The Political and Economic Issues of Global Warming and the Ozone Layer - Earth Science Essay


The Political and Economic Issues of Global Warming and the Ozone Layer - Earth Science Essay
This essay will take two contrasting case studies, global warming and the ozone layer, to show both the

successes and failures that have so far been gained in dealing with this issue. The political economy of the two case studies will be analysed from the three main theoretical points which will aim to explain why the main state actors acted as they did or did not.

2. Global Environmental Degradation
2.1 Definition
Environmental degradation is the transformation of an ecosystem in a negative manner that affects the conditions and/or the quality and quantity of flora/fauna in the ecosystem (Held et al. 2000:377). Due to the interlinked nature of ecosystems, when the natural ecology of an area is destroyed, the environment will also be altered. For example, over farming can lead to the desertification of once arable land and excessive urbanisation can cause an increase in flooding. This degradation can occur on a local, transnational or global scale. At the local level fly tipping in rural woodland will only have an impact on the immediate area. At the transnational level are the problems of cross boundary pollution, for example the accusation by Scandinavian countries that a large proportion of the acid rain falling on their countries originates from industrial outputs from the UK (ITE 1997:80). At the global level are problems that affect what are known as the global commons. The are resources that are considered to be the common ownership of humanity, upon which no state can have a sole claim to sovereignty or authority over them, for example the atmosphere or the ocean beds (Held et al 2000:378). Global environmental degradation is therefore any process that affects these environmental global commons in a negative manner.

2.2 Forms
Mainly due to restrictions of space this essay will be concerned with global environmental degradation issues. However, this is also the area of study that has resulted in a significant area of both international cooperation and conflict, demonstrated by the successes, and failures, of the many international regimes established to attempt to deal with the problems. Regardless of ones view on whether globalization is a new distinct phenomenon or not (Held 2000:10), it is clearly the case that global environmental degradation on the current scale is the product of the globalization of commerce and industrialisation. At the dawn of the industrial revolution environmental degradation was mainly localised, for example the “pea-soup” fogs caused by coal burning in Victorian England (Hunt 2004). As industrialisation has spread around the world and increased in density in the developed world so has environmental damage (Vig 1999:1). It is also a significant area to study due to the inherently economic and political nature of the causes and perpetuation of the problem. The issue of global environmental degradation is one that has been discussed in many disciplines, from the natural sciences through to social science disciplines such as Security Studies and International Relations (cf Buzan et al 1998). The globalization of environmental degradation has widened the range of the problem, indeed it has now arguably become all humanities problem rather than just a few, however due to both geography and economics, the burdens of global warming will not be distributed equally among humanity as is discussed below (Ross & Blackmore 1991:175)
2.2 A brief history of global responses
Since global environmental degradation first crept onto the international agenda in the seventies there have been numerous attempts at setting up solid international regimes to help to combat the problem, the most significant being the establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1972 (Greene 2001:390). This was established as a result of the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment and aimed to establish a coordinated multinational effort to recognise and attempt to solve problems of environmental degradation at all levels and to conceptualise environmental damage in the context of development. (ibid.). There have also sprung up numerous NGO groups since then, for example Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace founded in 1969 and 1971 respectively (FOE 2004; Greenpeace 2004 ). Despite this progress reaching a global consensus on how to prevent damage to the global commons has been slow.

3. Case Study #1: The depletion of the ozone layer and the Montreal Protocol

3.1 The Ozone Layer and CFCs
Ozone (O3) is a form of oxygen with one electron in its outer shell, making it highly reactive, that is found in the stratosphere layer of the atmosphere. It is formed when radiation from the sun splits oxygen atoms (O2) into individual molecules, which then bond with O2 atoms to form O3 (Blackmore 1996:90). Ozone plays a vital part in the atmosphere by absorbing radiation from the sun and keeping the temperature on the Earth so that it can support life. At present under ideal conditions the amount of ozone in the stratosphere is about 10 parts per million per volume (ACDR 2003).

