Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Political Science

Editor-in-Chief: de Mucci, Raffaele

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2543-8042
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Understanding US government reluctance to accept legally binding emissions reduction targets: the import of elite interest convergence

Cletus Famous Nwankwo
Published Online: 2019-08-16 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/openps-2019-0002

Abstract

This essay critically examines why the United States Government (USG) has been reluctant to accept legally binding greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets (LBGERTs). The paper notes that four factors are essential in explaining this, namely the economy, scepticism about climate science, hegemonic drives and a quest for distributive justice. Notwithstanding, USG reluctance to accept LBGERTs is shaped by the convergence of interests of key actors in US political system who conceive government action to combat climate as a threat to their interests, although this can be reinforced or dissuaded by party ideology. While party ideology could strengthen or weaken US actions to fight climate change, the shielding of its sovereignty remains paramount regardless of ideological differences between the Democrats and Republicans. It indicates that while it could be argued that the Kyoto Protocol was a failed regime given the wide acceptance of the Paris Agreement, the planned withdrawal of US from Paris Agreement demonstrates that the Kyoto Protocol was not wholly a failure and buttressed the need to have a legally binding agreement (LBA). Also, it argues that the success of the Paris Agreement is a function of trust, reputation and reciprocity among countries that are parties to it.

Keywords: Climate change; climate regime; legally binding emissions; Paris Agreement; Kyoto Protocol

References

  • Afionis, S., 2017. The European Union in International Climate Change Negotiations. Taylor & Francis.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Anderson, J.W., 1997. Climate Change, Clinton and Kyoto. The Negotiations over Global Warming. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future (RFF).Google Scholar

  • Antilla, L., 2005. Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change. Global environmental change, 15(4), pp.338-352.Google Scholar

  • Atkinson, M.M. and Coleman, W.D., 1992. Policy networks, policy communities and the problems of governance. Governance, 5(2), pp.154-180.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Babiker, M.H., Jacoby, H.D., Reilly, J.M. and Reiner, D.M., 2002. The evolution of a climate regime: Kyoto to Marrakech and beyond. Environmental Science & Policy, 5(3), pp.195-206.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bailey, C.J., 2015. US Climate Change Policy. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar

  • Bell, D. 1973. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

  • Bennett, C.J., 1991. What is policy convergence and what causes it?. British journal of political science, 21(2), pp.215-233.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bergesen, H. O., and Sydnes, A. K., 1992. Protection of the Global Climate–Ecological Utopia or Just a Long Way to Go?, pp. 35-47, Green Globe Yearbook, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bieler, A. and Morton, A.D., 2004. A critical theory route to hegemony, world order and historical change: neo-Gramscian perspectives in International Relations. Capital & Class, 28(1), pp.85-113.Google Scholar

  • Bodansky, D., 2010. The Copenhagen climate change conference: a postmortem. American Journal of International Law, 104(2), pp.230-240.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Boykoff, M.T. and Boykoff, J.M., 2007. Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38(6), pp.1190-1204.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Buchner, B., Carraro, C. and Cersosimo, I., 2002. Economic consequences of the US withdrawal from the Kyoto/Bonn Protocol. Climate Policy, 2(4), pp.273-292.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bulkeley, H. and Newell, P., 2015. Governing climate change. Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Burnham, P., 2006. Neo-Gramscian hegemony and the international order. In Global Restructuring, State, Capital and Labour (pp. 28-44). Palgrave Macmillan UK.Google Scholar

  • Busch, P.O. and Jörgens, H., 2005a. International patterns of environmental policy change and convergence. European Environment, 15(2), pp.80-101.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Busch, P.O. and Jörgens, H., 2005b. The international sources of policy convergence: explaining the spread of environmental policy innovations. Journal of European public policy, 12(5), pp.860-884.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Caney, S., 2010. Climate change and the duties of the advantaged. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 13, pp. 203-228.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Carafa, L., 2015. Is the US-China Climate Agreement a Game-changer?. The International Spectator, 50(1), pp.8-14.Google Scholar

  • Carroll, W., Graham, N., Lang, M.K., Yunker, Z. and McCartney, K.D., 2018. The Corporate Elite and the Architecture of Climate Change Denial: A Network Analysis of Carbon Capital’s Reach into Civil Society. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 55(3), pp.425-450.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chasek, P.S., Downie, D.L. and Brown, J.W., 2013. Global environmental politics. 6th ed. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar

