KRITIKA TANWAR 2023/06/051
BA (hons.) Political Science
Q Discuss the various debates around global environmental politics.
INTRODUCTION:
The twenty-first century has brought with it a critical and alarming awareness of
the ecological limits of our planet. The growing number of climate-induced
disasters, rising sea levels, and environmental degradation has intensified the
urgency to understand and act upon the global environmental crisis. Within this
framework, global environmental politics has emerged as a central and
contentious field of international relations. While there is general consensus on
the seriousness of climate change, how it should be addressed — by whom, to
what extent, and under what principles — remains highly contested. This
assignment try to examines key debates around global environmental politics,
drawing insights from international agreements, power structures, ideological
frameworks, and contemporary challenges.
EVOLUTION:
*The contemporary environmental movement can trace its origins to the
publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson in 1962, which critically
examined the impacts of pesticides on nature and sparked public and policy-
level interest in environmental protection. This growing awareness led to efforts
such as the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
(Stockholm, 1972), marking the official entry of environmental issues into the
international political agenda through UNEP.
*The Stockholm Declaration and the establishment of the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) provided the first formal global
institutional framework for environmental governance. The 1970s saw growing
international concern due to incidents like Minamata mercury poisoning, acid
rain, ozone depletion, and nuclear accidents, emphasizing the global nature of
environmental problems.
ANTHROPOCENTRISM V/S ECOCENTRISM:
*A fundamental debate in environmental politics revolves around the ‘values’
KRITIKA TANWAR 2023/06/051
BA (hons.) Political Science
attached to nature. Anthropocentrism views the environment through a
utilitarian lens, emphasizing its importance for human welfare. In contrast,
ecocentrism recognizes the intrinsic value of the environment, irrespective of
its utility to humans.
*International frameworks reflect both approaches. For instance, UNFCCC
(1992) articulates anthropocentric goals by stating that “the parties should
protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of
humankind.” Conversely, conventions like the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
(1971) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) reflect more
ecocentric values, emphasizing nature’s right to exist in its own right.
The significance of this dichotomy lies in shaping policy attitudes: whether the
focus is on preserving biodiversity for its own sake or sustaining it to ensure
long-term human prosperity.
KEY THEMES FOR DEBATE:
1. Global Commons and Shared Responsibilities
The climate system is considered global commons, shared by all, transcending
territorial boundaries. This leads to the central question: how should
responsibilities be shared? Polluting countries, particularly those with historical
emissions, are expected to take greater responsibility. However, negotiations are
often stalled by disagreements over burden-sharing.
2. Development and Environmental Rights
The tension between development and environmental protection has been a
persistent theme since the Stockholm Conference. Countries from the Global
South, like India, have historically demanded the ‘right to development’,
arguing that environmental concerns should not obstruct their economic
progress.
Environmentalists like Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain have challenged the
Industrialised north’s demand for universal emission cuts, suggesting a per
capita emission model is a fairer approach, given the vastly different population
sizes and consumption patterns across nations. This framework presents
KRITIKA TANWAR 2023/06/051
BA (hons.) Political Science
development as both a necessity and a right, particularly for the developing
south.
3. Climate Justice and North–South divide
One of the most politically charged debates in global climate politics is the issue
of climate justice and equity. Developing countries argue that they have
contributed least to the problem of climate change but are the most vulnerable
to its impacts. Hence, their obligations must be differentiated from those of
historically emitting GHG and polluting industrialized nations of the north.
This formed the basis for the Common but Differentiated Responsibilities
and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) principle enshrined in the UNFCCC
and later reinforced by the Kyoto Protocol (1997). However, the refusal of
countries like the US to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and later withdrawal from it,
reflects persistent power asymmetries and the unwillingness of some developed
states to accept binding responsibilities In fact, climate politics has witnessed
not only North–South power struggles but also emerging subcategorization
within the Global South itself — between richer economies like India, China,
and Brazil, and more vulnerable states like Tuvalu, Bolivia, and Grenada .
4. Power Politics in climatic negotiations
The climate negotiation process is not immune to hegemonic influence.
Powerful nations and blocs often control the narrative, framing the negotiation
agenda in ways that benefit them. It is seen that less powerful states are often
coerced into aligning with dominant interests.
Power in climate politics operates on multiple levels:
• Material power — e.g., technological and financial strength of the
North.
• Normative power — e.g., the growing influence of indigenous and
gender rights.
• Discursive power — e.g., promoting market-based solutions as the
mainstream approach to mitigation.
The Paris Agreement (2015) showcased this dynamic by incorporating more
stakeholder voices, including non-state actors, yet many argue that its outcomes
KRITIKA TANWAR 2023/06/051
BA (hons.) Political Science
still reflect elitist
interests.
5. Representation, Gender, and the Role of Non-State Actors
Inclusion and representation of diverse voices — women, indigenous
communities, civil societies — have increasingly gained significance in
environmental discourse. These groups often operate at the grassroots and bring
perspectives overlooked in state-level diplomacy.
Still, gender equity and indigenous rights remain underrepresented in official
frameworks like the UNFCCC, though the Paris Agreement marked progress by
acknowledging their role in climate governance. Representation here is both a
democratic prerequisite and a means to expand the scope of solutions.
MAJOR INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS AND THEIR DEBATES
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) laid the
foundation for global climate governance. It led to the COP (Conference of
Parties) process, under which agreements like the Berlin Mandate, Kyoto
Protocol (1997), Copenhagen Accord (2009), and Paris Agreement (2015) were
adopted.
*Kyoto Protocol vs. Paris Agreement
The Kyoto Protocol introduced legally binding targets for developed countries
based on the CBDR principle. However, its impact was diluted by major
withdrawals like from the U.S. The Paris Agreement, on the other hand, moved
towards a model of voluntary Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)
applicable to all countries, including developing ones like India and Brazil.
While this inclusive approach was seen as a diplomatic success, it also led to
criticism regarding the dilution of equity principles.
*Green Climate Fund and Technological Transfer
One of the major demands from the South has been financial and technical
assistance to support adaptation and mitigation. The Green Climate Fund
(GCF), established after the Copenhagen Accord (2009) was supposed to
mobilise $100 billion per year by 2020. However, the actual disbursal of funds
has fallen short of promises, fuelling further distrust between North and South.
KRITIKA TANWAR 2023/06/051
BA (hons.) Political Science
CONCLUSION:
Despite the evolution of climate agreements, implementation remains a major
hurdle. Many countries have not met their NDCs (Nationally Determined
Contributions) under the Paris Agreement. Simultaneously, extreme weather
events, from floods in Pakistan to wildfires in Australia and the U.S., underscore
the urgency of action. As debates continue over loss and damage compensation,
particularly in forums like COP27 and COP28, the calls for a climate-resilient
global governance system rooted in justice grow louder.
The debates in global environmental politics are not just about carbon or
temperature rise — they are about equity, justice, power, and survival. As
climate change intensifies, so do the fault lines between and within nations.
While frameworks like the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement offer a
foundation, their success depends on political will, financial commitments, and
inclusive representation.
The global South continues to call for recognition of historical responsibility,
fair distribution of resources, and technological access. Meanwhile, the North
must lead with action rather than rhetoric. Moving forward, climate cooperation
must transcend blame and power games, focusing instead on solidarity, shared
futures, and sustainable development.
