Climate Change from Science to the Corridors of Politics

Climate Change from Science to the Corridors of Politics Ohoud Al-Lami July, 2019 Special Report 1 Climate Change from Science to the Corridors of Politics Special Report 3 Summary This report focuses on how political interest has historically shifted vis-à-vis climate change, and how the issue, along with research on weather and research related to the causes of climate change and methods for controlling them, have left the scientific space and come up against politics and the economic interests of states, and how the issue has begun to be used as a tool to apply pressure at regional turning points. It also examines how new alliances were created to face this issue. According to an alternate viewpoint, the issue has been transformed into a tool to apply political pressure and create division as states blame each other for causing the problem. The report explores Saudi Arabia’s position within this global exchange and the Kingdom’s efforts to address the issue, as well as the solutions proposed by experts, which fall into two categories: those for which the government is responsible and those in which individuals and civil institutions must participate. 4 Introduction While the global system is going through a period of tension and the formation of a new and larger multipolar struggle in economic and technological terms, we still observe that in some cases, there remains a global participation system wherein states cooperate to resolve global humanitarian problems, such as environmental issues, outbreaks of diseases, and providing asylum for refugees. This system involves comprehensive participation in solving problems, which occurs in the absence of viable military intervention in such matters. Environmental protection has become one of the most visible global issues in terms of public and political discourse. This is especially true in the case of climate change. Because of this issue, for the first time we are witnessing a direct clash between science and politics, whereas formerly such clashes only occurred between politics and the economy or politics and ideology, for example. Climate change provokes strong political conflicts because proposed solutions require the reduction of some economically productive endeavors. Such changes are costly; in fact, scientists posit that the main cause of climate change is the burning of gas, oil, and coal to produce energy, which accounts for 80% of global energy production.1 The History of Interest in Climate Change The debate on climate change, on whether the temperature at the Earth’s surface is really increasing, and if so, whether this rise in temperature is due to human activities, was never exclusively engaged in between scientists and politicians (who agree that science evaluates the degree of damage suffered by the planet but that science alone cannot determine what we must do). The debate also rages among scientists themselves; some have critiqued what they view as increasingly alarmist warnings of climate change. For example, Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) argued that Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, (1) Andrew Dessler and Edward Parson, The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), trans. Abdulmaqsood Abdulkarim (EgyptNational Center for Translation, 2014). 5 who puts money into science—whether for AIDS, or space, or climate—where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy- investment decisions.2 Scientists’ interests, climate research, and climate change research form an old and complex dynamic, which is difficult for the nonexpert to understand. Therefore, this report is not meant to be an academic inquiry, but rather an attempt to tease out the shifts and interests in our reaction to climate change. More generally, it examines the transformation of a humanist environmentalist issue, viewed as the preservation of the planet for future generations, into a political card to be played, in the vein of human rights or women’s rights. The report also aims to answer questions such as: How has the interest in the environment and climate change become a barometer for the advancement of countries? Is it a burden on developed countries? Or is it an aid in technological development and the preservation of the planet and humanity? The question could be posed inversely: Do industrial nations fulfill their duty toward those who are hurt by their activities, considering that they are the beneficiaries of industry, whereas less developed countries are affected by climate change since they have no method of confronting it? Historically, climate change did not attract the attention of politicians until the 1980s, when unprecedented rises in temperatures were observed in the United States. In addition, the cessation of wars and the decrease in popular uprisings may have contributed to drawing politicians’ attention to climate change, as there was now a space for the voice of science and for thinking about ways to avoid a potential danger. Interest also became widespread among citizens and the media, which caused Time magazine to name the endangered planet Earth as the “Person of the Year” in 1988. (2) Richard Lindzen, “Climate of Fear: Global Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence,” Wall Street Journal, April 12, 2006. 6 The Intermingling of Science and Politics in the Issue of Climate Change Political interest in climate change, as well as pressure from environmental organizations, led to the signing of the United Nations’ Kyoto Protocol in 1997, which represented an executive step for the UN resolution on climate change, an international treaty that entails legal commitments to the reduction of certain gas emissions produced by industrial nations that cause climate change. A time period was determined, from 2008 to 2012, and thirty- eight countries reduced gas emissions to varying degrees during that period. The reduction goal was 8% for the European Union, which would bring emission levels to below what they were in 1990. For the United States and Japan, reduction levels were set at 7% and 6%, respectively. These reductions covered six gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxide, and three types of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).3 Moreover, one of the items of the treaty was that developed countries be required to finance the transportation of technologies to developing countries, especially environmentally friendly technologies in fields such as energy and transportation. Even though the treaty entered into the implementation stage, a rift occurred between two camps: the United States, Russia, Japan, and Canada, on the one hand, and the European countries, on the other. Disagreements arose regarding flexibility in reducing emissions. The United States’ objection during the presidency of George W. Bush centered on the assertion that the requirements negatively affected the American economy, as well as the fact that emissions from developing countries were not reduced. It was difficult for the United States to accept that countries such as China and India were not offering concessions in reducing their emission rates (due to the postponement of China and India’s commitments to a later date). Bush then proposed alternative concessions: an increase in support for research on climate change, tax incentives for alternative energy resources and high-efficiency vehicles, and other programs to incentivize manufacturers to voluntarily reduce emissions.4 (3) United Nations, “Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,” 1998, https://unfccc. int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf. (4) Dessler and Edward, Science and Politics of Global Climate Change. 7 A climate change summit was held every year under the auspices of the United Nations. Climate change conferences went through many difficulties to arrive at recommendations that guarantee abiding by the reduction of emissions that cause climate change, but simultaneously avoiding negative effects on countries’ economies. One of the most important of such conferences was the Bali Conference, which took place in response to the impending end of the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol in 2007 in order to arrive at a new agreement following the end of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012, and the allocation of a new timetable by 2009 to ratify a new agreement at that time. The expectation was that the United States would change its policy by adopting protocols that were more cooperative, with the recommendations coming out of talks surrounding climate change that coincided with the 2008 presidential election and the introduction of an administration more amenable to environmentalism. A meeting was held in Paris in 2015 that aimed to arrive at an agreement that would reduce emissions that cause climate change. The agreement was signed in New York in 2016, and Saudi Arabia officially was a participant. However, President Donald Trump’s announcement that the United States would withdraw from the agreement in the middle of 2017 reignited the debate on the effectiveness of international cooperation and whether the United Nations had the authority to enforce international treaties and agreements. Nonetheless, a UN conference on climate change was held in Katowice, Poland, in December 2018 to implement the Paris agreement and approve the start of a program to implement it. Even though the awareness of environmentalist problems has increased, and in spite of the (marginal) progress in talks related to climate change, there remains a tension between the political and scientific fields due to the divergence in goals and methods between them.

Load more