The issue of climate change has been discussed by several professional and has recently become a growing concern in international policies, due to the potential security threat it can cause. But there are several different stances on the causes of climate change and the possible solutions. Both articles tackle different perspectives and solutions to climate change. Focusing on Liberal and Marxist perspectives in International Relations (IR) theory. The main solution, from a generalized, liberal perspective is the idea that international institutions provide a guideline of rules for states (Van De Haarr, 2009. pp. 141), while also acting as a device to view the global effects of climate change (Van De Haarr, 2009. pp. 125). This can be used in climate change policy, by setting rules and allowances on emissions through these institutions. Whereas, from a basic Marxist viewpoint these institutions have become the problem and further caused climate change. These institutions have encouraged capitalism and development which has further caused an increase in emissions. The most drastic difference between the two is their approach to finding a solution to climate change. David G. Victor’s (2006) article encourages the progress of international organisations to collectively tackle the issues. Whereas, John Foster and Brett Clark (2009), argue these systems have failed and have only ever been in favor of the major powers in the international system.
The main focus of the article by David G. Victor’s (2006) is the way of improving the methods of international cooperation on climate change. As a liberal approach, the main ideas behind the methods involve international agreements and treaties between countries; and using tradeoffs to encourage the less interested to join. Victor (2006), argues that although this is the right approach these ideas have been difficult to carry out and tend to have a bias towards the ideas of the majority in the international system. This is clear in the Kyoto protocol membership, at the time of writing the main contributor of emissions was the United States, who were not members and the next greatest were EU followed by China, who both were members. This raises the issue of the big powers controlling the way we tackle the issue, as they are unlikely to reduce their emissions as it would disadvantage them. By having contracts that vary and that are dependent on participation, they can improve this issue. Victor (2006) argues that climate change is best addressed via a cooperative process which has wide membership options, which he argues is present in the European Union. This is based on the idea that the issue of climate change affects every individual in every country thus every country should have a membership to tackle it. However, if this is the case why has there still been a reluctance by several countries such as the US to become a member. This is the current approach that is being used and there seems yet to be a drastic improvement globally on reducing emissions.
The reason for the current failure of the institutions attempting to tackle climate change is due to the inability to understand the complexity of a ‘cooperative solution’ (Victor, 2006). There is varying interest in the need to tackle climate change as some countries are more available to adapt to sudden changes in climate, while others may benefit from changes. For this reason, willingness to participate varies. This idea is a very accurate reflection of the current cooperative solution, the United States, one of the largest contributors to emissions, are not willing to engage in environmental action plans, likely due to the fact is not the most important concern yet. So, paying large sums towards something they do not feel they currently need seems pointless. The countries most affected by climate change tend to be developing ones, and issues such as rising sea level, are likely to have damaging effects on them first. This is one of the downfalls of Liberalism as an approach to climate change, theoretically, the ideas seem fair and useful but when external factors and threats occur, climate change is pushed down the list of importance to some. Countries may not want to participate due to the cost they incur and would rather invest in the development of their own country. However, Victor (2006) does note that there is one universal interest between countries, they will do what is necessary to prevent any climate damage that would cause a disaster and this would be treated like a security threat amongst international organisations.
The article by John Bellamy Foster and Brett Clark (2009) has a different approach and focuses primarily on the causes of the climate change we see today. Particularly focusing on the concept of ecological imperialism and its role in climate change. This is based on the idea that imperialism led to biological/ecological effects, due to the encounters between parts of the earth that had before been separated by land and sea (Foster, Clark, 2009). There are two ways this affected the environment. As resources are distributed from one country to another, the process extracts natural resources from the ecosystem and leads to mass waste dumping and destroying the ecosystem, some states are dependent on (Foster, Clark, 2009). The second is this process, in turn, transfers capitalist ideas and values, increasing the likelihood of other countries doing the same and producing waste themselves. This is evident when looking at the world today, most countries are striving to be economically developed to catch up with the United States and other western countries. This leads to what is described as the metabolic rift (Foster and Clark, 2009) which occurred due to industrialization, which is linked to the main issues that led to climate change, ‘the growth of large-scale capitalist agriculture’ (Foster and Clark, 2009). This can be seen in British high farming and tropical monoculture. This leads to further damage, because these countries have, and did, begin to look elsewhere for resources and carried out the same process.
