From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec

From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec

12.07.2015 Views

5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM CLIMATE CHANGEaccrue in a relatively far-off future, and often in different countriesaltogether. The political reality is that floods in New Orleans orCentral Europe are much more likely to prompt action in Washingtonor Brussels than cyclones in Bangladesh or droughts in Niger.New institutions of the kind required by climate change have comeabout in the past as the result of a shock that galvanises allies andconvinces waverers, such as war or depression. Such shocks haveenormous costs, especially for poor people. In this case, waiting for amajor systemic shock will probably entail irreversible tipping points.In that, it resembles nuclear warfare, where global agreements must bereached before a major shock occurs.Convincing the public of the need for short-term sacrifice in theinterest of long-term solutions is always difficult: witness the glacialpace of pension reform in many countries. Achieving all this withequity is even harder – as in the Doha trade talks, where rich countrieshave resisted granting additional flexibility to any poor country thatmight become a competitor. Politicians may hope that a less costlypath comes along in the shape of technological fixes that can obviatethe need for difficult trade-offs. However, technological solutionscould well end up increasing inequality, while the wilder visions ofgeo-engineering – such as sprinkling the oceans with iron filings toencourage algal growth or launching giant reflectors into space – arelikely to have serious unintended consequences.The political obstacles are great, but the scale of the threat is almostunimaginable: climate change could make large parts of the globeuninhabitable, triggering a species loss comparable to the end of thedinosaurs. One of those species might be our own. Perhaps moreplausible is a disintegration of civilisation, catapulting society backcenturies, if not millennia. The global governance of the internationalsystem faces no sterner test in the decades to come.423

FROM POVERTY TO POWERGLOBAL GOVERNANCE IN THETWENTY-FIRST CENTURYThe twenty-first century will be characterised by growing economicintegration and shifting power balances among nations: the slow declineof the post- Second World War powers; the inexorable rise of new powerssuch as China and India; the increased role of regional and sub-regionalblocs such as the African Union, Comesa (East and Southern Africa),Caricom (Caribbean),or ASEAN (East Asia); and the sometimes precipitatecollapse of poor countries on the margins of these tectonic shifts.The institutions of global governance were built on an order that israpidly eroding,and will have to evolve to keep pace with new challenges.With all its limitations, global governance holds out the promise ofbuilding some fairness and predictability into international relationsby reining in the powerful, ensuring that poor nations have sufficientpolicy space and resources to work their way out of poverty, and helpingthe most vulnerable. The challenge is to make sure that globalgovernance resembles a safety net more than it does a trap.The current institutions of global governance fall far short offulfilling that hope: the UN struggles to reform itself into the kind ofeffective organisation that can implement its newly agreed ‘responsibilityto protect’; the World Bank and the IMF remain in the grip of a largelyoutdated and ideological economic doctrine that does great harm inmany countries, and the same goes for the WTO; aid agencies moveslowly to overcome their inefficiencies and to spend new aid money inways that strengthen, and do not undermine, fledgling democracies.424

5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM CLIMATE CHANGEaccrue in a relatively far-off future, and often in different countriesal<strong>to</strong>gether. The political reality is that floods in New Orleans orCentral Europe are much more likely <strong>to</strong> prompt action in Washing<strong>to</strong>nor Brussels than cyclones in Bangladesh or droughts in Niger.New institutions of the kind required by climate change have comeabout in the past as the result of a shock that galvanises allies andconvinces waverers, such as war or depression. Such shocks haveenormous costs, especially for poor people. In this case, waiting for amajor systemic shock will probably entail irreversible tipping points.In that, it resembles nuclear warfare, where global agreements must bereached before a major shock occurs.Convincing the public of the need for short-term sacrifice in theinterest of long-term solutions is always difficult: witness the glacialpace of pension reform in many countries. Achieving all this withequity is even harder – as in the Doha trade talks, where rich countrieshave resisted granting additional flexibility <strong>to</strong> any poor country thatmight become a competi<strong>to</strong>r. Politicians may hope that a less costlypath comes along in the shape of technological fixes that can obviatethe need for difficult trade-offs. However, technological solutionscould well end up increasing inequality, while the wilder visions ofgeo-engineering – such as sprinkling the oceans with iron filings <strong>to</strong>encourage algal growth or launching giant reflec<strong>to</strong>rs in<strong>to</strong> space – arelikely <strong>to</strong> have serious unintended consequences.The political obstacles are great, but the scale of the threat is almostunimaginable: climate change could make large parts of the globeuninhabitable, triggering a species loss comparable <strong>to</strong> the end of thedinosaurs. One of those species might be our own. Perhaps moreplausible is a disintegration of civilisation, catapulting society backcenturies, if not millennia. The global governance of the internationalsystem faces no sterner test in the decades <strong>to</strong> come.423

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!