  • Christoff, P., 2010. Cold climate in Copenhagen: China and the United States at COP15. Environmental Politics, 19(4), pp.637-656.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Christoff, P., 2016. The promissory note: COP 21 and the Paris Climate Agreement. Environmental Politics, 25(5), pp.765-787.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Coon, C.E., 2001. Why President Bush Is Right to Abandon the Kyoto Protocol [online]. Available at: <http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/why-president-bush-right-abandon-the-kyoto-protocol> [Accessed 25 November 2017].

  • Cox, R.W., 1983. Gramsci, hegemony and international relations: an essay in method. Millennium, 12(2), pp.162-175.Google Scholar

  • Cox, R.W. and Sinclair, T.J., 1996. Approaches to world order (No. 40). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Depledge, J., 2005. Against the grain: the United States and the global climate change regime. Global Change, Peace & Security, 17(1), pp.11-27.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dimitrov, R.S., 2016. The Paris agreement on climate change: Behind closed doors. Global Environmental Politics, 16(3), pp. 1-11.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Donnelly, J., 2000. Realism and international relations. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Doyle, T., McEachern, D. and MacGregor, S., 2015. Environment and politics. Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Dunlap, R.E., 2013. Climate change skepticism and denial: An introduction. American behavioral scientist, 57(6), pp.691-698.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dunlap, R.E. and McCright, A.M., 2008. A widening gap: Republican and Democratic views on climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(5), pp.26-35.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Evans, A.M. and Krueger, J.I., 2016. Bounded prospection in dilemmas of trust and reciprocity. Review of General Psychology, 20(1), p.17.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2016. Trends in Global CO2 emissions: 2016 report (pp. 42-43) [online] Available at: <http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/jrc-2016-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2016-report-103425.pdf> [Accessed 12 November 2017].

  • Falk, A. and Fischbacher, U., 2006. A theory of reciprocity. Games and economic behavior, 54(2), pp.293-315.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fehr, E. and Gächter, S., 2000. Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. The journal of economic perspectives, 14(3), pp.159-181.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Feiock, R.C., 2007. Rational choice and regional governance. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(1), pp.47-63.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Feldman, E.J. and Milch, J., 1982. Technocracy versus democracy: The comparative politics of international airports. Auburn House.Google Scholar

  • Franceschet, A., 2002. Moral principles and political institutions: perspectives on ethics and international affairs. Millennium J Int Studies, 31 pp.347–357.Google Scholar

  • Gerrard, M.B., 2017. Global Climate Change. Environmental Law Practice Guide, 3.Google Scholar

  • Gerson, M., 2012. Climate and the culture war. The Washington Post. 17 January.Google Scholar

  • Getz, K. A. (2001). Public affairs and political strategy: Theoretical foundations. Journal of Public Affairs: An International Journal, 1(4), 305-329.Google Scholar

  • Giddens, A., 2009. The politics of climate change. Cambridge: Polity PressGoogle Scholar

  • Gillis, J., and Kaufman, L., 2012. Leak offers glimpse of campaign against climate science. New York Times. 15 February.Google Scholar

  • Gilpin, R., 2011. Global political economy: Understanding the international economic order. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Gross, M., 2015. Twenty-five years of climate change failure. Current Biology, 25(8) pp. R307-R310Google Scholar

  • Grubb, M., Vrolijk, C. and Brack, D., 1999. The Kyoto Protocol: a guide and assessment. Royal Institute of International Affairs Energy and Environmental Programme.Google Scholar

  • Grubb, M., 2004. Kyoto and the future of international climate change responses: From here to where. International Review for Environmental Strategies, 5(1), pp.15-38.Google Scholar

  • Grundmann, R., 2016. Climate change as a wicked social problem. Nature Geoscience, 9(8), pp.562-563.Google Scholar

  • Guzman, A.T., 2008. How international law works: a rational choice theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Haas, P.M., 1992. Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International organization, 46(1), pp.1-35.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Haites, E., Yamin, F. and Höhne, N., 2014. Possible Elements of a 2015 Agreement to Address Climate Change. Carbon & Climate Law Review, pp.3-12.Google Scholar

