'Top down' or 'bottom up' - different discourses on tackling climate change. Part 1.

The top down approach: The opening conference at COP15
Source: Wikipedia 

Regardless of whether you consider the Copenhagen conference a success or failure (see my last blog), the failure to reach even the lightest nonbinding deceleration led many to question the bleak prospects of the consensus-based UN process for responding to climate change (Dimitrov, 2010). Not only did the conference failed to reach a global climate deal but also 'laid bare the deep fissures in climate politics that make a global deal ever less likely' (Falkner et al., 2010). It has been suggested that Realpolitik became the norm in Copenhagen with promotion of national interests over the pursuit of a costly global climate solution. Does this, as Falkner et al., 2010 argue, signal the end of the global deal strategy?

Since 1992 governments of the world have pursued a strong, integrated and comprehensive regulatory framework system for managing climate change. However, Keohane et al., (2011) argues that efforts have instead created a varied array of narrowly-focused regulatory regimes which they call the "regime complex for climate change". These have been crafted in a context of diverse interests, high uncertainty, and shifting linkages. They are not integrated, comprehensive, or arranged in a clear hierarchy. Furthermore, there is no single climate change problem, each with attributes, challenges and political constituencies. These problems are associated with diverse interests, power, information and beliefs creating significant challenges for international cooperation (for greater detail see Keohane et al., 2011).

All this points towards the infeasibility of a strong comprehensive regime, underlining how challenging an international problem climate change is to manage. Yet the global deal strategy has continued to prevail in international environmental politics. Why? Falkner et al. (2010) suggests four reasons why it still remains dominant today.

1. A global legally binding treaty that contains firm and measurable commitments are more likely to be effective in securing lasting emission reductions than a system of voluntary pledges.
2. Multilateral environmental policy focused on creating a comprehensive regulatory regime has led to the growth of vital institutions that support global environmental governance (Scientific, reporting, financial aid etc.).
3. Firm commitments which form part of a legally binding deal sends strong messages to private actors throughout the economy and private sector, reducing uncertainty and enabling the reduction in transaction costs promoting proactive responses.
4. Regardless of the success of achieving a global deal, striving for such an outcome helps to maintain political momentum in international negotiations, setting high ambitions and expectations to maintain pressure for positive progress.

For part 2 click here