Photo: Kris Krug

Following on some of the ideas I thought about during the recently concluded Aspen Environment Forum, and also reflecting upon a very insightful class I took at the Hertie School of Governance during my first year there – a class on multilateral governance taught by Professor Inge Kaul (world expert on public goods) and Thorsten Benner (director of the Global Public Policy Institute), I wrote a piece for FutureChallenges.org on new climate change governance architectures.

Here’s the full-length article (but please visit the entire platform, as other authors feature some really instructive pieces):

Finding the right type of climate change governance architecture and driving humanity on a more sustainable path might just be the tip of the iceberg of future challenges and megatrends featured on Futurechallenges.org. Why? It is intimately linked with all of them: new governance structures (see the magic scenarios below), demographic issues (climate refugees “complement” an unsustainable industrial production and consumption pattern, which will most likely make it impossible for us to feed a growing planet of 9 billion people by 2050), biodiversity and natural resources (because of human consumption of natural resources – the same that induced climate change – ecosystems have degraded at a 30% rate between 1970 and 2003, and our ecological footprint has exceeded the Earth’s capacity by about 25% as of 2003, says WWF’s Living Planet Report, 2006 edition, security (climate change-induced resources scarcity and migration will increasingly become a source of conflict, specialists indicate, and have done so already, as the infamous case of Darfur points out).

Defining climate change is a daunting task. It’s a phenomenon that has shaped politics, economics and social activism around the world in the last couple of decades. As a result, few definitions are value-neutral. Ever since 1990, scientists summoned by the United Nations in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) define the phenomenon as “the change in average weather, which may occur in the next century as a result of human activities”. Regular dictionaries seem to ignore the alleged anthropogenic nature of climate change and define it as “periodic modifications of Earth’s climate brought about as a result of […] interactions between […] atmosphere and various other geologic, chemical, biological, and geographic factors within the Earth system”. No humans around, it seems…

The recent international negotiations at Copenhagen proved that virtually no government in the world denies the man-made nature of climate change – at least not according to their leaders’ statements. On the people’s side, some nations are still deeply distrustful of the phenomenon: Just over a half of the American adults (51 percent) are either alarmed or concerned about global warming, says audience segmentation analysis “Global Warming’s Six Americas”.

Leaving the “why” aside and assuming that humans did it, as the shadow side of the success of their industrial production (for more info on the “science” behind climate change, check out the Learn Section on Futurechallenges.org, let’s take a look at the “how”. How are humans supposed to address climate change?

Scenario 1: Integrated approach via multilateral treaty and emissions reduction protocol

Climate change is a global problem and climate change mitigation is a global public good. Formal modeling exercises point out that an integrated climate architecture is the most effective solution for climate change abatement (Biermann et al., 2010). In English, please?  A multilateral agreement bringing on board all countries of the globe, containing a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Mandatory and ambitious individual emission reduction targets.  After all, scientists claims that no single actor (country, region or sector) can achieve the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions required to stabilize atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases at the level necessary to avoid a global catastrophe.

Scenario 2: Leave it to the nation state

Climate change is affecting countries as we speak. 300,000 people die every year because of unusual climate patterns (floods, droughts, monsoons, etc.). Human and economic losses occur everywhere in the world, so it’s in the individual interest of each country to address this issue. China, California and the European Union, most experts say, have adopted very ambitious unilateral emission reduction targets. A less effective scenario than an integrated global accord (emissions and climate catastrophes don’t really use a passport for getting across countries and continents…), yet maybe a more realistic one. The caveat: under this scenario, some countries will end up paying the bill for climate change mitigation, while others will free-ride on their efforts (e.g.: neighbouring states are clear free-riders on California’s investments to combat climate change).

Scenario 3: Bring in non-state actors

Experts sometimes highlight coordination venues (partnerships, networks, the International Energy Agency, etc.) and non-state actors (businesses, NGOs) as promising locations for climate change governance. The market-based solution of carbon cap and trade (also known as emissions trading, i.e. a market-based approach of offering incentives to firms for achieving reductions in the emission of pollutants)  is considered by many the perfect economic solution for curbing emissions. Public-private governance arrangements (e.g. United Nations Global Compact, “type-2” agreements concluded at the 2002 World Summit for Sustainable Development, etc.) might also be superior to traditional forms of inter-governmental co-operation.

