404 CHAPTER ElEvEn ■ TransnaTional issues
diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of green house gases have
increased,” the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2013. A year
later, the same group affirmed once again that the human influence on climate change
is clear.^3 The scientific community finds the evidence compelling.
Although scientists increasingly agree on the prob lem— that con temporary indus-
trial, agricultural, and communications pro cesses have strongly accelerated global
warming— politicians and economists strug gle to find solutions. This strug gle is not
surprising, given the competing interests of vari ous parties. Industrialized countries
seek continued growth, and the South wants to become industrialized and enjoy the
North’s consumer lifestyle; both are made pos si ble by converting oil and gas to energy.
The parties disagree on w hether voluntary restraints or market- based responses will be
sufficient for both “worlds” to reach their economic objectives while at the same time
reducing green house emissions (that is, achieve sustainable growth). If the global
response proves insufficient, might authoritative regulations be needed, and if so, what
authority should be invoked to monitor and enforce them— international, state level,
subnational, or even local?
The international community has made several attempts to respond to climate
change through negotiated state action. One of those efforts was the Kyoto Protocol
of 1997, which provided for stabilizing the concentration of green house gases and delin-
eated international goals for reducing emissions by 2010. The protocol came into force
in 2005, ratified by 156 states, including Rus sia, Canada, China, India, and Japan,
but not the United States. The George W. Bush administration argued that the eco-
nomic costs of moving away from a fossil fuel– based economy would be too high and
an unacceptable number of U.S. jobs would be lost. Furthermore, the developed north-
ern countries would be forced to comply with restrictions, whereas rapidly developing
economies like India and China were not obligated under Kyoto, giving them an unfair
economic advantage. Markets would be the best way to bring about the necessary
changes, with higher prices leading to decreased consumption and, possibly, a system
for trading emission quotas. But U.S. views began to change as the private sector real-
ized that climate change was affecting their operations, and the U.S. military recog-
nized growing security threats as rising sea levels resulted in the vulnerability of people
and food supplies. Some kind of new approach was necessary.
Eu ro pean states and Japan did sign the Kyoto Protocol and established the EU Emis-
sions Trading System as a way to reduce industrial green house gas emissions. States
that use less than their allowance may sell credits to others who are not meeting their
obligations. However, with the economic recession and the Eurozone crisis, demand
for the permits has dropped, and there is overcapacity in the carbon market.
Three lines of thinking have emerged from difficulties with Kyoto. First, perhaps
by seeking a comprehensive global treaty, the individuals, groups, states, and co ali tions