Picture from {link:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jonesy22}Jonesy22 {/link} page in Wikimedia Commons
It could be described as the ability to shape the preferences of others and attract them so that they want what you want. It is Soft Power and it is crucial in order to create a narrative of climate change which is widely accepted. But soft power alone isn’t enough: we need smart power, a combination of soft power and hard power.
Prof. Joseph S. Nye (Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government) talks about the role of transnationl institutions, the new american course on climate policy and “How could we get everybody into the act and still get action”. “We are going to have to use a variety of international institutions and focus the European phrase, Variable Geometry”, Prof. Nye says to Climate Science&Policy.
Soft, Smart, and Hard. A Combination of Power for International Climate Politics
Soft power, the ability to attract, is set partly by the example: if Europe is doing very well in managing its carbon emissions, that may make it attractive. But its soft power also establishes a narrative, for example the IPCC creates the view, which is widely accepted that there is a major danger from business as usual. Then that narrative creates a tendency for people to want to move in that direction. So that’s another dimension, which is not just an example but also the narrative that’s created. But I would say that soft power alone isn’t enough. There also has to be some hard power which is essentially payments and the payments can take the form of transfers or they could take the form of border adjustment taxes on lets say the carbon content of countries that don’t participate. So, a combination of soft power and hard power is smart power. I think you could find Developing Countries to contribute to this narrative. Obliviously states that are likely to be affected, the Baltic Islands or the various islands that work together in the UN meetings; they also have a certain amount of soft power and so it’s not just the narrative created by the rich or the powerful.
Obama and the New American Course on Climate Politics
Obama has changed the rhetoric of the American decision. In the Bush Administration there was not a favourable rhetoric about climate change. Obama has basically said we take it seriously, we want to work with others, and indeed his participation at Copenhagen helped to rescue something at the end of some political agreement even if not a binding legal treaty. So I think Obama has taken it seriously. The difficulty is more in terms of being able to pass energy legislation at home which depends on the congress and that has been less successful.
Variable Geometry. A Useful Definition for Climate Institutions
I think we are going to have to use a variety of institutions to use the European phrase, “Variable Geometry”. The UN framework is going to be important for legitimisation, but it’s not been very useful for negotiation because there are some countries that basically are spoilers and are not terribly interested. But if you had a G20 that would recover about 85% of the countries that are responsible for emissions then it’s easier to bargain in a smaller group. You’re going to also need some form of representation of those who are most effected to make sure their interests are taken into account so some people are G30 to make sure that that includes the most severely affected countries.
Narratives and Transnational Institutions
Well, transnational institutions can develop a narrative. They can provide the information, which also allows countries to understand their self-interests better. The IPCC I think does that. One could also imagine informal monitoring of those groups that basically give an independent opinion on whether a country which says its going to reduce its carbon intensity, actually is reducing the carbon intensity as much as it says so I think they can play a variety of roles.
USA/China: Are We Coming Back to a Bipolar World?
No, I don’t agree with that. I don’t think you can talk seriously about solving climate problems with just the US and China. Europe is still an economy, which is larger than the US, slightly. And Japan is still an economy, which is about the same size as China. So to imagine trying to deal with a trans-national global problem like climate without Europe and Japan doesn’t make sense. So I think we are going to need ways in which we organise the major stings to work out hard bargains about how we are going to solve this and that’s obliviously going to have to include the US and China since those are the two largest emitters but it’s also going to have to include Europe, Japan and a number of other countries.
Get Everybody into The Act. International Relations and Climate Change
Well, I think at this stage we need to think a lot about the International Relations. In other words, how do you organise so that we can manage this? There is a wonderful expression by a diplomat named Harlan Cleveland, which was, “How do you get everybody into the act and still get action?” And that problem is with us in climate change. When you are dealing with 192 countries all together at the same time, everybody’s in the act but it’s hard to get action. At the other hand you need to find ways if you have bargaining among smaller groups to relate back to the larger groups for legitimacy and enforcement so I think international relations and looking at the problem of institutions is going to be an essential question.