The threat to the climate

by Ole Wæver Professor of International Relations in the Political Science, Department of the University of Copenhagen and

director of CAST, Centre for Advanced Security Theory

In recent years, it became widely accepted to depict climate change as a security threat. A link is made between climate change and security in two different ways – in political debate as well as in the academic literature. 1) The causal-military one keeps de facto the traditional concept of security, defined in terms of state and war, but focuses on possible causal chains from climate change to violent conflict. 2) The per se type of linking argues that climate change as such is a security issue. This is in line with widening proper in security studies: more kinds of threats count as security. In this perspective, the combined effects of climate change on livelihood, future economic conditions, and the conflicts in type 1 all sum up to climate change being a threat. Viewed from securitization theory, this leads to three puzzles: 1) Why does this happen now, when previous suggestions for 'environmental security' were ultimately rejected not only by the security experts but more importantly by leading intellectuals among environmentalists. 2) What difference does it make? How will it influence the politics of climate change if the issue has been securitized? 3) How? If climate change is to be securitized, on what terms and in what format would it be most likely to contribute constructively to political management in a form that is both efficient in relation to the climate and tolerable politically and economically? Along the way, the articles also presents the theory of securitization and discusses some problems for the theory that arise in the case of ‘climate security’. The article ends with a discussion of the possibility that securitization becomes part of an important component in a transformation of the international institutional structure for climate policy.

What Has the Climate Ever Done for Denmark?

by Anders Wivel, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen

Climate policy plays an important role in Danish foreign policy. Viewing Danish climate policy as a foreign policy strategy, the article evaluates to which extent the current climate policy is serving Denmark’s foreign policy interests. Success is measured according to the so-called ‘smart state strategy’ approach focusing on the content and form of the climate policy as well as on Denmark’s role in the negotiations leading up to COP 15 in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Economic Perspectives on Climate Change Policy

by by Jørgen Birk Mortensen, Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen

This paper discusses the key economic characteristics of climate change and argues that economic theory provides very useful guidance on the design of an efficient and politically realistic policy.

For global public goods such as climate change, there are three potential approaches: command and control regulation, quantity-oriented market approaches and tax- and price-based regimes. An important difference between price and quantity instruments is related to uncertainties.

C02-reductions in the EU are achieved in two ways: Industries within the European C02-quota system are regulated by the supply of quotas, while C02-reductions in the rest of the economy are achieved through national regulation. The marginal cost of reducing C02 should be equal across countries and sectors to achieve a total cost minimum. But trading possibilities do not exist for the sectors that are not covered by the quota system, thus creating a huge economic loss. A solution to this problem is proposed.

The EU Commision as a Climate-Political Entrepreneur

by by Peter Nedergaard, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen

Is the European Commission playing the role as political policy entrepreneur in the area of climate policy? The article analyses this question via three cases: the burden sharing agreement between the EU member states, the European emission trading system, and the EU policy on renewable technology. The article concludes that the Commission plays the role of a policy entrepreneur in the two first-mentioned policy areas based on the criteria used (latent support, a clear need for the proposal and excellent negotiation skills). However, it does not live up to this role in the field of renewable energy. In addition, whether or not the policy is a supranational policy seems to be a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for the Commission in terms of playing the role as policy entrepreneur.

Made in COPenhagen : Design of a durable climate regime in a time of crisis

by Jens Ladefoged Mortensen, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen

How can an effective, resilient post-Kyoto regime be designed? What instruments are best suited to tackle the pressure from the economic crisis on climate governance? Climate advocates, economists and environmental lawyers have for decades argued that soft-law, non-binding, voluntary commitments are effective tools of global climate governance. Despite US opposition, the Kyoto regime has proven itself as functionally efficient as a site in global climate governance by increasing transparency and facilitating information flows rather than using threat and sanctions. The regime is functioning because it produces trust between governments at low transaction costs without politicising the regime into devastating re-distributional bargaining. A growing number of systemic-minded, IR neoliberals question the utility of a climate regime without enforcement powers. Can post-Kyoto regime become global without appropriate governance mechanisms that punish opportunism and ensure credible commitments? This article open up for a discussion about the future of the Kyoto agreement as a resilient and effective contract between governments on how to solve a global collective action problem of climate change. The ’dangerous’ issue of border adjustment – i.e. ‘green’ tariffs on imports from ’climate opportunists’ – must be addressed soon if the Kyoto protocol is to survive the global economic crisis as shown by the debate on carbon leakage.