Politicians Failed Us in Copenhagen. But We Only Have Ourselves to Blame


We like to think failure in Copenhagen was the fault of short-sighted, action-shy politicians. But calling for “action”, or simply recognising that action is needed, is only the first step to solving any complex problem. It’s not our politicians so much as our own collective failure to understand complex problems that has made Copenhagen a failure.

Suppose, for example, we see babies drowning in a river. We might dive in fast and rescue as many as we can. But as more drowning babies come down the river one after another, we’d soon have to admit the problem was more complex than we thought. We can save a few, but if someone doesn’t go up-river to stop them being thrown in in the first place, saving just a few can hardly be described as a solution. Neither, by the same token, can action by individuals – be it individual citizens, corporations, or nations – to unilaterally reduce their carbon emissions. For unless everyone does so globally, the impact will be insignificant and thus inadequate.

Complex problems thus require at least two different kinds of action. One, down-river, is direct and immediate, and can be taken by anyone; the other, up-river, is strategic and preventative, and requires cooperation and a strategic approach. Or to put it more bluntly, one deals with symptoms, the other with causes. Both are necessary and complementary, yes, but if we fail to distinguish between the two and instead simply scream wildly for “action!”, chaos, or simply no action at all, are the only likely outcomes. Little wonder, then, that Copenhagen resulted in failure and future talks hardly offer better prospects.

The climate recognises no national boundaries: it is a global commons. This should immediately tell us that direct and immediate action by individual citizens or by individual nations, although useful and welcome, can never be enough unless all or sufficient nations co-operate to solve the problem globally. For personal actions, or the limited actions an individual nation can take, will only be drowned out unless fast-developing nations like China or India, as well as developed ones such as the USA, can be brought to cooperate. Governments are patently failing to act, so let’s find out why.

Politicians and the media are giving us good clues if only we’d take notice. Tony Blair, for example, once said that “The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge”.[i] The implication is that, while it’s clear there can ultimately be no economy without a stable climate, there is nevertheless a very significant short-term economic disincentive for any nation wanting to rein in its industry’s emissions. Why? Because a nation that did so would only risk losing investment and jobs to countries that didn’t. The Financial Times confirmed this, noting that “…governments remain reluctant to address this [global warming] threat because any country acting alone to curb its greenhouse gas emissions, without similar commitments by other governments, risks damaging the competitiveness of its industries.” With all governments fearing to act first for fear of losing capital, jobs and investment to other competing nations, it’s hardly surprising there’s little action.

“Rubbish!” say some alternative energy advocates and environmentalists. Far from incurring a competitive disadvantage, a country moving first to reduce its emissions would, they suggest, give its economy a competitive advantage because government regulation would spur investment in carbon-saving technologies, so creating jobs and wealth. But in a globalised world there’s no guarantee that new jobs would be located in the UK or in whatever country made that first move. More likely, the bulk would quickly be outsourced to some lower-cost country just as they are with most other industries. Also, whatever relatively small advantage may be generated by new green industries would be drowned out by the more general disadvantage suffered by the nation’s many other industries. After all, if there really was a clear competitive advantage to be gained by any nation or industry that moved first, it would already have happened! The fact it hasn’t indicates that Blair, on this issue at least, was right: the problem of first-mover competitive disadvantage cannot be ducked.

To achieve strategic international action, then, the problem is not any lack of awareness about global warming. It’s the problem of how to secure sufficient international co-operation. It is not a question of what needs to be done but how it can be done when each nation justifiably fears moving first. It is a question, in other words, of going up-river; of strategic and preventative action.

A further, as yet largely unrecognised problem is that global problems like climate change are unlikely ever to be solved if we deal with each global problem one at a time. The problem is that, even if all nations reduced emissions simultaneously, the cost for big-polluters would still be far more than for low-polluters, thus making it unlikely big-polluters would cooperate at all. Or, if they did, their reductions would likely be token or inadequate. But if emissions reductions could be coupled, for example, with a global tax on currency speculation (a Tobin Tax), considerable revenues could be raised which could then be used to compensate big-polluting nations and oil-producing nations, as well as providing adequate funding to help developing countries, thus keeping all of them on-side with the emissions part of the agreement.