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are a wide family of man made inert chemical gasses composed of chlorine, fluorine and carbon (Hardy 2003:18). When they were discovered in the 1930s they were believed to be the ideal gasses for refrigeration, propellants in aerosols, industrial solvents and for making foamed plastics due to their stable, non-flammable and non-toxic properties (Blackmore 1996:70). It is only when they are released into the atmosphere that they become a problem; as CFCs are lighter than air they rise high into the atmosphere when released. It is when they reach the layer of ozone in the stratosphere that problems occur. In the stratosphere they are broken down by radiation from the sun, causing a chemical reaction to take place that destroys ozone. Due to the stable nature of the halon molecules from CFCs they are not destroyed; one molecule of chlorine for example can destroy 100,000 ozone ones (Hardy 2003:18). This process is only limited by the amount of chlorine atoms available in the atmosphere and destroys ozone at a much higher rate than nature can create it, resulting in depletion of the protective ozone layer (ACDR 2003). Depletion of the ozone layer on a large scale would result in the planet becoming increasingly hotter, causing a rise in skin cancer, cataracts and damage to crops, amongst other effects (Thomas 1992:207).
3.2 International Response
Concern first arose over the damage that CFCs may cause to the ozone layer in the 1970s in the US. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after a long and protracted struggle with chemical manufactures led by DuPont, banned the use of all CFCs except for essential uses such as refrigeration (Greene 2001:402). In 1984 it was discovered that there was massive loss in the atmospheric ozone over Antarctica each spring, which became known as the “ozone hole”. By 1988 it had been proven conclusively by science that this was due to CFC release into the atmosphere and that the problem would continue for as long they were discharged into the atmosphere (Blackmore 1996:71). Other developed states soon followed suite (ACDR 2003). The first international regime aimed at dealing with the problem of ozone depletion was the 1985 Vienna Convention which established a framework for solving the issue (Molitor 1999:222) after widespread publicity and concern over the effect of CFCs. The Montreal Protocol of 1989 was the result of the Vienna Convention. Under the Protocol CFC usage was to be reduced by 50% by the year 2000 (Greene 2001:401). . Most states were persuaded to join, though developing states, led by China and India, were only persuaded to join once a Multilateral Fund was established by the industrialized states to pay the incremental costs occurred by the Protocol. The Protocol has been the subject of many amendments and the date of phasing out CFCs was moved forwards eventually to 1996 for developed countries and 2010 for developing countries (UNEP 2003).

The ozone hole issue was easily solved due a combination of science, economics and politics. International cooperation to limit the damage to the ozone layer has been a major success; with ozone depleting substances (ODS) now believed to be at their peak in the stratosphere. Due to the long life time of CFCs already in the stratosphere there will be an estimated lag time of up to a decade before the ozone layer is at its full natural level (UNEP 2003:4.3). Figure 1 shows the global decrease in CFC production. The EU and the US had both phased out their stocks of CFCs by 1996, although the developing world proved more difficult (Greene 2001:401). The MLF established by the richer states at the Montreal Protocol was the most important method by which developing states were helped to cease production. In addition to the MLF a programme of technology transfer was established (Parson 1995:50). The MLF was administered by an executive committee consisting of representatives from each region on the planet and operates through the World Bank, UNEP and the UN Development Program (ibid.).

Figure 1
4. Case Study #2: Global Warming and the Kyoto Protocol
4.1 The Greenhouse Effect and human contribution to it
The Earth’s atmosphere is composed of 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, and 0.93% argon, however it is the trace gasses which constitute only the tiny remaining percentage of the atmosphere that most affect climate (Hardy 2003:3). The main trace substances in the atmosphere are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) (ibid. p5), known as greenhouse gasses due to their role in the greenhouse effect. As the sun’s energy travels through the Earth’s atmosphere, 26% of the energy is reflected back into space by clouds and particles in the atmosphere. 19% is absorbed by clouds and gasses in the atmosphere and 4% is reflected off the surface off the Earth (Gow & Pidwiny 1996). Only approximately 51% of the suns energy is transferred to the surface of the earth where it causes photosynthesis, heats the ground etc. When the radiation from the sun is absorbed or reflected in the atmosphere it reduces the wavelength of the radiation reaching the ground. This is a vital part of the global ecosystem, without it the planet would be devoid of life; however it is human agency that is causing the present day problem by amplifying the natural effect (Fraser 2003). As a result the radiation reradiated from the earth is of a lot shorter wavelength, and gets trapped by the atmosphere, producing an insulating effect. This effect is shown in figure 2.

