.png){kind=icon}
1. In what ways does the green IR analysis of the climate change negotiations differ from mainstream approaches?
To answer this question return to the main analytical focal points of mainstream vs. green theory analyses of IR, generally. As you will recall from reading chapters 3, 4, 5, 6 of the IRT textbook, realist and liberal approaches to international relations theorizings (as well as their neo- strands) focus on the state as a main actor in determining political dynamics in the international, and thus on national interests as a main motivational driver of their actions. This is certainly true for realist theories, but carries significance even for liberal analyses, in that their focus on intergovernmental institutions nonetheless hinges on the assumption that members of the latter retain vital aspects of sovereignty that often determines the extent of their participation according to institutional policies.
Green theory, on the other hand, takes a normative approach to international relations. Their focus on ecological sustainability, environmental justice and distribution of power relations among members of the international community shape their explanations and prescriptions of climate negotiations in significantly different ways from those offered by (neo)realists and (neo)liberals (p. 4, 47). These include questions about the types of actors – significantly privatized industries and transnational corporations – in greenhouse gas emissions and thus raises questions over who is responsible and who is to be held accountable for related climate change policies. Further, green theorists might point to substantive and procedural injustices in the negotiation process, a sensibility that mainstream IR theories and particularly adherents to the so-called ‘black box’ theories of states are likely to underappreciate.
2. Why is green IPE ambivalent about the potential of states and capitalist markets to address climate change?
While economic measures are considered by many an integral element of policy leverage (think only of economic sanctions as a common diplomatic tool), green IPE theorists raise several issues regarding the usage of such measurements for the successful implementation of climate change policies (p. 47-49). These include IPE green theorists’ conviction that economic measures cannot foster a just transition towards a zero-carbon society, arguing instead that cap-and-trade and carbon offsetting systems favour wealthier states and corporations in ways that do not force them to reduce emission. This they argue: defers restructuring programs among such agents to invest in green policy development; hollows out responsibility among such actors and revokes the UNFCCC norm that developed countries should lead the way in combating climate change by pioneering new, low-carbon technologies and practices; has led to continuous commodification of nature; has led to corruptive measures in the form of over-allocation of permits on the national level.