Scenario 4: The Elite Club solution

Only 24 countries are responsible for 70 percent of world emissions. Why try to bring in 192 into a global deal? Multilateral global governance institutions such as the the United Nations General Assembly or Framework Convention for Climate Change have proven inefficient and slow time and again. Thus, wouldn’t it be better, analysts argue, to have the issue of climate change and climate security dealt with by a small group of elite states, in a G-like climate arrangement? Prominent American analysts such as Strobe Talbott, former United States Deputy Secretary of State and currently the President of the Brookings Institute seems to think so (at least according to his intervention at the recently concluded Aspen Environment Forum 2010). The arrangement might definitely work, but how do you deal with issues such as democracy, inclusivity and free-riding in this case?

As a European, whenever I attend international environmental events I never cease to be amazed by the admiration EU climate change policies are triggering globally. When I’m at home, the same set of policies seems packed with stumbling blocks. The EU has adopted the 20-20-20 Climate Package (under these mandatory energy targets, member states must achieve a reduction of 20% greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels, 20% of consumption from renewable sources, and a 20% reduction in primary energy use via improvements in energy efficiency) – and all of these, at a EU-wide level, by 2020. However, current trends indicate that 3 (Italy, Spain, Denmark) out of 15 old EU member states won’t even meet up their Kyoto targets, let alone something more ambitious. An East – West divide on climate change inside the European Union has steadily taken hold (Source: Euractiv). For instance, Poland’s energy mix is 80% dependent on coal, and the Polish government has clearly stated it needs more time to meet the 20-20-20 objectives. Bulgaria goes against mainstream EU opinion and advocates for nuclear energy as the only way of achieving its targets. A bird’s eye assessment of the climate change governance architecture promoted by the EU seems to indicate both a national model (Scenario 2) and a push for an integrated global regime (Scenario 1: the EU usually takes up stewardship in negotiating global consensus among world powers). How does the national/ union-wide ambition score given 27 different economic and energy supply patterns? How does the discourse of global leadership and “arbitrage” match the sad reality that EU leaders weren’t even present in the room when the loose Copenhagen Accord was brokered? For the moment, Europe seems to be begging both questions…

Is there a perfect climate change architecture? Not really. All four scenarios mentioned above indicate an inevitable trade-off between efficiency and realism. As efficient as an integrated global agreement might be, pushing it through regular multilateral negotiations is close to fantasy. National or regional unilateral targets are achievable, but California’s saved CO2 will easily be nullified by Texas’s rampant emissions. Most likely, striving (and striving fast!) towards a combined architecture will achieve some positive results. After all, we only have one planet, but we act as if we had four…

Revin cu mai multe detalii despre Think About It. De regasit online cu tag-ul “Th!nk”. Timp de doua zile ne-am reunit la Bruxelles aproximativ 70 de jurnalisti si bloggeri din intreaga Uniune Europeana. M-a suprins faptul ca Europa a reusit, neintentionat, sa creeze o identitate europeana prin mobilitate. La un moment dat stateam la o masa cu 7 alti oameni, din 7 tari diferite, niciunul din ei nelocuind de fapt in tara de origine. Studii, slujbe, proiecte, lumea se misca. Si noi cu ea, banuiesc.

Despre ce este vorba in proiect? 3 bloggeri din fiecare tara membra UE, Centrul European de Jurnalism, Comisia Europeana, Parlamentul European. O noua comunitate de bloggeri si o competitie paneuropeana. Incepem pe 2 februarie, fiecare din tara lui, sa scriem despre Uniunea Europeana si ulterior despre alegerile pentru Parlamentul European din iunie. Scandalos sau nu, tematic sau nu, partinic sau nu. Scrieti baieti, numai scrieti!

