US-China Environmental Cooperation as a Security Issue

Last week, CGS was summoned to coffee by a friend who works within China's environmental protection bureaucracy. The government, said friend confessed, is very worried about the intersection of the economic crisis, political discontent, and its environmental policy goals. Officials, according to this source, are increasingly concerned both that economic considerations might imperil China's transition to a low-carbon economy (低碳经济), and that public discontent over pollution and other environmental issues may translate into protests or worse.

They should be, and said friend's warning provides an impetus to explain why US-China environmental cooperation should be seen not only as an ecological, energy, or economic issue, but also as one bearing on the most hard-core realist conceptions of security. (Full disclosure: CGS has often described the field of environmental security as a little dubious).

The most obvious segue from China's environmental situation to security is via energy. China is the world's third-largest oil importer (see US Department of Energy Country Brief), with much of it passing along vulnerable sea routes through the Indian Ocean and the Straits of Malacca. China presently lacks the capacity to protect these crucial sea lanes, and thus is vulnerable to disruptions in oil production and transport in South, Southwest, and Southeast Asia. The Brookings Report, referenced in yesterday's post, notes that if China were to expand deployment of renewable and low-carbon energy sources, its energy security would be enhanced, probably also lowering tensions with other major oil consumers such as the United States and India in areas like Africa and Central Asia.

But the most serious security threat to arise from China's environmental situation comes from water scarcity. Most of the major river systems that feed and water China, India, and Southeast Asia depend on meltwater from the Himalayan region. Climate change is endangering this vital source of water for 60% of the human population. Himalayan glaciers, which provide some 70% of the flow of major Asian rivers, are melting at an extremely rapid rate; one study predicts that the Himalayan-Hindu Kush region will "run out of water" during the dry season (Barnett, T.P., et al. “Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions.” Nature. 438 (2005): 303-308).

Recent news reports from the present drought in northern China provide some indication of what might occur should this nightmare scenario transpire: "Highest Level of Emergency for Drought Declared" (see China Daily) and "2/3 of China's cities short of water" (see Renminribao, in Chinese only). The present dought, of course, cannot be conclusively tied to climate change, and is exacerbated by wasteful water use in China's northern regions. But as climate change accelerate, we can expect things to get worse.

The security implications for a China, India, and Southeast Asia short of water are obvious. Besides destabilizing massive and volatile populations, such a situation would interrupt economic growth in the very regions economists agree are central to global recovery. In a time when the head of America's Central Intelligence Agency identified unemployment as the primary threat to American security (see New York Times), it's frightening to contemplate a similar situation compounded by thirst for the majority of the human population.

US-China environmental cooperation, then, isn't just an ecological concern. It's not only good for economic growth or mutual understanding. It's also essential for the security of both nations. Combined, these rationales amount not only to a compelling case for investing heavily in US-China environmental cooperation, but a clear imperative. The world must figure out how to grow sustainably without poisioning its environmental commons, and especially its atmosphere. The United States and China must lead the way, otherwise we will all soon be living nastier, more brutal, and shorter lives- a Hobbesian security threat if ever there were one.

Re-thinking Global Environmental Governance

As we ring in the new year, several environmental issues demand a fundamental re-think. One of them is global environmental governance, a topic close to CGS's heart. Probably preaching to the choir, but still:

When Dean Acheson, President Truman’s Secretary of State, completed his memoirs, he titled them “Present at the Creation.” Despite his grandiosity, Acheson was referring not to the original Genesis of the universe, but rather to era in which the great post-1945 multilateral institutions were created, including the World Bank and the United Nations (UN). We should hope that the statesmen of our own era will soon be able to record achievements of similar magnitude, for the present system of global governance is woefully inadequate to meet the global challenges of this century. Nowhere is this more evident than with respect to environmental issues, including climate change and energy. These environmental challenges are so complex, so grave, and so pressing that a single form or layer of governance cannot be expected to meet them with any adequacy. What is needed is a multidimensional approach to global environmental governance at all levels.

