The Conversation/Ash Murphy: What George Bush and the neocons can teach us about fighting climate change

The Conversation
    Edition:

Available editions
Africa

    Job Board

    Become an author
    Sign up as a reader
    Sign in

The Conversation
Academic rigour, journalistic flair

    Arts + Culture
    Business + Economy
    Education
    Environment + Energy
    Health + Medicine
    Politics + Society
    Science + Technology
    In French

What George Bush and the neocons can teach us about fighting climate change
June 14, 2019 5.17pm SAST
Carl De Souza/PA
Author

    Ash Murphy

    PhD Researcher, International Environmental Governance, Keele University

Disclosure statement

This article is part of a wider research project currently being undertaken by the author. Ash Murphy has no other relevant affiliations or interests to declare.
Partners

Keele University

Keele University provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

The Conversation is funded by the National Research Foundation, eight universities, including the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Rhodes University, Stellenbosch University and the Universities of Cape Town, Johannesburg, Kwa-Zulu Natal, Pretoria, and South Africa. It is hosted by the Universities of the Witwatersrand and Western Cape, the African Population and Health Research Centre and the Nigerian Academy of Science. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a Strategic Partner. more
Republish this article

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons licence.

    Email
    Twitter6
    Facebook3
    LinkedIn
    Print

Be under no illusion, the world is losing the fight against climate change. The amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere continues to increase, meaning humanity is forcing the Earth closer to cataclysmic alterations that will reshape the entire biosphere. But the UK could capitalise on the momentum gained through its recent net zero emissions pledge to take the lead and herald a shift towards serious global climate action. How? By copying a strategy followed by – of all people – the George W Bush-era neoconservatives.

Hear me out. Those who disagree with my opening statement will of course point to the Paris Agreement: a global alliance that boasts 185 signatories fighting back against climate change. Yet Paris is a reflection of international law, which means it represents only the lowest common denominator that those negotiating parties could agree. For this reason the agreement is premised on state discretion, taking the form of “nationally determined contributions” where countries decide for themselves how much they will cut their emissions.

The agreement does have positive attributes, and there is scope to argue that it is useful. But it is not able to compel states to hit the ambitious targets necessary to stave off the threat of more warming. Climate Tracker illustrates this by finding that five states are “critically insufficient” in their efforts to prevent more than a 1.5°C increase, and a further 19 states are at least “insufficient”.
Beyond the Paris Agreement?

Countries could instead deal with contentious international threats by stepping away from the usual processes of international law, and introducing frameworks that aim to uncompromisingly challenge the root of the menace. And there is some precedent. One example is the 2003 Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) – a set of principles designed predominantly by the US to curb the international transfer of materials related to nuclear weapons.

Crucially the PSI was not negotiated. Instead states were invited to endorse a framework of principles that had already been created. The argument was that a typical treaty would be too slow, too cumbersome, and reflect the usual challenges of international law, ruling out any serious responses.

The PSI was able to attract 11 countries at its inception, and currently 107 countries have endorsed its principles. Its success is measured by the fact it is still in operation today and is considered to have increased cooperation and indeed reduced the transfer of nuclear weapon material.
Hardline neoconservative John Bolton, now president Trump’s national security adviser, helped set up the PSI in his then role as under-secretary of state for arms control. Christopher Halloran / shutterstock

The context was of course 9/11, which drove the US and its allies to pursue aggressive international policy absent any meaningful reflection on what those policies would mean for the multilateral landscape. Among the neocons who partly ran Bush’s foreign policy, the prevailing mood was that extreme times call for extreme measures against a threat they could not easily grasp. Sound familiar?

There is a certain irony in linking the PSI to climate change, as the same Bush administration was actively against a robust climate policy. Yet though it lacks in international diplomacy, the same strategy offers clear practical advantages.

The PSI was only possible because the US was determined that the threat of nuclear weapons was so severe that it had to lead on a response. This is precisely the type of leadership that is lacking on climate change.
A role for the UK?

There have been some positives in 2018, and the UK has emerged as a potential climate leader. Following the paralysis of London by activist group Extinction Rebellion, the UK parliament took the unprecedented step of declaring a climate emergency, though what this means precisely remains unclear. Then there was the announcement of legislation to target net zero emissions by 2050 by the outgoing prime minister, Theresa May.
Extinction Rebellion protest in London, April 2019. photopsist / shutterstock

So how to capitalise on that momentum, and spread it worldwide? My suggestion is that the UK follow the precedent of the PSI and create a Climate Security Initiative (CSI). A CSI could encompass a set of bold principles to reduce emissions and champion green technology, going well beyond the Paris Agreement and propelling the UK into a leadership position that other like-minded states would be able to support.

There already exist a number of states that could form an initial CSI group, all willing to commit to radical steps to fight climate change. Ireland, for instance, has also declared a climate emergency. New Zealand, too, has begun the legislative process to become carbon neutral by 2050, while Finland has targeted 2035.

Of course the proliferation threat does differ from climate change. The latter is intrinsically linked to the global economy and the behaviour of billions of people. Decarbonising humanity will mean radical change on an unprecedented scale, spanning from the state to the individual. Yet we can choose to control this change through net zero aspirations, or we can have it forced on us through a radially altered climate not necessarily conducive to human existence.

The benefit of a CSI approach is that not only can it be designed to meet the threat head on, something the Paris Agreement has failed to do, but also if led by the UK it will help to counteract the narrative that the developed world simply isn’t doing enough to combat its historic role in emissions creation. A CSI offers the UK a way to transfer its recent political declarations into tangible action, without being stifled by international law.

If the UK really wants to “lead the world to a cleaner, greener form of growth” it has to look beyond the Paris Agreement, and beyond its own borders – something a Climate Security Initiative could achieve.

Click here to subscribe to our climate action newsletter. Climate change is inevitable. Our response to it isn’t.

    Climate change
    International law
    Nuclear proliferation
    Paris Agreement
    climate action

    Tweet
    Share
    Get newsletter

You might also like
We asked people to do climate change maths. Their answers depended on their politics
Sustainable finance: Canada risks being left behind in low-carbon economy
Mexico puts US to shame on climate action, but new president’s pledge on oil industry is worrying
Cars of the future that will help fight climate change – Imagine newsletter #3
Sign in to comment
6 Comments
Oldest Newest

Show all comments
Most popular on The Conversation

    How Africa’s porous borders make it difficult to contain Ebola
    The three big studies pushing at the frontiers of HIV prevention
    Young women in Soweto say healthy living is hard. Here’s why
    Concentration camps in the South African War? Here are the real facts
    Lions sometimes suffer if they attack a porcupine. So why do they do it?

    June 12 is now Democracy Day in Nigeria. Why it matters
    Study shows young South Africans have no faith in democracy and politicians
    Employed but still poor: the state of low-wage working poverty in South Africa
    How technology could help rural South Africa turn sunshine into income
    Adherence is delaying HIV elimination targets. What’s needed to break the cycle

Expert Database

    Find experts with knowledge in:*

Want to write?

Write an article and join a growing community of more than 85,500 academics and researchers from 2,871 institutions.

Register now
The Conversation
Community

    Community standards
    Republishing guidelines
    Research and Expert Database
    Analytics
    Job Board
    Our feeds

Company

    Who we are
    Our charter
    Our team
    Partners and funders
    Resource for media
    Contact us

Stay informed and subscribe to our free daily newsletter and get the latest analysis and commentary directly in your inbox.
Email address
Follow us on social media

Privacy policy Terms and conditions Corrections

Copyright © 2010–2019, The Conversation Africa, Inc.