C19(b) - Climate Policy and the Pathways of Local-Global Environmentalism
Date: Jun 4 | Time: 01:30pm to 03:00pm | Location:
Chair/Président/Présidente : Wifrid Greaves (University of Victoria)
Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Wilfrid Greaves (University of Victoria)
The Paris Agreement and the Global Energy Transition: Implications for Canada: Radoslav Dimitrov (Western University)
Abstract: The paper makes an assessment of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (PA) and explores its implications for the Canadian society and economy, in the context of a broader global energy transition. Research is based on participatory observation of global climate negotiations by the author who helped negotiate the Agreement for the European Union. The PA is a legally binding treaty that is programmed to grow stronger over time and requires countries to revise domestic policy plans regularly and adopt more and more stringent policy targets. There is widespread political support for the PA and 189 countries accounting for 98% of GHG emissions and 96% of the global population have climate legislation and pledges under the PA. A growing pattern of government policies and business practices converge toward low-carbon development, particularly in Europe and Asia. Implementation of the Agreement will likely reinforce and accelerate the global trend toward renewable energy, energy efficiency and carbon taxation. National and global implementation of the PA would have moderate short-term consequences but major medium- and long-term impacts on the Canadian economy and society. Future climate and energy policy developments abroad warrant sustained attention from corporate and government decision-makers in Canada.
A Feminist Climate Policy? Examining Canada’s Climate Commitments: Anusheh Fawad (Partners 4 Action, University of Waterloo), Andrea Collins (University of Waterloo), Neil Craik (University of Waterloo)
Abstract: Since 2015, the Canadian government has taken several steps towards orienting its foreign policy in a “feminist” direction. Since this feminist turn in Canadian foreign policy began, many foreign policy scholars have debated the merits of Canada’s approach. Specifically, scholars have accused Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP) of being naïve, of generalizing about the experiences of women in the developing world, and of reinforcing a saviour narrative between countries of the Global North, like Canada, and countries in the Global South. While feminist foreign policy scholars have been reluctant to dismiss the Trudeau government’s feminist foreign policy altogether, there are many who argue that significant changes are needed to transform these efforts into something truly feminist.
This paper considers Canada’s global climate commitments under the Paris Agreement within this context. Our review of Canada’s Paris Agreement commitments reveals that Canada has made significant efforts to mainstream gender into its Paris climate commitments, with some limitations. We find that these commitments share many similar themes with the FIAP, including a focus on women in the Global South that tends to reinforce common assumptions about women, and fails to advance a more transformative feminist agenda. In doing so, Canada’s efforts to integrate gender in its global climate commitments overlooks the realities of gender and climate change in the Global North, as well as vital areas in which feminist analysis is sorely needed, specifically, in technological development and strategies to mitigate climate change.
Trump, Sovereignty, and the Future of Global Environmental Governance: Aaron Ettinger (Carleton University), Andrea Collins (University of Waterloo)
Abstract: Donald Trump has unsettled long-established patterns of global governance that have characterized international cooperation for three decades. The domain of global environmental governance is no different. Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord in 2017 reversed US policy on climate change initiated under his predecessor and threatened the fragile political consensus on global climate governance. This paper asks two questions. What explains Donald Trump’s strident aversion to global environmental cooperation? And what are its implications for the future of global environmental governance? Trump’s aversion to global environmental cooperation is rooted in a more comprehensive notion of political sovereignty that connects his worldview, nationalism, and partisanship. In action, Trump’s commitments to American sovereignty present a political and philosophical challenges to the principles that underpin global environmental cooperation. The paper unfolds in two parts. First, it develops the peculiar meaning of sovereignty to the Trump administration and explains its application to global environmental governance. Second, it explores the implications of Trump’s sovereigntist attitude for the future of global environmental governance.
Empty Institutions in Politics: How to Obstruct Governance: Radoslav Dimitrov (Western University)
Abstract: Why are some institutions without any policy powers or output? This study documents the efforts by governments to create empty institutions whose mandates deprive them of any capacity for policy formulation or implementation. Examples at the international level include the United Nations Forum on Forests, the Copenhagen Accord on Climate Change, and the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. Research is based on participation in twenty-one rounds of negotiations over ten years and interviews with diplomats, policymakers and observers. The article introduces the concept of empty institutions, provides evidence from three empirical cases, theorizes their political functions, and discusses theoretical implications and policy ramifications. Empty institutions are deliberately designed not to deliver and serve two purposes. First, they are political tools for hiding failure at negotiations, by creating a public impression of policy progress. Second, empty institutions are “decoys” that distract public scrutiny and legitimize collective inaction, by filling the institutional space in a given issue area and by neutralizing pressures for genuine policy. Contrary to conventional academic wisdom, institutions can be raised as obstacles that pre-empt governance rather than facilitate it.