International Climate Change Diplomacy is Failing. Why?

International climate change diplomacy is failing. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has established that anthropogenic climate change - climate change due to human activities - is real and it needs to be addressed (IPCC, 2007). In spite of this, climate change negotiations have been slow moving at best, which can be attributed to the controversy that still surrounds the issue of climate among the general public. The magnitude of the situation and the far-reaching implications of climate change also make it a cumbersome topic to address. Yet, I believe that there is one fundamental reason for the failure of climate change diplomacy – the society we live in today.

If we acknowledge that climate change is man-made, we acknowledge that the fundamental basis of our society is flawed. Think about it, nearly every product we encounter in daily life is a product of the petrochemical industry, and is thus associated with greenhouse gas emissions. To illustrate, I will walk through a routine stop at Starbucks.

Firstly, when I go to Starbucks it is usually by car. Oil provided the fuel for my car to get from my home to Starbucks. Additionally, nearly every part of my car is made, in one way or another, from oil (plastic, rubber, steel). Oil was also used to fuel the factories and machines that were used in the manufacturing of my car as well as the transportation of all the parts that went into building my car, plus the transportation of my Korean made car to the United States and eventually to me.

Now that I have arrived at Starbucks, I walk in the door and stand in line. It is dark, stormy, and cold outside, yet inside it is bright and warm – a miracle attributed to the availability of electricity. Electricity however, is not a source of energy; it is a way of storing and transporting energy. To generate electricity today we rely mainly on coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydroelectric, and petroleum with a small amount from solar energy, tidal harnesses, wind generators, and geothermal sources. Each one of these methods either indirectly (oil is consumed in the manufacturing, building, and maintenance of all of these electricity sources), or both directly and indirectly consume oil (such as in the case of coal and petroleum).

Next, I walk past the food counter. All of these goods are the product of agriculture, likely industrialized agriculture. This means that oil goes into the massive tractors that plant the crops, oil goes into transporting the water that waters the crops, oil makes the chemicals and fertilizers that are sprayed on the crops (not to mention the oil that goes into producing the GMO seeds), oil fuels the tractors and crop dusters that spray the crops, oil fuels that tractors that harvest the crops, oil fuels their transport from farm to factory, oil fuels the factories that process the crops as well as the factories that turn that basic crop into a marketable finished product, oil made the plastic that is wrapped around the finished product, and finally oil fuels the international distribution of that finished food product to its final destination – the refrigerated food display of my local Starbucks.

After making my way past the food display, I am ready to order organic coffee from Sumatra. After I pay, I am handed a nice hot Sumatran coffee in a disposable cup and sleeve with a disposable plastic lid. Oil was needed in the preparation of the coffee beans as well as in the packaging and distribution of the coffee beans from Sumatra to Santa Barbara. The one time use cup and lid were also made and transported using oil. I sit down and enjoy my coffee for 5-10 minutes, and then throw my empty cup away (luckily this Starbucks has a recycle trashcan, unlike most). I walk out feeling good knowing that I used a sleeve made from 40% post-consumer recycled paper and drank an organic coffee, yet I generally scarcely give a thought to all of the oil, and therefore the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, that went into the production of my cup of coffee.

This is the greatest market failure of our time, yet it is what our society is based upon. Polluting is not a crime, it is an everyday occurrence, and if anything, polluting is rewarded. This is why admitting to anthropogenic climate change will shake our industrial, oil-based, consumption-driven society to the core. It means that everyone in the industrialized world, and even those in rapidly developing countries, will have to make a total lifestyle change, but change, however necessary, does not come easily.

There are several reasons why change does not come easily. Firstly, climate change knows no borders and does not affect all nations and all people equally. This is why, despite mounting evidence, anthropogenic climate change remains a controversial and debatable issue for huge parts of the globe where the visible impacts of climate change are still slight or nonexistent (Karaim, 2010). The hegemonic system can also be blamed for the rigidity and failure of international climate negotiations (Falk, 2010). Leader states are not using their power to better the well being of humankind in general, but rather seek to strengthen their own well being, as well as the well being of those industries and corporations who help strengthen and maintain them.

What is politically feasible is much less than what is necessary to avert a climate catastrophe. What is necessary is the recognition that the core of our society is based on unsustainable growth and consumption, propped up by the oil industry. This is a difficult realization to make when it is so much easier listen to the skeptics who claim that climate change is natural process, not at all influenced by human activity. This belief means that individual change is not required; everyone can go on commuting to and from work five days a week, everyone can continue buying ipads, iphones, and laptops, and I can continue drinking coffee from Sumatra.

Works Cited:

Falk, R. (2010). A Radical World Order Challenge: Addressing Global Climate Change and the Threat of Nuclear Weapons. Globalizations, 7(1), 137-155. doi:10.1080/14747731003593414


IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA

Karaim, R. (2010, Feburary). Climate Change. CQ Global Researcher, 25-50. Available online at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38851183/Global-Environmental-Issues-Selections-from-CQ-Researcher