“Life always gets harder toward the summit–the
cold increases, the responsibility increases.” These words by Friedrich
Nietzsche aptly characterize the atmosphere among global leaders at June’s
international summits.
G20 leaders convened in Mexico on June
18-19 and from there the caravan of ministers headed south to Brazil for the
Rio+20 UN Earth Summit.
With the Greek political drama (again)
and euro zone debt crisis (again) consuming leaders’ attention at the G20, and
developed and developing countries unable to bridge their mutual distrust on
‘green economy’ issues in Brazil, the aftermath of was a resounding global
yawn.
Rio+20 was branded an ‘epic failure’ by
environmental groups and a ‘disappointment’ by the head of Britain’s
delegation, Nick Clegg. China and the
United States were a bit more upbeat.
China was relieved that the final
declaration reaffirmed that poorer countries should not have the same
responsibilities as wealthier ones; the U.S. was relieved that the declaration
did not commit wealthy countries to providing $30 billion annually to
developing nations. Both cohorts were absolved from assuming additional
responsibility.
‘Green
Economy’ Conflict
The concept of a ‘green economy’ enjoys
support among the G20 and was a central theme at Rio+20. This begs a question:
If everyone from members of civil society to corporate and government leaders
vigorously nod their heads when ‘green’ is mentioned, why doesn’t the issue
ever get advanced in a global context?
One answer seems to lie in the inability
to agree on a definition of what is meant by ‘green economy’ or ‘green
growth’. Another answer stems from the
increasing divergence in previously established positions and attitudes that
served as bonds among geopolitical alliances, unions and informal groupings.
As we have witnesses seen with the EU’s
ongoing–and unsuccessful efforts–to devise a unanimously acceptable (or even
barely tolerable) scheme to address the euro zone crises, when question of
economic security arises, all other considerations fall by the wayside.
Fundamentally, the developing nations
believe that any ‘green economy’ commitments could circumscribe their
development choices and result in unfair burdens. They also see ‘green economy’
as a euphemism for ‘protectionism.’ The
developed countries equate green economy commitments with open checkbooks and
transfers of key technologies to competitors such as China, India and Brazil.
This mutual mistrust is heightened
because the oil-producing nations at the table are hostile when terms such as
‘renewables’ or ‘alternative energy’ become part of the ‘green economy’
conversation.
Moreover, this multitude of voices has
become much more forceful in the 21st century multi-centric world–one
characterized by many centers of power that have emerged after the unipolar and
multipolar post-Cold War order. These
emerging centers of power are becoming increasingly influential, which in turn
raises the complexity of global dialogue on issues such as alternative energy
development.
Alternative
Energy Reboot
The indecisive outcome of the Rio+20
summit could in fact open the horizon for an alternative energy reboot. Nations
should act in the context of global forces and focus on a common goal of
bolstering global energy and economic security because it makes sense for
everyone–not just for some countries.
Despite the ambiguous attitudes toward
alternative energy technologies, their development has altered the energy
security equation. Alternative energy technologies have begun contributing to
the stability and safety of the international energy system, energy resilience,
diversity of supply, local energy independence, and global interdependence.
Furthermore, energy prices now influence
every corner of the world economy. Energy security equals economic security.
Indeed, renewables development is now reshaping global economic security
calculations, offering new catalysts for growth and providing a springboard for
technological development.
Alternative energy can be a universal
buffer against energy supply disruptions and price shocks, as well as broader
economic volatility and global cyclicality.
Such optimal outcomes depend on the
tenuous balancing of state control with the imperative for broader private
sector participation. The answers to energy are in the private sector,” noted
Kandeh Yumkella, the UN industrial development organization director general
during Rio+20.
Despite increased corporate engagement in
all levels of energy security and sustainability efforts, the state plays a
disproportionate role in shaping the form and development of alternative energy
technologies due to the significant technological and financial needs
underpinning their growth.
The creation of an alternative energy
market is critical. The transition to a
global renewables market entails a greater degree of private and state
collaboration, with the private sector gradually taking over the role of market
maker. Achieving greater clarity in
government policies, avoiding the temptation to micromanage markets, and remaining
open to innovation should be overarching strategies that take into account the
shifting international balance of power.
Adroitly managing this shifting
international balance of power from summit to summit could prove to be the
biggest challenge. The ‘green economy’
must move beyond being just a statement of intent, or, in some cases, a
lightning rod for mistrust between the emerging geopolitical and geo-economic
power centers worldwide that have put alternative energy developments on their
strategic interests’ agenda.
To achieve this, global leaders and
summiteers will need to undertake the confidence building necessary for global
cooperation and for maintaining global economic security–developing common
goals for the majority of state and non-state players, and building consensus
on how they can be achieved. This task
is made doubly difficult by the fact that economic security for one stakeholder
is often considered a security threat to another.
Where does alternative energy fit in that
balance? The technological developments
are acquiring their own momentum, while the environmental goals of world
summits are becoming stalled because of divergent national interests and policy
intentions. If Rio+20 is any indication,
the environmental considerations would more and more be guided by the trend of
alternative energy developments, rather than the other way around.
No comments:
Post a Comment