  • Harrison, K. and Sundstrom, L.M., 2010. Global commons, domestic decisions: The comparative politics of climate change. MIT press.Google Scholar

  • Helm, D., 2012. Climate policy: The Kyoto approach has failed. Nature, 491(7426), pp.663-665.Google Scholar

  • Holzinger, K. and Knill, C., 2005. Causes and conditions of cross-national policy convergence. Journal of European public policy, 12(5), pp.775-796.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Holzinger, K., Knill, C. and Sommerer, T., 2008. Environmental policy convergence: The impact of international harmonization, transnational communication, and regulatory competition. International Organization, 62(4), pp.553-587.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hughes, S., Chu, E.K. and Mason, S.G., 2018. Introduction. In Climate Change in Cities (pp. 1-15). Springer, Cham.Google Scholar

  • Jasny, L., Dewey, A.M., Robertson, A.G., Yagatich, W., Dubin, A.H., Waggle, J.M. and Fisher, D.R., 2018. Shifting echo chambers in US climate policy networks. PloS one, 13(9), p.e0203463.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Jones, J., 2014. In US, most do not see global warming as a serious threat. Gallup Poll, 13 March.Google Scholar

  • Kinley, R., 2017. Climate change after Paris: From turning point to transformation. Climate Policy, 17(1), pp.9-15.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Keohane, R.O., 1986. Reciprocity in international relations. International organization, 40(1), pp.1-27.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Keohane, R.O., 2005. After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Knill, C., 2005. Introduction: Cross-national policy convergence: concepts, approaches and explanatory factors. Journal of European public policy, 12(5), pp.764-774.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Krasner, S., 1983. Structural causes and regime consequences; regimes as intervening variables. In: K. Stephen, ed. International Regimes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kutney, G., 2014. Carbon politics and the failure of the Kyoto protocol. Routledge.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lewis, J.I., 2008. China’s strategic priorities in international climate change negotiations. Washington Quarterly, 31(1), pp.155-174.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McCright, A.M. and Dunlap, R.E., 2003. Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on US climate change policy. Social Problems, 50(3), pp.348-373.Google Scholar

  • Mendelsohn, R. O., 2005. An Economist’s View of the Kyoto Climate Treaty [online] Available at: <https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4504298> [Accessed 25 November 2017].

  • Meyer, L.H. and Roser, D., 2010. Climate justice and historical emissions. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 13(1), pp.229-253.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mouffe, C., 1979. Gramsci and Marxist theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

  • Mueller, D.C., 1986. Rational egoism versus adaptive egoism as fundamental postulate for a descriptive theory of human behavior. Public Choice, 51(1), pp.3-23.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Newport, F., 2014. Americans show low levels of concern on global warming. Gallup Poll, 4 April.Google Scholar

  • Nisbet, M.C., 2011. Public opinion and participation In: J.S. Dryzek, R.B. Norgaard and D. Sclosberg eds., The Oxford handbook of climate change and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Nwankwo, C.F., 2018a. Brexit as critical juncture: factors for UK’s environmental policy amendment. Climate Change, 4(16), pp.723-727.Google Scholar

  • Nwankwo, C.F. 2018b. Global Climate Regime: the challenges from Kyoto Protocol to Paris Agreement. Energy Today, 6(1). Available at: https://www.energytoday.net/economics-policy/global-climate-regime-the-challenges-from-kyoto-protocol-to-paris-agreement/ [Accessed 23 May 2019].

  • Nwankwo, C.F., 2018c. Brexit: Critical Juncture in the UK’s International Development Agenda?. Open Political Science, 1(1), pp.16-19.Nwankwo, C.F. and Okafor, U.P., 2018. Impediments and Desirability of Complete Ban on International Movement of Toxic Waste. Open Political Science, 1(1), pp.131-135.Google Scholar

  • O’connor, J.S., 1988. Convergence or divergence?: Change in welfare effort in OECD countries 1960–1980. European Journal of Political Research, 16(3), pp.277-299.Google Scholar

  • Okereke, C., 2010. Climate justice and the international regime. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(3), pp.462-474.Google Scholar

  • Okereke, C. and Matt, E., 2014. A Neo-Gramscian Account of Carbon Markets: The Cases of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme and the Clean Development Mechanism. The Politics of Carbon Markets. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Ostrom, E., 1998. A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: Presidential address, American Political Science Association, 1997. American political science review, 92(1), pp.1-22.Google Scholar

  • Page, E.A., 2007. Fairness on the day after tomorrow: justice, reciprocity and global climate change. Polit. Stud. 55, 225–242.Google Scholar

  • Peters, G. and Woolley, J.T., 2001. George W. Bush: Letter to Members of the Senate on the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. The American Presidency Project [online] Available at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=45811> [Accessed 26 November 2017].