The present system of global environmental governance is a haphazard patchwork of multilateral institutions and agreements that awkwardly and incompletely overlap with regional, bilateral, and national efforts. Major actors include several UN specialized agencies, such as the UN Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization, multilateral environmental agreements, and a range of nongovernmental organizations. As governance scholars James Broughton and Colin Bradford have written, this “multiplicity of actors” results in a wide divergence of objectives and interests. Despite calls for reform, this chaotic picture is likely to persist through 2020. The developed and developing world will probably manage to forge a new agreement to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, replacing the Kyoto Protocol. Such an agreement is likely to prompt new national and regional frameworks to reduce emissions, and also new UN institutions to aid in climate change adaptation and technology transfer. But there is no sign on the horizon of fundamental, international agreement on how to reconcile economic development with environmental sustainability. As a result, whatever new institutions a post-Kyoto climate agreement may produce, it is unlikely to meet the full range of global environmental challenges, which apart from climate change also include oceanic ecosystem collapse and catastrophic loss of biodiversity. On present evidence, the world in 2020 will simply have an enhanced complement of inadequate environmental governance institutions and frameworks.

Against this dismal prospect stands the promise of multidimensional environmental governance. This framework assigns to global, national, and sub-national institutions a variety of responsibilities to ensure that the full range of global environmental challenges is addressed. At the global level, critical ecosystems, including rainforests, biologically productive ocean regions, and the climate itself, should be designated as being vital to humanity as a whole. With UN leadership, international resources including aid and technical cooperation should be devoted to ensuring that these ecosystems are protected, while economic development is pursued by means other than damaging these precious resources. At the same time, a reinvigoration of existing multilateral institutions can help to coordinate national sustainable development efforts. A UN Environmental Organization (UNEO) should be formed as the successor to UNEP. Based on recommendations recently made by the UN General Assembly, UNEO would help to coordinate enforcement and monitoring of the myriad number of multilateral environmental agreements, while also building capacity within national environmental governance institutions. The International Energy Agency should similarly establish, as Colin Bradford suggests, a Global Energy Council to coordinate national efforts to de-carbonize energy sources. Finally, sub-national partnerships should be encouraged to develop innovative and locally relevant environmental policy solutions. One example is the US-China EcoPartnerships initiative, which includes an agreement between the cities of Shanghai and New Orleans to preserve coastal ecosystems. Such local partnerships present an excellent opportunity for policy entrepreneurship; prosperous cities in the developing world, such as Hong Kong and Tel Aviv, may be willing to commit to greater emissions reduction efforts, for example, than national governments. Combined with national and global efforts, sub-national partnerships can create a robust and coherent framework to address multiple, global environmental issues.

Multidimensional environmental governance thus envisions a coordinated, unified response to environmental challenges. Yet it presumes a substantial degree of mutual confidence and cooperation. In a world at war and in financial crisis, this condition is far from guaranteed. Multidimensional environmental governance should be seen as one segment of reform to the whole system of global governance, reform which recognizes developing nations as true, equal stakeholders in world affairs. Nations such as China, India, Brazil, and South Africa must be given more say in security and economic affairs, a prospect which should be realized through UN Security Council reform and recognition of the G-20 grouping as the primary forum for global economic cooperation. In addition, efforts to reform the global trade regime through the Doha Development Round must be reinvigorated. Such steps are necessary to create the climate of trust and cooperation that will enable multidimensional environmental governance.

If this sounds like a tall order, that’s because it is. But there is also no question that humanity’s efforts in the next century must be equal to the challenges we face. This is no time for cynicism or half-measures. Nor, as America prepares to inaugurate its first black president, Europe implements the world’s first continental cap-and-trade system, and nations like India and Brazil emerge from poverty-stricken pasts, have we any shortage of hope that the world can change for the better. A multidimensional approach to global environmental governance is our opportunity to put this hope into practice, and to preserve our common, planetary home.