In this article (Foster, Clark, 2009), the solution to climate change comes in the form of ecological debt. Arguing that many countries in the North are in carbon debt, by calculating this it shows who owes who and can tackle the main cause of climate change. (Foster, Clark, 2009). However, this theory becomes problematic as many countries in the South, as Foster and Clark describe, are aiming to become capitalist producers, which will further increase the emission. The proposed solution to this is to allows these countries to develop and place fines and usage caps on those countries who have already done so, to stop the rate increasing any further. My issue with these ideas is that have yet to be successfully applied, some countries are still uncooperative. So, this cannot be the best solution. The already economically developed countries are unlikely to be willing to allow other countries to increase their usage but reduce their own, to some it may be perceived forms a realist perspective as threatening. Secondly, this seems unattainable and will add to an increase in emissions in the long run. The Marxist solution, in general, is to have a revolution and be rid of capitalism. Foster and Clark (2009) do suggest that as other methods such as ecological debt have been ineffective this truly is the only way to stop ecological imperialism. Capitalism in its varying forms over the years is the sole cause of climate change so the only solution is to be rid of it.
There are limitations to a liberal approach in general and David Victor’s ideas. As a theory, it is overly optimistic. This can be seen in today. We currently use international institutions to deal with matters of climate change and they have not been overly successful, the ideas behind the approach seem useful but in application, they have been ineffective. As mentioned the problems with this approach relate to the members of these climate/emissions agreements. The highest contributors od emissions are either in possession of more power than other countries or they refuse to join to avoid sanctions for their excess emissions. An example of this is the United States and its relation, or lack of, to both the Kyoto protocol (1997) and the Paris agreement (2016). Despite China overtaking in emissions (Union of Concerned Scientists. November 20, 2017) if the United States refuses to join the work done will not be as effective. But, it is the accepted process at the moment and as it begins to be seen as security threat it may be taken more seriously.
Marxism as a theory does tackle what other views, such as David Victor’s, fail to see, the problems of the power relationships in international institutions and the effects this will have on deals over climate change. Which is incredibly important using this theory as a lens, it highlights the imbalance of those who are contributing to climate change and those who will be affected by it the most. If Foster and Clark’s (2009) ideas were applied in international policy it may lead to fairer treatment on countries who have had little contribution to global warming but will suffer the most from it. Thus, although I see impracticalities with their approach and a Marxist approach in general. I do believe some ideas should be carried through as they highlight the role of power better than other theoretical perspectives. There are limitations to a Marxist solution. Firstly, as I have touched on, it is impractical. The majority of the countries in the world are likely heading towards a capitalist or at least industrialized country. Thus, asking to revolt and reject a whole ideology is an unattainable task and is not the easiest solution. Perhaps most importantly it is unlikely that a revolution would stop emissions increases the world will still need industry and production even if communist. By rejecting capitalism, we would reduce ecological imperialism and the damage from that, there would not be a reduce emissions.
The ‘Liberal approach’ in Victor’s (2006) article highlights that international institutions have had some small progress in improving methods of tackling climate change. But, there is a long way to go. There are issues with who is a member and the role these members have. Often those who form organizations, or those leading economically, seem to be able to get away with larger emissions and those who are not contributing as significantly seem to meet the most barriers. This will also not be effective until the US agrees to join as they are one of the largest contributors to emissions, without its support, any efforts made are counteracted as they further industrialize. The faults in this theory can be seen today in the climate agreements made and the ways industrial countries are not sanctioned. But, this seems more effective than the suggested approach by Foster and Clark (2009), ecological debt, as the Marxist idea of a solution is a revolution a change from capitalism. Although this, in theory, would be the most effective way of reducing emissions it is by far the least practical. Countries revolve around industry and many developing countries main aims are to further industrialize or become members of industry. While valuable points have been made about the issues and downfalls of international institutions and treatments, their solution is far from achievable. A focus on renewable energy is better. Overall, the ideas behind a Marxist perspective seem more accurate, but a liberal solution, such as the current Paris climate agreement, is a more practical solution. It may be that the more people view climate change as a potential international security threat the more engagement in the methods of tackling it.