Rulers and the ruled

Last December hopes were high, and expectations soared as 197 countries sent representatives to the city of Copenhagen to take part in the United Nations sponsored talks on greenhouse emissions and global climate change. Despite President Obama’s comment that these talks were “meaningful,” these hopes were dashed, and expectations left so low that few even bothered to attend the talks held this year in Cancun. Talks have been going on for years, hopes have risen and ebbed, and yet little has been decided upon and almost nothing implemented. This year there isn’t even hope that talks will turn into action.

But why should there be? Experience and study tells us the same thing: international climate treaties can never be agreed upon, much less implemented. The modern world is one of nation states, which are limited by territory, and it is better that the Irish and the Indians govern themselves as opposed to being governed by some foreign global empire (after all, will the United Nations do better than the British?). Although globalization has made these states more and more interconnected by treaties, trade agreements, international organizations and methods of communication such as the internet, these states remain separate entities concerned above all with their own well-being and that of their people, their economies and their national security. Within any ruling body, the United Nations included, some people rule and others are ruled. The rulers always benefit more from ruling than do the ruled. Indeed, ruling often occurs at the expense of the ruled. Even where the rulers do not exploit the ruled, nations have interests. International climate treaties are antithetical to these interests, because climate change is not an issue for a particular territory but for the world in general. The well-being of the world is important to every country. If it were not, talks on global climate change would never have been initiated. The problem is not in the acknowledgement of the importance of the environment; it is in its degree of importance ranked among all of the other interests of a state, such as a healthy economy, security and feeding its people. For some countries, caring about global climate change and protecting its other national interests are mutually exclusive.

A state’s sovereignty is necessary for its national security and the well being of the particular citizens of the particular state. Without the power to act in order to protect itself, whether militarily or economically, a state is unable to do the very thing for which it was created — to give its people safety and security. Important as the climate may be, no state is willing to sacrifice too much of its sovereignty to an international treaty whose short turn effect may damage the nation’s interests. The economic stability of a country can be as important to its security as its military prowess. Poverty breeds discontent and, in extreme cases, revolts. It decreases the state’s power on the international arena and makes it impossible to sustain a powerful military force. On the other hand, rising economic standards often breed contentment and stability. Yet many of the economies of countries today, especially developing countries, are based upon methods of production, which contribute to CO2 emissions and climate change. No matter how concerned these countries are about the world climate, in the long run they will never be willing to sacrifice their short term power and stability. It is for this reason that the Kyoto Protocol has failed, and the Copppenhagen and Cancun talks are just that: talking and nothing more. There is no “global” treaty that will not favor one people over another, one set of rulers over those that they rule.

But aside from the inability for countries to agree and act upon global climate change treaties, there is a more fundamental question surrounding them: would a global climate change treaty actually change the world for the better? On an international scale, the answer to this question seems obvious: preventing CO2 emissions and global climate change would, of course, be a good thing. But would climate treaties actually accomplish this? The reality is that it probably wouldn’t.

Any international treaty is dependent upon the willingness of its signatories to obey the edicts of the treaty. International agreements have only as much power as is given to them by sovereign nations. If passed, the likelihood of certain developing countries to actually accede to the demands of the treaty is little to none. If they agreed to sign, the countries that would actually enact the demands of the treaty would be those who are more highly developed and had less to lose i.e. the Western democratic states. Those who see their economies hardest hit would never conform to the treaty. Therefore, the United States and the Western European countries would decrease their carbon emissions, which would have the effect of limiting their production methods. This would cause them to use more expensive energy, which would in turn make their products even more expensive and thereby lose markets. The western countries would export their admissions to other countries and let less developed countries raise their carbon admissions, while we in the west claim that we have done our part. Instead, countries like India, China and Brazil would move into these vacated markets. This exchange would actually cause the rate of carbon emissions to increase because, even without limiting their carbon emission in order to conform to a global climate treaty, the Western countries use methods that produce less carbon emissions. So perhaps we should not feel as if our hopes have been dashed in the wake of Copenhagen, instead we should rule ourselves as we think best.