Figure 2
4.2 International Response
Although the greenhouse effect is a vital natural occurrence, there is strong scientific evidence that human agency, especially due to industrialization is increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses present in the atmosphere. This has the effect of thus increasing the greenhouse effect beyond its natural levels, causing the planet to warm up (Ross & Blackmore 1991:149; Greene 2001:404; Held et al 2000:384). Through the seventies and eighties there were many international programmes and agreements established, though none of major significance until the agreement in 1989 that there should be an “Earth Summit” in 1992 at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Green 2001:393). In 1990 the United Nations Environment Program set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which published Policymakers Summary of the Scientific Assessment of Climate Change, the first scientific report of international significance to acknowledge the problem. The opening page of the report stated.

“these increases [in the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere] will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in additional warming of the Earth’s surface” (cited in Thomas 1992: 157-158)

At the Rio conference all the states present agreed upon a set of principals and aims, including the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to combat ozone depletion and global warming (Green 2001:405). Under article 2 of the Convention states were committed to achieving stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentration that would contribute to global warming (NEF 2003:2). The next summit was at Kyoto where states agreed to implement the principals agreed at Rio. The “Kyoto Protocol” as this became known included an agreement that states would work to lower their greenhouse gas emissions, which aimed to become legally binding once ratified by the signatory states (ibid. p408). Annex I countries (OECD states plus selected former Soviet Bloc states) were to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 5.2% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012 (NEF 2003:2). The treaty was ratified by the EU but significantly not by the US, Russia or Australia (ibid.) A system of emissions trading was also proposed, however there was no agreement on mandatory limitations due to US disagreement, as such the list of targets was just seen as recommendations (ibid. p229), resulting in the treaty getting off to a weak start.

The extent and rate of global warming is still debated in the scientific community as some claim it may be no more than a natural cycle in the Earth’s climate, however there is near universal agreement that the release of greenhouse gasses into the environment is worsening the problem (Beckerman 1992:pp254-255). There is also uncertainty about the rate and extent at which global warming will occur, a factor that has hindered political efforts to combat the problem (Hodge 1995:175; Lomborg 1998:pp258-323). In addition to debate over the nature of global warming the political and economic arguments concerning global warming are also still on-going. Problems concerning global environmental degradation have proved difficult to solve due to the issues of free-riding and the so-called “tragedy of the commons”. These two concepts, explained below, have hindered many of the attempts at making progress on global environmental issues and will need to be overcome for the universal good of humanity.

4.3 Costs and difficulties with climate control

There is little doubt that combating climate change would be an expensive measure for all (Pakerr 2002). The two most commonly suggested solutions are a tax on CO2 output or a system of tradable permits (ibid.). Levying a tax on CO2 output has been one of the most widely suggest proposals for dealing with the problem (Paarlberg 1999: 242). This would act as an incentive on industry to develop greener technologies and would provide governments with the income to assist with developing greener environmental policies (Hodge 1995:184). However the knock on effects of such a tax would be unevenly distributed. The price of all fossil fuels would rise not just for industry, but for individuals as well. As those on lower incomes generally spend a higher proportion of their incomes on energy it would affect them significantly more than it would industry (ibid. p185). In order to prevent capital flight from states implementing such a policy it would have to be a co-coordinated global effort, otherwise the first states to impose such a policy will find their industry simply relocates to states that do not have carbon taxes. States are also likely to find it hard to pass such a proposal due to lobbying by business (Paarlberg 1999:242). If this solution was attempted at a global level it would undoubtedly be very difficult to achieve. A key reason for this is the argument by developing states that they should not be penalized for a problem that was created until recently almost exclusively by the industrialized West (REF). A proposal such as a carbon tax would also be likely hinder development and industrialization in the developing world.
5. Theories and concepts in IPE

For the purpose of this essay only the modern variants of the three central perspectives shall be analyzed, this is due to space restrictions and that it is not relevant to give an account of the development of the views in order to explain their impact on present day thinking regarding global environmental degradation.