But trying to solve global problems only one at a time, and not having any capacity to raise new global taxes, governments, on their own, are unlikely to find a solution to climate change, or to any other global problem. They’re just too preoccupied with the need to keep their economies competitive to see that they’re in a vicious circle. We may like to think politicians and the global financial institutions are in control of the global economy, but patently, they’re not. So, calling blandly and blindly upon governments to “act decisively” on global warming (or on any other global problem), as we’ve done so far, will not bring us further forward.

The same, I might add, goes for direct action, for example to stop the building of a third runway at London’s Heathrow airport. Because such action will always be over-ridden by the government’s need to keep the economy competitive, as The Guardian reported: “Ruth Kelly, UK Secretary for Transport, said abandoning expansion plans might salve green consciences but it would have no impact on the environment because … if Heathrow is allowed to become uncompetitive, the flights and routes it operates will simply move elsewhere.”[ii] And so the third runway will be built regardless. So while governments certainly do need to act co-operatively if our problems are to be solved, the point is that they’re unlikely to do so unless we citizens make them – not by asking them, but by compelling them. We citizens must take not only immediate action to curb our personal carbon footprints, we must also take collective political action to drive our governments to co-operate with one another at the global level. “But how can we do that?” you might ask. “Governments rarely do what the people want and my vote has become ineffective and meaningless anyway, and what’s more, party politics turns me off. So what can I actually do, politically, to get my government to co-operate with other governments? How can I make a real difference as far as collective international action is concerned?”

Fortunately, there’s one organisation that offers citizens across the world a way we can use our right to vote in a completely new and very powerful way to drive the politicians of all parties and nations to co-operate, not just on global warming, but on just about any other global justice problem you care to think of.

Just when you thought politics had become a waste of time, the International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (Simpol) and its national affiliate organisations allow us to make our votes more powerful than we could possibly imagine. Simpol provides citizens around the world not just with a way to set the global policy agenda, but a way to drive politicians, political parties and governments to implement that agenda. “But how can this be? And how can it work?”

Since politicians alone can’t solve global problems for us, it’s your responsibility to find out!

International Simultaneous Policy Organisation, December 2009.
http://www.simpol.org/

[i] The Guardian, 3rd November 2005
[ii] The Guardian, 22nd November 2007

Where to go after the failure in Copenhagen?

Happy New Year to you!

In all of what has gone on at Copenhagen, I wonder if, like me, you see a certain contradiction or tension between the high expectations placed upon political leaders to act, and the equally high systemic barriers that prevent them from doing so? There is, it seems, an element of irresponsibility on our part; that is, an irresponsibility on the part of citizens who on the one hand expect substantive action and yet, on the other, too easily overlook what prevents it.

For me, the "bleeding rhino's head in the room" is that we are asking our leaders to dramatically cut emissions and yet we expect them to do so without significantly harming our national economies. This, effectively, boils down to the first-mover fear of economic competitive disadvantage which can only be overcome if virtually all nations act simultaneously. But beyond that there is another problem: that we expect developed nations to keep developing countries on-side by paying them off while ignoring that, especially following the global financial crisis, even the rich countries don't have adequate funds to do so. This, then, would be like expecting our national governments to financially compensate elements in society that are unduly disadvantaged by some new law, but to somehow expect them to do so without being able to raise any tax revenues with which to make the necessary payments!

In theory, the global and simultaneous nature of all nations participating in an agreement to be implemented more or less simultaneously across the planet ought to solve the first-mover competitive disadvantage problem. In practice, however, there is far from sufficient security that nations will actually meet any commitments they make, let alone do so simultaneously. Furthermore, as I said, there aren't enough funds to adequately compensate developing countries, or oil producing countries, or any other group that might be disproportionately disadvantaged by a robust emissions reduction agreement.

What all this suggests, I believe, is that the whole basis of international negotiations on climate change is fundamentally and fatally flawed. It is as if we had, to recall former UK Chancellor Geoffrey Howe's famous cricketing phrase, "put our political leaders into bat, but only after first breaking their bats in the dressing room before the game". It should be little wonder, then, that their run-score in Copenhagen was wholly inadequate.