  • Pflieger, G., 2014. Kyoto Protocol and Beyond. In Global Environmental Change (pp. 517-525). Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar

  • Porinchu, D.F., 2017. Global Climate Change. The International Encyclopedia of GeographyGoogle Scholar

  • Rajamani, L., 2009a. Addressing the post-Kyoto stress disorder: reflections on the emerging legal architecture of the climate regime. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 58(4), pp. 803–834.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rajamani, L., 2009b. The Copenhagen agreed outcome: form, shape and influence, Economic and Political Weekly XLIV (48), pp. 30–35.Google Scholar

  • Ravenhill, J. ed., 2017. Global political economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Revkin, A. and Broder, J., 2009. A grudging Accord in climate talks. New York Times, 19 December.Google Scholar

  • Roberts, J.T., 2011. Multipolarity and the new world (dis) order: US hegemonic decline and the fragmentation of the global climate regime. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), pp.776-784.Google Scholar

  • Rodney, W., 1972. How Europe underdeveloped Africa. Beyond borders: Thinking critically about global issues, pp.107-125.Google Scholar

  • Rosen, A.M., 2015. The wrong solution at the right time: The failure of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Politics & Policy, 43(1), pp.30-58.Google Scholar

  • Rourke, J.T., 2009. International politics on the world stage. 12th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

  • Saad, L., 2014. A steady 57% in US blame humans for global warming. Gallup Organisation, 18 March.Google Scholar

  • Schlosberg, D., 2012. Climate justice and capabilities: a framework for adaptation policy. Ethics & International Affairs, 26(4), pp.445-461.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schlosberg, D. and Collins, L.B., 2014. From environmental to climate justice: climate change and the discourse of environmental justice. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(3), pp.359-374.Google Scholar

  • Schüssler, R., 2011. Climate justice: a question of historic responsibility?. Journal of Global Ethics, 7(3), pp.261-278.Google Scholar

  • Scott, S.V., 2004. Is there room for international law in realpolitik?: accounting for the US ‘attitude’ towards international law. Review of International Studies, 30(1), pp.71-88.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sharp, P., 2004. Virtue unrestrained: Herbert Butterfield and the problem of American power. International Studies Perspectives, 5(3), pp.300-315.Google Scholar

  • Sullivan, K., and Warrick, J., 1997. Gore Speech on Climate Criticized [online] Available at: <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/climate/stories/clim120997.htm> [Accessed 26 November 2017].

  • Sussman, B., 2015. The U.S. finds its voice on climate change after two decades of failed diplomacy. [online] Available at: <https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2015/11/24/the-u-s-finds-its-voice-on-climate-change-after-two-decades-of-failed-diplomacy/> [Accessed 26 November 2017].

  • Urry, J., 2015. Climate change and society. In Why the social sciences matter (pp. 45-59). Palgrave Macmillan, London.Google Scholar

  • Vrolijk, C., 2001. COP-6 collapse or ‘to be continued…?’. International Affairs, 77(1), pp.163-169.Google Scholar

  • Werksman, J., 2010. Legal symmetry and legal differentiation under a future deal on climate. Climate Policy, 10(6), pp.672-677.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wallerstein, I.M., 2004. World-systems analysis: An introduction. Duke University Press.Google Scholar

  • World Bank, 2016. Gross domestic product 2016. [online] Available at: <http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.pdf > [Accessed 17 November 2017].

About the article

Received: 2018-06-16

Accepted: 2019-06-03

Published Online: 2019-08-16


Citation Information: Open Political Science, Volume 2, Issue 1, Pages 9–20, ISSN (Online) 2543-8042, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/openps-2019-0002.

Export Citation

© 2019 Cletus Famous Nwankwo, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Public License. BY 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in