5.1 Free Riding and the Tragedy of the Commons
The tragedy of the commons is a model which demonstrates why actors acting rationally in their self interest will end up harming everyone’s interests in the long term and comes from the work of Hardin (1968). Hardin demonstrates how certain situations can produce no net gains for all when actors act rationally to increase their utility. He explains this by using a parable of a field shared by several herdsmen, a situation which worked happily for centuries with the expansion of the herdsmen limited by events such as war, pestilence etc.. Eventually a situation will arise where there is nothing to stop the common land being used to its maximum capacity. Each herdsman will see it rational to add another cow as it will add to his utility. Each herdsman will gain greatly from having another cow, but will only be slightly affected by the decrease in space on the common. As each actor is rational they will keep adding more and more cows, thinking they are not harming the common and only bearing a fraction of the cost of damage to the common. When common is full however, and all the grass eaten then all will lose at once (Hardin 1968:1243). Although Hardin was talking about population growth the same model fits well to describe attempts to find a political and economic solution to the problems of global environmental degradation.

Free riding is the situation whereby contributors to the public good, in this case preventing global warming, are unable to ensure that those benefiting from the public good are actually contributing and not just relying upon the work of others (Coneybear 1984:6). This is a particularly important problem in relation to economic matters such as global warming, where if many states were to adopt measures that were beneficial to the environment, but harmful to their economies then they would be at a significant economic disadvantage to those states which did not do so. Free riding would be easier with global warming measures due to the wide range of ODS that industries use, in comparison to ozone measures which are much more easily monitored.
5.2 The mercantilist perspective

Mercantilism sees economic practice as part of a states national security, strong economies are necessary in order to strengthen a state militarily (Woods 2001:285). Mercantilism is related to realism in International Relations Theory and shares many of the same assumptions, such as the primacy of the state and viewing the international arena as anarchical (Gilpin 1987:31). States should act in economic ways that benefit them directly, and see the world in zero-sum terms. This method of thinking would claim that there is no logical reason for states to attempt to do anything about global warming, especially considering the economic costs involved, unless there is a direct threat to a states’ security, as was believed to be the case with the US and ozone depletion (Parson 1995:69)

Mercantilist thinking is partly evident in the US’ rejection of the Kyoto protocol. The current Bush administration has pursued many mercantilist projects since coming to power, pandering to big industry by, against all ideals of neoliberal free trade, placing tariffs on imports in which the US is not competitive, for example on clothing (Rockwell 2003). There is a strong movement in the US against joining the Protocol or any future regime along the same lines due to the belief that it would harm the US economy (Beder et al 1997). The US Energy Information administration estimated that implicating the Kyoto Protocol would cost the US economy a minimum of $283bn and a maximum of (EIA 2002) out of a GDP of $10.4trillion (CIA 2003). This is the main argument against why the US will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Lobbying of the Bush administration by large polluting industries, of which the biggest donator was the now collapsed energy concern Enron (Weinberg 2003), prevented the Protocol being ratified in the US senate. The Senate refused to ratify any treaty which did not include a demand that developing states reduce their emissions as well, rather than the scaled proposals (Molitor 1999:225). This has been seen by some commentators as the US trying to secure its own position as the leading world economy by restricting the development of the undeveloped and developing world. Bello (2003) argues that China was the principal target of this thinking as its rapidly expanding economy poses a threat to US economic domination. If the US had its greenhouse gas emissions restricted it would arguably find itself in a weaker economic position than China.

