Why We Disagree About Climate Change - Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity.

Mike Hulme outlined what it means to develop a comprehensive or holistic understanding of climate change. He concludes that the way in which we ultimately deal with climate change reveals our “different attitudes to risk, technology, wellbeing, our different ethical, ideological, and political beliefs, our different interpretations of the past and our competing visions of the future.”

So here is a joke about climate change. Actually it’s one with several potential happy endings (hat tip to Robert Butler):

Q: How many climate skeptics does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. It's more cost-effective to live in the dark.

A: None. We only know how to screw the planet.

A: None. Changing light bulbs is for engineers.

A: None. Eventually the light bulbs will right themselves.

A: First we need more research and we need more research about what that research will be.

A: I can't hear you! I can't hear you! I can't hear you!