What this shows, then, is not only that we, citizens, are being wholly unrealistic in our expectations, but also that we would be foolish to leave it to politicians alone to carry on a cricket match that, because of the way it has been set up, cannot possibly allow them to produce the needed outcomes.

So we, citizens, must surely take responsibility for the flawed set-up we have made for our politicians. We also have to recognise that our politicians cannot themselves change the set-up of the game they are playing, for they are too immersed in it to see it for what it is. Instead, we, citizens, must find a way of fundamentally changing the game they have to play. And that, my friends, is what the Simultaneous Policy campaign is all about.

So let's do all we can to help promote it this year. You'll be in good company. Because articles on Simpol are due to appear shortly in some prestigious and well-known publications, namely the Journal of Integral Theory & Practice http://aqaljournal.integralinstitute.org and the Journal of Futures Studies http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw Ken Wilber, founder of Integral Theory and a member of the panel at the forthcoming State of the World Forum's conference on Climate Leadership, made the following comment on the article:

"The central idea [of Simpol] is very powerful; that is, the notion of how to link votes in one country with votes in another - how to link political action in one country with action in another. International competition is built-in to the nation-state system at its current level of development and so the issue is not environmental concerns, but how to get humans to AGREE on environmental concerns. This is really fascinating and very hopeful. In my opinion this is the crucial issue for the 21st century".

Please contact us if you'd like copies of either article.

While writing, the report on the results of the 2009 annual policy vote on the policies to be included in Simpol can be found at http://www.simpol.org/en/books/spvote2009analysis.pdf
Thank you to all Adopters who participated in the vote and those who proposed policies for potential inclusion,

Best wishes for a great year.
John Bunzl
http://www.simpol.org

Globalisation in reverse?

As the shock of the global credit crunch subsides, the next phase inevitably kicks-in: steeply rising unemployment and growing domestic political pressure for a return to protectionism. As the global economic hangover hits home, the world’s nations, like a bunch of recalcitrant teenagers, sink into their morose, self-centred protectionist sulks.

But is greater protectionism – each nation for itself - the answer, or should free trade and open markets be maintained? That’s the question facing governments, trade unions and citizens alike - or so they think. But answers to the financial crisis, as well as to global warming, poverty and many other global problems do not lie in changing the mode of trade. That’s because protectionism and free trade are equally flawed and equally contradictory. Neither offers the answer.

The problem with free trade is that the free movement of capital forces nations to compete destructively to attract footloose global investors, resulting in a race to the bottom as each nation competitively de-regulates and dismantles environmental and social safety nets. And it is that competitive de-regulation, we now realise, that fuelled the financial recklessness and risk-taking which led to the global financial crisis in the first place. Little wonder that over the last twenty years of de-regulation the rich got richer, the poor got poorer, and climate change was left to run rampant.

It’s been clear for some time that free trade has reached its limit. Years of failure to reach agreement in the Doha round of WTO trade liberalisation talks have shown that already. But reverting to protectionism is not the answer. For that simply unleashes a competitive, beggar-thy-neighbour raising of retaliatory tariff barriers, anti-dumping suits or other more subtle forms of trade or employment discrimination. Protectionism only raises international tensions and, as many astute commentators have noted: where goods are prevented from crossing borders, armies soon will. Moreover, when it comes to protectionist policies, almost no government is beyond reproach, so any government complaining or litigating against others only risks looking hypocritical.

The problem with both free trade and protectionism, then, is that they’re both predicated on the same unsustainable premise: on an underlying state of destructive competition between nations; on a vicious circle no nation can escape. The answer lies not in competitive free-trade nor in competitive protectionism but in something quite different: in co-operation. It lies not in the mode of international trade but in changing the mode of international politics.

The hangover the world’s teenager-nations suffer is, for the first time ever, global. That’s why fiscal stimulus policies carried out on a nation-by-nation basis won’t be effective, as Gordon Brown repeatedly points out. Even China, once thought to be the undisputed winner in the global economy, suddenly finds growth faltering and thousands out of work as global demand for its exports chokes off. Unlike the 1930s, no nation is immune and we are all in this together. We live in a global world and only global solutions will do. So, like it or not, nothing short of global governance can cure simultaneous national hangovers. All the while the global economy remains riddled with conflicting interests, undermined by tax havens and dogged by the ability of corporations and the rich to avoid paying taxes, traditional national governance cannot hope to solve our problems.