Although mercantilist thinking is becoming an increasing part of US economic policy (Bello 2003), see for example the banana and steel wars with the EU, it will only serve to undermine the US’ own strength in the long run. Hegemonic stability theory, based on the work of Gramsci, claims that when other states start to perceive the hegemon’s actions as self-serving and against their own political and economic interests, the whole system will be weakened (Gilpin 1987:73). Hegemonic states need an ideological consensus for support, military strength is not enough. The US under Bush has clearly lost a lot of goodwill even from its allies in the EU over following mercantilist thinking, both in respect to trade and the environment (Shwarz 2001).

5.3 The neoliberal perspective

Neoliberalism is regarded today as the basis of the global economy, the so-called Washington Consensus with its key institutions of the WTO, IMF and the World Bank (Cox 2001:120).Those adopting the neoliberal position for political economy are also likely to reject any form of attempting to solve the problem of greenhouse gas emission via taxation. Neoliberalism’s strong belief in the free-market economy and unregulated trade makes it hard to justify from the perspective any intervention in the market (Gilpin 1987:27). Neoliberalism also claims that politics should be separated from economics as much as possible, however global warming is clearly a situation that requires both a political and economic solution. Cleaver describes neoliberalism as “both an ideology and a strategy” (1997), meaning that it provides both the means and the ends of the global economy.

Neoliberal thought regards global warming, like any other crisis to markets, as something that will be stabilized by the “invisible hand”, claiming that intervention by states will result in market inefficiency and will hinder (Beder 2001:129). Neoliberals believe that the solution to global warming either lies in a partnership between business and governments (Cleaver 1997) or that it lies in letting a free market devise its own solution as aforementioned (Beder 2001:129) for example as happened with the regime on ODS. Another proposed idea is the distribution of rights to areas that were previously considered global commons, such as the atmosphere in the belief that this will create a market for scarce resources, making them hugely expensive and therefore morel likely to be valued (ibid.p131) Some have argued that the implementation of the Kyoto protocol by states will benefit their internal economy as energy companies compete for green investment and are stimulated to develop new green technology (Valentine 2002). If the Protocol was enacted on a global level then states would compete to develop green technology in order to encourage business to invest. It is possible that under this situation the US could emerge a winner as it has the initial capital and technology which to invest in alternative technologies.

5.4 The Marxist perspective
Marxist political economy has developed greatly since first put forward by Marx and Engles in the nineteenth century (Gilpin1987:34) and now takes many different forms. All forms of Marxism share in common some basic tenets, however only those relating to political economy will be considered here. The first is that history is shaped by the changing nature of economic production, the second that the capitalist mode of production and its future are governed by a series of economic laws (Gilpin 1987:35). Today Marxism has very little impact in the policy arena and has largely been relegated to academic studies. However Marxist views on the nature of capitalism are still relevant to the study of political economy. Marx saw the industrial revolution in Europe as based on the systematic exploitation of the working classes, today globalization can be seen as based on the principal only this time based on the exploitation of the developing world (Edwards-Jones et al 2000:16). Global environmental degradation is seen by today’s neo-Marxists as due to the nature of global capitalism, which will always aim to seek short term profitability and exploitation from the natural as well as human environment, with little thought for the long term consequences (ibid. p17). However one irony of Marxist thought is its belief that the natural environment is there to be exploited by science and technology, something that can be clearly seen in the former Soviet countries abysmal environmental record (ibid.)

6. Comparison of the two case studies
The international regime to combat atmospheric release of ODS has been a resounding success as it has resulted in global production and consumption of ODS being reduced to 85% of what they were previous to the introduction of controls on them (Oberthur 2001:358). In comparison the Kyoto treaty lies largely in ruins, due mainly to pressure from business encouraging governments to refuse to ratify the treaty (Beder et al 1997). The final nail in the coffin has often been portrayed as the refusal of the Bush administration to ratify the treaty (Greenpeace 2001). However, it is arguable that the treaty had already been “killed” before then by others, such as France (Murray 2003). Environmental concerns are often seen by politicians and governments as less important than other issues, such as military security (Chalecki 2003). Despite attempts to redefine security, environmental issues have not made it high onto the agenda of many states, as such there is little political demand in government circles for states to act immediately, for example a selection of surveys of the US public from 2003-2004 show very little demand for political action on the environment (Polling Report 2004).

