What Do Realists Think About Climate Change?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
What do realists think about climate change? 13th November 2015 Daniel Heffron, Junior Researcher, North America Programme [email protected] Centre for Geopolitics & Security in Realism Studies, 20-22 Wenlock Road, London N1 7GU, United Kingdom www.cgsrs.com / [email protected] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Realism is one of the oldest theories of international relations (IR) that has done much to explain why states go to war, and how states respond to potential threats. The threat of climate change, however, is relatively new. Climate change has become a major talking point on the international political agenda. Scientists have agreed that the burning of fossil fuels into the atmosphere and global deforestation, are causing the earth to warm at an alarming rate. An increase of the earth’s temperature in excess of 2°C above pre-industrial levels, will have a dangerous impact across the globe. Such a shift would cause additional and more abrupt changes in weather patterns, affecting the security of millions. This paper examines what realist think about climate change, and whether realism can stay relevant to the discussion on climate change. Whilst many sub-strands of realism do not offer solutions to combat climate change, a defensive realist approach can be used to rationalise state action to balance against this threat. Critiques of realism are offered in order to highlight how the theory can develop a dialogue about climate change. Copyright© of the Centre for Geopolitics & Security in Realism Studies (CGSRS) 2 | Daniel Heffron ANALYSIS Introduction new Clean Energy Plan, which will move the Over the past century the international system country towards renewable energy and away has witnessed two world wars, a cold war from coal energy, by proposing to cut carbon between two superpowers, interstate war, and emissions from power plants by 32% by 2030 increasingly intrastate war. Today, the (Vaughan 2015). Similarly, the European possibility of war is a constant threat for states Union (EU) has vowed to cut its carbon in the international system. In international emissions by 40% by 2030 (Nelsen 2014). relations (IR) theory realism has provided a These commitments precede the Conference solid discussion of states behaviour and of the Parties (COP21) meeting in Paris this rationale for going to war. For realists, states December, to be attended by all United exist in an international system of anarchy, Nations (UN) member states to try and agree and in order to survive states must rely on on a set of international climate goals. their own might and ability to exert power. Power can translate into the ability to Since the 1970s, climate change has gradually influence other states or into having large scaled the international political agenda, scale military capabilities. In an environment starting with the establishment of the United where the intentions of other actors are never Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) known, states are locked in an insecure world in 1972, and the 1992 signature of the first and must choose the most rational options to treaty on climate change, the United Nations survive. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Rio de Janeiro. This is largely However, there is a global threat that does not due to nations across the globe beginning to discriminate between states and state borders. feel the effects of climate change, from Climate change is a global issue that affects extreme weather events such as large scale the way ordinary people live and the way flooding and droughts, to agricultural crises states operate in the international system. It and dangerously polluted air, warming oceans, has caught the attention of citizens, businesses and ocean acidification. The climate change and policymakers alike. There is a global threat is unlike the security threats that states movement to convince states to change their have faced in the past. This paper will analyse 20th century behaviours and significantly whether realism can help address the threat of reduce their carbon emissions. If global climate change, and if so, how? Climate temperatures are allowed to rise 2°C above change is part of a new agenda of pre-industrial levels the world will witness international relations, whilst realism deals rising sea levels, severe drought, massive with the traditional agenda. Can realism help floods, melting polar ice caps, agricultural tackle the threat of climate change? Or, will crises, water depletion, and potential interstate the theory have to be modified in order to conflict over dwindling resources (Carter stay relevant to the discussion on climate 2010, pp.52-53). This summer United States change? This paper first will define realism (US) President Barack Obama revealed the and climate change, then discuss how realists Copyright© of the Centre for Geopolitics & Security in Realism Studies (CGSRS) 3 | What do realists think about climate change? view climate change. Whilst the majority of own survival. There is no global emergency realist thought does not offer solutions to number that a state can call if it is invaded by combat climate change, a defensive realist another, more powerful, state. This leads to approach can be used to rationalise state the third and final assumption inherent in alliances to balance against the threat. realism, that all states within the anarchic system seek power. Here power can be What is realism? narrowly defined as military capabilities. In order to understand what realists think Realist scholars disagree on why states seek about climate change, we first must power (Morgenthau 1954, Waltz 1979, understand what realists think about Mearsheimer 2013, Schweller 2004). However, international political society. Realism, or all realists agree that states strive for power as realpolitiks, is one of the most longstanding a means of survival. This collective struggle and popular theoretical traditions in for power, combined with the limited international relations. At its core, realism distribution of power in the anarchic holds assumptions about human nature, international system, cause great power power, and morality. Despite the different politics, regional arms races, and endless branches of realism – classical realism, security competition. structural realism, rise and fall realism, and neoclassical realism – all realists share three For realists, a prudent foreign policy is one core assumptions about the international that aims to secure the national interest, system. protect a state’s survival, and obtain more power. Conversely, an imprudent foreign First, realists affirm that sovereign states are policy entrusts the well-being and survival of the principal actors in the international the state to international institutions, such as system. The legitimacy and autonomy of the the UN. Nor is it prudent policymaking to state enables it to exercise authority within its sacrifice the national interest in an effort to internal borders (Dunne and Schmidt 2014, adhere to “some indeterminate notion of p.101). Second, states exist and interact within ‘ethical’ conduct” (Dunne and Schmidt, an anarchic system. The international system p.100). Thus, a realist would argue that a is defined as anarchic due to the lack of a moral foreign policy could leave a state more world government with authority over vulnerable to external threats. However, the sovereign states. Various international, ability to maneuver and avoid external threats supranational and transnational institutions to a state is “an iron law of necessity” (Dunne and non-state actors, such as the UN, EU, and Schmidt, p.101). and World Trade Organsiation (WTO), create norms and rules within the international Whilst the three core assumptions discussed system for states to abide by. However, these above are accepted by all realists, several international actors “do not possess the strands of realist thought diverge on issues legitimacy or military capabilities that states such as; why states seek power, and how do” (Pearson 2015, p.2). In an anarchic states respond to threats. These various realist system states are compelled to secure their perspectives will be outlined briefly in order Copyright© of the Centre for Geopolitics & Security in Realism Studies (CGSRS) 4 | Daniel Heffron to fully assess a realist interpretation of power is the currency to ensure the survival climate change. of the state within an anarchic international system. Classical realism Classical realism stems from the historical and Defensive realism political writings of Thucydides (1972), Structural realists are divided into two groups: Niccolò Machiavelli (1532) and Thomas defensive realists and offensive realists. The Hobbes (1651). However, it was Hans two branches of structural realism diverge on Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations (1954) the question of ‘how much power is enough?’ that became the modern standard bearer for Kenneth Waltz (1979, p.126) is considered a political realism. Writing in the aftermath of defensive realist because he argues that states World War II, Morgenthau (1954) argues that should not aim to “maximize their power”, states are doomed to conflict and tragedy due but rather should accumulate enough power to humans’ natural will to survive and will to to “maintain their positions in the system” power. In this view, states are motivated to (Watlz, p.126). If a single state becomes too accumulate power and secure the national powerful, it will be perceived by neighbouring interest because these are naturally human