Nu va plictisesc pe acest blog cu ce se mai intampla prin Uniune. Pentru asta voi inaugura in cateva zile un blog separat, in engleza.

Vroiam doar sa va semnalez cateva persoane/ proiecte interesante de care m-am izbit la Bruxelles:

• Jon Worth, editor web specialist in afaceri europene, consultant, blogger si totodata initiatorul unei campanii ateiste foarte originale din Marea Britanie (practic, sute de autobuze cu mesajul “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”)
• Kosmopolito (alias Andreas Muellerleile) un blogger specialist in afaceri europene, care isi da doctoratul in politica externa a Romaniei!
• Clo Willaerts, probabil unul dintre cei mai cunoscuti specialisti europeni in blogging si social media
• Center for European Policy Studies – un think tank european extrem de profesionist si un loc de munca ideal
• Tocmai s-a lansat primul agregator de bloguri cu tematica europeana: http://www.bloggingportal.eu/
• Bruno van den Elshout, un fotograf, investment consultant si jurnalist olandez, care si-a luat un an de pauza de la viata si a calatorit cate doua saptamani in fiecare tara membra UE; rezultatul a fost US Europeans, un proiect foto foarte interesant pe care speram sa il adopte institutiile europene

Oricum ar fi, mult networking si un inceput de saptamana absolut incantator.

Romania as seen by Cerny’s Entropa

Bulgaria as seen by Cerny’s Entropa

If you’re in any way art-sensitive or art-educated, the shortest of visits to Prague will get you familiar with two very controversial Czech artists: David Cerny and Jan Saudek. As a photographer, the latter could not overpopulate the public space with his allegedly immoral creations. However, the former is well-known for his daring public displays, by painting for instance a Soviet tank in bright pink.

Cerny stroke back in glory this time, with a work titled Entropa, commissioned by the Czech EU Presidency, that’s currently displayed in the lobby of the European Council in Brussels. Supposedly a collage bringing together artistic visions of artists representing all 27 EU countries, in reality it is an exclusive work by Cerny that whole-heartedly mocks stereotypes European nations have of one another.

Thus, Italy is displayed as a football match between the North and the South, France as a big strike, Romania as a huge Dracula park and so on and forth. Bulgarians seem to have been the most offended, as Cerny envisioned their country as a Turkish toilet – reminding us all of the Ottoman yoke in the region. As a result, the Czech ambassador in Bulgaria was called up for official explanations.

Not surprisingly, Romanian newspapers are profoundly “offended” by this piece of art, which reminded me of the fuming controversy around the Romanian Cultural Institute in New York this summer. You can read more info here and here.

The international media seems to have a rather moderate stand on the issue, with BBC News simply telling the story behind Entropa and with the International Herald Tribune being equally objective.

Czech officials seem to be discontent with Cerny’s petite joke – namely doing the work all by himself, and not by working together with 26 other actors, but they don’t seem to pick at the content of the installation. Actions are pending, so I wonder if their broad mindedness will take into account the fact that 2009 is the official European Year of Innovation and Creativity…

I’m very excited to be part of a very interesting blogging initiative launched by the European Journalism Center and the European Parliament. I found about “Think About It” from Daniel Antal, a fellow blogger whose entries on politics in Central and Eastern Europe from Blogactiv are really insightful. It’s basically a blogging competition where 3 bloggers selected from each EU member states meet together in Brusells and than blog regularly about the coming European elections. I’ll be visiting Brusells in January, hopefully meeting some interesting people and extending my network in the international blogosphere. Also, it would be great to know who the other 2 selected Romanian bloggers are…

However, for me as an European the second film showed yesterday – portraying the situation of women in Turkey – was the one that really had me going. Apparently, in South-Eastern Turkey women are still brutally killed by their closesest male relatives in the name of honour. Dressed in black, they are taken in remote places of the village, shot at or simply stoned to death by their fathers and brothers. Because of European Union pressures, Turkey has modified its penal code and increased sentences for crimes of honour to life imprisonment (until 2001, evoking the family’s honour was a circumstance that could reduce one’s conviction in front of the court). However, 40% of men in rural areas are still supporting honour killings, which indicates that legislative measures were not supplemented in any way by cultural and educational changes. I’ve always spoken not necessarily against Turkey’s accession in the European Union (I am not against enlargement per se), but I’ve always warned that Turkey still has unsettled issues that will remain unsettled for a long time. However, I was simply baffled by yesterday’s movie. Really now, how can the Turkish government pretend Turkey is a modern, 21st century Westernized country? And by this, please don’t understand less terrible phenomena occur in Western Europe…