6.1 Economic comparison

The economics of control of ODS were largely stacked in favour of banning them, especially for the US (DeCanio 2003:300). In 1987 the US chemical company Du Pont invented CFC substitutes over which it would have a production monopoly and would be able to dominate the market gap left by ceasing production of CFCs (Thomas 1992:225). Any treaty on ODS would have given the US an economic advantage as the export of CFCs could provide a lucrative income. The US stood to benefit enormously from the Montreal Protocol, even to the extent that it would have been economically viable for the US to adopt the entire cost of phasing out CFCs globally (Parson 1995:69). The US stood to gain an estimated $6.4 trillion by implementing the Montreal Protocol, mainly due to avoiding cancer deaths (ibid.). However, although US support was vital to the establishment of the international regime, it was not the sole cause and ozone depletion would not have been solved by a unilateral approach. In addition to gains the US economy would benefit from as its assumed position as the main supplier of CFC substitutes (Thomas 1992:225) it was also attributable to the oligpolistic nature of CFC production, which was concentrated in the hands of just a few TNCs (Greer & Singh 2000), for example DuPont controlled 25% of the global market (Thomas 1992:219). TNCs also eventually supported the campaign to legislate CFC production, knowing that they stood to gain (Greene 2001:402) graph showing reduction

This is all a huge contrast to the economics of the Kyoto agreement. Figure 3 shows how there has been no significant decline in greenhouse gas output despite the attempts. To reach the targets of greenhouse gas reduction would require most developed states to restructure their entire economies away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energies. Although scientific evidence for global warming is strong, it is still far from irrefutable in the way ozone depletion is (cf. Lomborg 1998). There are many different models of what is likely to happen with huge differences in the amount, or in some cases lack of, global warming that will occur (Beckerman 1992:258). There is also no consensus on the role of “carbon sinks” such as forests and the oceans which it is argued may keep global warming in equilibrium due to absorbing CO2, the main greenhouse gas. This has allowed corporations and business concerns of all sizes the opportunity to claim that the science behind global warming is flawed and that the problem is not real (Beder et al 1997). Businesses in all developed states launched a protracted lobbying campaign against legislative bodies, aiming at getting the Protocol blocked. In the US a multitude of business interest groups were formed, with one spending £10million on TV advertising alone to persuade the public that Kyoto would cost jobs and money (ibid.). The biggest hindrance to any solution to global warming is the reluctance of the US to get involved in any treaty that may harm their economy, despite accounting for 25% of global greenhouse gas output in 2003 yet with only 4.6% of the global population (NEF 2003:6). Figure 4 shows how the industrialized world accounts for more than a third of all greenhouse gas emissions, with half of that due to the US alone. In addition, many neoliberal think-tanks with vested interests, such as funding from environmentally harming industries have worked hard at producing academic evidence to prove the hugely negative impact that any treaty on global warming would have, both theoretically and economically (Beder 2001).

6.3 Game Theory analysis
The model of situation the international community and states find themselves in is also different with each of the treaties. The Montreal Protocol can be seen as a “privilege” type game, where the benefits to each actor outweigh the costs (Toke 2000:51). The Montreal Protocol allowed every state to “win”; those in the developing world received the finance to move away from CFC production so it cost them very little. The US also gained due to increasing its market share and everyone gained by the ozone layer being saved. In contrast global warming is seen as a classic prisoners’ dilemma, where the stakes are zero-sum and the only positive outcome depends on the cooperation of all involved and an absence free-riding (Toke 2000:51). Another issue lies in the different construction of the two regimes. Although the UNFCCC regime was based upon the structure of the WTO, it lacked primary rules that were agreed on by all participant states (Faure & Lefevre 1999:144). Primary rules are those which define the behaviour of each member state and affect how much behaviour must change on joining the regime. This can account for why the UNFCCC has been less successful than the Montreal Protocol. The goals of the Montreal Protocol required only a limited number of changes in state behaviour, whereas the UNFCCC would require large scale changes by both industry and individuals (ibid.)

