 |
TODAY Friday 31 October 1997 Each weekday. Conn Nugent on what's new in the world, on the site. |
newsroom
|
TODAY Friday 31 October 1997 Each weekday. Conn Nugent on what's new in the world, on the site. |
TODAY IN THE WORLD: Guilty Nationalist Pleasures
Yesterday I used this space to deliver observations that pretended to a Bismarckian character. Why the European Union wields relatively little heft in the climate negotiations, why the US gets to set the terms of the debate, and so on. My conclusion was that, like it or not, the projection of military power remains a prerequisite for big-time international influence.
What is troubling is how much I enjoy talking about such things.
This morning I turned on the old Mac and more-or-less-eagerly called up Planet Ark, that peerless international environmental news service, to see the latest bulletins on nation-states juggling for position at the upcoming Kyoto conference on climate change. I loved it.
...Dateline Bonn: "Japanese delegates at a conference on global warming on Thursday denied reports they had altered their stance in key areas to come closer to the European Union's view of the problem. 'There is no base [sic] to the reports,' Hikaru Kobayashi said..."
...Dateline Ottawa: "Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien said on Wednesday his government would try to outdo the United States when it finally makes its proposals on how to tackle global warming..."
...Dateline Washington: "China and the United States, the world's two biggest energy consuming nations, agreed on Wednesday to work together to improve energy efficiency. US officials tentatively promised to provide $50 million in credit..."
What is appealing about all this, I think, is the illusion that old-fashioned diplomatic history is the best frame of analysis through which we should consider these developments. There are Great Powers, and they wheedle and take sides and threaten and make accommodations and win points and lose points. The illusion, I think, is that the Great Powers actually do and can control to a fine degree how many emissions escape into the atmosphere from their sovereign territories. Do you remember the Rio Treaty of 1992? Delegates fought like cats and dogs over emission caps that in the end didn't influence much of anything. The countries that complied with the Rio Treaty did so mostly because of the drift of events (increase in North Sea natural gas, decrease in smokestack activity in East Europe). Countries that violated the treaty did so without too much breast-beating (the US now emits 13% more than it said it would). Nobody but the Dutch and the Danes really tried very hard.
This year at Kyoto, we tell ourselves, things will be different because obligations will be made "binding." Well, maybe. In the end, national governments will enforce compliance with anything signed at Kyoto because they think their interests will suffer more from non-compliance than from compliance. I don't mean to say that therefore Kyoto doesn't matter; it's hugely important. It's just that we should remember that there is as yet no power higher than the nation state, which will always do what it feels it must do, even when that course of action looks to an outsider like spineless collaboration with alien forces (like big neighbors or multinational corporations).
Which fact, after all, is why reading Planet Ark in the morning is so enjoyable. It's like the sports pages of the paper. There are teams with names and emblems and traditions, and they win some and lose some, and you never quite know how things are going to turn out. It may well be that impersonal, non-government forces of prices, investments and technologies matter much more than any bureaucratic white paper. But it's comforting to think that governments can control and plan the ecological future, and it's certainly fun to watch.
TODAY ON THE SITE
You may not think of water when you think of national rivalries, but if so, think again. Peter Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute, makes a compelling case that the quantity and quality of water supplies is a crucial question of national security. Look at the Middle East; look at the US/Mexico border. For Peter's advice on where to go on the Web for more aqueous info, check into his High Five on the subject.
Recent "Today" columns:
10/30: Europe Alone
10/29: Duck! (Again)
10/28: Civil Society and Conservation
10/27: Who Owns the National Forests?
10/24: Meanwhile, Back at the Infirmary...
10/23: "Heading Down the Right Path"
10/22: Markets and Medium-Greens
10/21: The Silver Republic and the People's Republic
10/20: Duck!
10/17: The Energy Non-Crisis
To access more "Today" columns, click "Archives" below.