However, a couple of days ago worrisome events occured in Croatia. Political opponents of the current regime (Prime Minister Sanader) were arrested by the Zagreb police for political protests via Facebook. A Facebook group called “I bet I can find 5,000 people who dislike Sanader” became the main proof of anti-establishment behaviour   I believe such judiciary practices are obviously not fit for an EU member, to say the very least. I’m curious on the results of the investigation commissioned by PM Sanader…

The social democrats scored 33.6%, the democrats (allegedly a right-wing party, though their political programme seems to be the opposite) 33%, and the liberals 18.7%. The new voting system – with a 5% electoral threshold – eliminated extremist parties from the Parliament, which is great news. However, Sunday’s results leave us with a huge dilemma, as we do not know who will form the Government. Most probably, intense political negotiations will last till the end of December and our President will definitely take advantage of our semipresidential political system to veto plenty of government formulas that don’t suit him.

Unfortunately, the end of the year also reminds us we’ve done too little to curb corruption (one of the elected MPs this Sunday is actually in detention for fraud) and to absorb European structural and cohesion funds properly. With political strife prevailing over efficient administration, there are chances we will end up in the same situation of aid freezing as our Bulgarian neighbours…

Luckily, Eurozone countries finally agreed on common bailout guidelines. My personal belief is that this action came too late. The European Central Bank should have been a tougher regulator from the very beginning. The eternal tension between intergovernmentalism and supranationalism came out in EU debates again. The solution? A very murky middle ground, as usual. Here’s President Barosso’s intervention: We are a Union of states, not one single state. Therefore each and everybody has to act at his or her level, with his or her instruments. I recognise that the cases may vary and that there are different national contexts. As a consequence, there cannot be uniform responses. But if we act on the basis of the same principles our responses will be converging. (read full text here).

I’ve got two dilemmas on this whole issue. Who’s to blame? Greed or lack of regulation? When I first read that John McCain was blaming greed for the crisis, I burst out laughing. But now I’m taking an introductory class in insurance, and it’s incredible to learn how many synthetic derivatives (fourth of fifth generation reinsurance contracts, so to say) are out there on the capital markets, and how people are making money out of nothing basically. Surely greed is the engine, I have to confess.

Secondly, who should start acting in the EU? National banks (it turns out that some have done a better job than others – The National Bank of Romania, with its very conservative macroeconomic policy, being a great example in this sense) or the European Central Bank?

Tough questions to answer. Alas, my dear Romanian friends whose paycheck is in Euros… I sincerely envy you!

Romania on the other hand has made progress in establishing the National Integrity Agency and in fighting corruption, but not in amending the Code of Criminal Procedure, or in fighting high-level corruption. Pretty much like an inquisitive child, the Commission does not understand why the Romanian Parliament has to approve corruption investigations against an MP. Oh Brussels, you’re so naive! You can read more about it here and I’ll update this entry as soon as the Commission issues its official statement. In the meantime, you can “enjoy” a very critical article in the Financial Times on Romania’s politicians and on how the EU was gradually disarmed by a calculating local elite well versed in simulating change. Tom Gallagher, the author of the article, has written brilliant books on recent Romanian history and will publish, in 2009, a book on Romania and the EU, titled “How the Weak Vanquished the Strong”. Overall, his verdict is interestingly blaming the EU for its failures to address the Romanian issue: The fact that Britain and the Netherlands find themselves isolated inside the EU in calling for tough action against corruption driven from the top in Romania is a crushing indictment of the EU’s inability to stand up for basic standards of governance that are surely indispensable if it hopes to survive as a force for influence in the world.