6.4 The global economic context
Another significant problem with global warming regimes is the development aspect (Beckerman 1992:255). While countries in the developed world were able to finance the replacement of ODS in developing states through the MLF, to do so with global warming would be impossible due to the huge costs involved. Unlike trade and economic agreements, environmental ones are rarely legally binding and often amount to being voluntary (NEF 2003:4), as such there is no international adjudicator for solving disputes or enforcement in the manner of the WTO. The NEF 2003 report suggests that states wishing to achieve the goals of the Kyoto Protocol place trade barriers and import taxes on states failing to comply with the Protocol, however this largely goes against the dominant neoliberal principal of free trade. The World Bank has a Climate Change department which aims to provide the framework for a global carbon emission trading system (Carbon Finance 2004) however this system has not yet fully come into force.

7. Conclusion

From the above evidence I would argue that based on current events a universal to global warming is unlikely to happen at any point in the near future. The two case studies provide good models of how global issues of environmental degradation can be solved or what may prevent them being solved. Problems or advantages lie in the economics of the problem, the science or technology involved with the problem, the form of the decision making process and issues concerning development all contribute to the likely success or failure of international environmental regimes. The most likely solution is one which embraces neoliberal ideology and provides an acceptable economic solution to all states or a shift in global priorities brought about by apparent and conclusive effects of global warming. The ideas outline in the NEF 2003 document may go someway to providing a solution if adopted on a global level.
8. Bibliography

8.1 Books
Buzan, B. et al (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis
(Lynne Rienner: Colorado, US)
Edwards-Jones, G. et al (2000) Ecological Economics: An Introduction
(Blackwell Science: Oxford)
Gilpin, R. (1987) The Political Economy of International Relations
(Princeton University Press)
Hardy, J. (2003) Climate Change: Causes, Effects, and Solutions (Wiley: London)
Held, D. et al (2000) Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture
(Polity Press: London)
Lomborg, B. (1998) The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge University Press)
Sjöstedt, G. (1993) International Environmental Negotiations (Sage)
Thomas, C. (1992) The Environment in International Relations
(Royal Institute of International Affairs)
Toke, D. (2000) Green Politics and Neoliberalism (Macmillan: Basingstoke)
8.2 Edited Books
Beckerman, W. (1992) “Global Warming and Economic Action”
in Hurrel, A. & Kingsbury, B. eds. The International Politics of the
Environment (Clarendon Press: Oxford)
Blackmore, R. (1996) “Damage to the ozone layer” in Blackmore, R. & Reddish, A.
Global Environmental Issues (Hodder & Stoughton)
Faure, M. & Lefevere, J. (1999) “Compliance with International Environmental
Agreements” in Vig, N. & Axelrod, R. eds. The Global Environment:
Institutions, Law, and Policy (Earthscan: London)
Greene, O. (2001) “Environmental Issues” in Baylis, J. & Smith, S. eds. The
Globalization of World Politics (Oxford University Press: Oxford)
Molitor, M. (1999) “The United Nations Climate Change Agreements” in Vig, N. &
Axelrod, R. eds. The Global Environment: Institutions, Law, and Policy
(Earthscan: London)
Paarlberg, R. (1999) “Lapsed Leadership: US International Environmental Policy
Since Rio in Vig, N. & Axelrod, R. eds. The Global Environment:
Institutions, Law, and Policy (Earthscan: London)
Parson, E. (1995) “Protecting the Ozone Layer” in Hass, P. et al eds.
Institutions for the Earth (1995) (MIT Press: London)
Ross, S. & Blackmore R. (1996) “Atmospheres and climate change” in Blackmore, R. & Reddish, A. eds. Global Environmental Issues (Hodder & Stoughton)
Vig, N. (1999) “Introduction” in Vig, N. & Axelrod, R. eds. The Global Environment:
Institutions, Law, and Policy (Earthscan: London)
Woods, N. (2001) “International Political Economy in an age of globalization” in
Baylis, J. & Smith, S. eds. The Globalization of World Politics
(Oxford University Press: Oxford)
8.3 Journal Articles
Beder, S. (2001) “Neoliberal Think Tanks and Free Market Environmentalism”
Environmental Politics Vol.10:pp128-133
Conybeare, J. (1984) “Public Goods, Prisoners' Dilemmas and the International Political Economy” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 28:1:pp. 5-22.