We should remember that the emergence of national market economies in the 17/18th century produced similar national hangovers: periodic recessions, bank runs and adverse social and environmental fall-out. None of that is new. So how were those problems overcome? By crisis! That fall-out eventually drove each national society to demand its government to regulate its growing domestic market. When they did, the problems were largely solved. The fall-out we see globally today is no different – and neither is the solution. Global problems will soon become so dire that governments will eventually be forced to regulate transnationally. So Gordon Brown and Barack Obama are absolutely right to call for international policy co-ordination. But given the current framework of competitive international relations and the fact that governments, economists, business-people and trade unionists are all still asking themselves the wrong “free-trade vs. protectionism” question, politicians haven’t the slightest clue how to achieve it.

Some of you may fear that global governance means yet another level of distant, burdensome government bureaucracy, or that our national identities will be lost, or that national governments will lose their freedom to act. But it is the very lack of cooperation between nations - the lack of a seamless global regulatory regime – that caused this crisis in the first place and is now preventing nations from acting adequately to halt it. Far from limiting national freedom of action, co-ordinated policy across national borders would actually enhance everyone’s freedom of action. While individual governments today fear taking any action that might displease the rich or the markets, co-ordinated action would at last allow them to reign them in decisively without fear of them moving elsewhere. Co-ordinated international action across a multitude of issues would allow the world’s nations to deal decisively with today’s global problems. But would we be wise to wait patiently in the hope that politicians will make that a reality? Would we be wise to think politicians can achieve this on their own?

Happily, citizens who support the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) campaign aren’t waiting around to find out. Simpol is a unique global campaign which allows citizens to use their votes in a completely new way to drive the world’s politicians towards implementing the right global solutions - simultaneously.

The basis of Simpol is that all or sufficient nations are to implement the needed stringent measures simultaneously, so avoiding the fear that first-mover nations would lose investment and jobs to other countries. By posing no-risk to any nation’s economy or its international competitiveness, simultaneous action removes the excuses for inaction and delay and opens the way to far more robust policies being adopted than relatively weak agreements we see governments trying to implement today, such as the Kyoto Protocol to curb global warming. Not only could simultaneous international action open the way to solving the global recession, it would allow global warming and a host of other global problems to be solved too.

Announcing his support for Simpol, Lembit Opik, one of a growing number of MPs who support the campaign summed it up when he said, “We live together at once, on the same small planet. There are some things we should do together, at once, on this same small planet. The compelling logic of Simultaneous Policy is really collective common sense – it’s a campaign to find out how common sense really is!”

But what about nations that refuse to cooperate internationally? To secure sufficient international political will for the implementation of the Simpol, citizens around the world who support it, known as Adopters, not only decide the global policies to be implemented, they tell all the politicians in their constituency area that they will be voting in future national elections for any candidate, within reason, who has signed the pledge to implement the policy alongside other governments. Or, if they have a preferred party, they encourage that party to support Simpol. In this way, citizens are seizing the political initiative, firstly, by taking the task of global policy-making out of the hands of politicians and, secondly, by intensifying the competition between candidates to a point where politicians who fail to support Simpol risk losing their seats to those who do.

This new way of voting even though adopted by only a relatively small number of people has already resulted in 27 UK MPs and countless candidates pledging to implement Simpol alongside other governments. With more and more parliamentary seats and even entire national elections being won or lost on fine margins, it needn’t take many of us to make it in the vital political interests of the main politicians and parties to support Simpol, thus offering Adopters the opportunity of driving even uncooperative governments to sign on.

Ambitious, no doubt. But do we really think politicians are going to save the world for us? Do we really think they can achieve international cooperation on their own? It’s not just politicians who need to grow up and take responsibility: it’s us, too. What Simpol offers is a powerful way for us to do that; a powerful way for citizens to show our politicians that "when the people lead, the leaders will follow".

John Bunzl, March 2009.