DeCanio, S. (2003) “Economic Analysis, Environmental Policy,
and Intergenerational Justice in the Reagan Administration”
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law & Economics
Vol.3:pp299-321
Hardin, G. (1968) “The Tragedy of the Commons” Science Vol.164:pp1243-1248
Oberthür, S. (2001) “Linkages between the Montreal and Kyoto Protocols”
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law & Economics
Vol.1:pp357-377
8.4 Reports
ITE (1997) “Scientific Report of the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology 1997-98”
http://www.ceh.ac.uk/products_services/publications/online/annual/97-98/
(Institute of Terrestrial Ecology)
UNEP (2002) “Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002”
http://www.unep.org/ozone/sap2002.shtml retrieved 15/3/04
(United Nations Environment Program)
8.5 Online Sources
Bello, W. (2003) “The Crisis of the Globalist Project and the New Economics of
George W. Bush” http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/econ/2003/0710bello.htm
(Global Policy Forum) Retrieved 14/3/03
Carbon Finance (2004) “Carbon Finance Products of the World Bank”
http://carbonfinance.org/ (Carbon Finance at the World Bank)
Retrieved 20/3/04
Chalecki, E. (2003) “Environmental Security: A Case Study of Climate Change”
http://www.pacinst.org/environment_and_security/env_security_and_climate
change.pdf
(Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security)
Retrieved 20/3/04
CIA (2002) “United States of America”
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
(CIA World Factbook 2003)
Retrieved 20/3/04
Cleaver, H. (1997) Nature, Neoliberalism and Sustainable Development: Between
Charybdis & Scylla?” http://www.eco.utexas.edu/Homepages/Faculty/Cleaver/port.html
Retrieved 18/3/04
FOE (2004) “Who We Are” http://www.foe.org/about/whoweare.html
(Friends of the Earth) Retrieved 20/3/04
Fraser, A. (2003) http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html
Retrieved 1/3/04
Gow & Pidwiny
http://royal.okanagan.bc.ca/mpidwirn/atmosphereandclimate/greenhouse.html
Retrieved 29/3/04
Greenpeace (2001) “The Climate Cannot Wait for Bush”
http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/climatecountdown/documents
/clicantwait.pdf Retrieved 18/3/04
Greenpeace (2004) “About Us” http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/aboutus
Retrieved 20/3/04

Greer, J. & Singh, K. (2000) “A Brief History of Transnational Corporations”
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/tncs/historytncs.htm#bk2_ft22
(Global Policy Forum) Retrieved 20/3/04
Murray, I. (2003) “Who Killed Kyoto?”
http://www.techcentralstation.com/052003M.html
(TechCentral Station) retrieved 16/3/04
NEF (2003) “Free Riding on the Climate”
http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/z_sys_PublicationDetail.aspx?pid=167
(New Economics Foundation) Retrieved 15/3/04
Pakerr, L. (2002) “Global Climate Change: Market-Based Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gases”
http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/crs_climate_change_market.shtml (Almanac of Policy Issues) retrieved 12/3/04
Rockwell, L. (2003) “Mercantilism USA”
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1283
(Ludwig von Mises Institute) retrieved 13/3/04
Schwarz, P. (2001) “Transatlantic relations enter an ice age”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/apr2001/eur-a06.shtml
(World Socialist Website) retrieved 14/3/04
UNEP (2003) “Chemicals Phase Out Schedules”
http://www.unep.org/ozone/Public_Information/4Aiv_PublicInfo_Facts_che
micals.asp retrieved 15/3/04
8.6 Newspaper Articles
Beder, S. et al (1997) “Who Killed Kyoto?” The Guardian, 29th October 1997, p. 4
Hunt, T. (2004) “Industrial Evolution” The Guardian, 12th January 2004-03-21
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1120734,00.html

Tags
Related Essays Science