The Nation State vs The Climate. Place your bet.

Debate

The Nation State vs The Climate. Place your bet. By Cedric Dreyer Are national borders preventing us from solving climate change? This section is going to take this issue apart, by unpacking the discussion into an evaluation of cause and consequence. The debate, arguably, is more important than ever. Our answer, if there is one, will determine whether the nation-state, or the climate wins and thus form part of the solution to climate change. To begin, let us define our meaning of the "nation-state" and “the climate”, our two competitors in this debate. We argue that the nation-state is a collective of citizens who are united under common laws, customs and language. Additionally, the nation-state maintains borders (i.e. territory), and behaves with agency toward the other nation states (through foreign and defense policy). The climate on the other hand, for us, refers to increasing costs (both human and economic) created by a changing climate. In short, climate change. What causes climate change? On gates notes, Bill breaks it down into emissions sources. They are: 1. Making electricity (around 25% of greenhouse emissions yearly) 2. Agriculture (around 24%...) 3. Manufacturing (around 21%...) 4. Transportation (around 14%...) 5. Buildings (around 6%, this includes AC, Lighting, Heating…) 6. Other (around 10%) While most of us are likely to think that electric cars and solar panels on our homes will solve climate change –it now no longer looks as simple. These categories make it clear that the issue spans across a wide range of sectors with their own principles, and laws. Either way, for the nationstate to win against climate change, all six of these categories must be reduced to zero net emissions in the next fifty years (as the International Panel on Climate Change, IPCC found). Bill Gates argues that innovation and new discoveries are key, and we agree. However, the nation-state may also be able to help in other ways. An economist will tell you that taxation reduces demand for a good (sort of). So why not tax meat, gasoline, and electricity? That should, in theory, reduce emissions from agriculture, transportation and energy sectors by cutting demand? Perhaps, but not quite. Where you are, and who you are, plays a role in your preferences and habits. If you’re in Norway, you are much more likely to drive a Tesla than someone in Dubai who is more inclined to cruise through the city in a GClass Mercedes. Two States, two preferences. Breaking it down into potential causes yields that in Norway fuel is taxed at 57.95p per liter, whereas in Dubai its subsidized by the state (though these subsidies have been declining steadily in the past few years). Therefore, in Norway, it makes more sense to drive an electric vehicle (exempt from fuel taxes), whereas in Dubai an electric vehicle’s sales price outweighs the benefits of not having to purchase fuel. While this is a significant “When taking into consideration global disparities in preferences, development and wealth it becomes clear that the fight against climate change is in disarray.“

simplification, and an example limited to transportation (14% of emissions), it does show that different States have different policies. It also shows that preferences vary across borders. The argument for the nation-state, though hypothetical and frankly unrealistic, is that if the whole world united under a single set of policies (i.e. formed a single country), it would be easier for policymakers to spearhead laws that would cut emissions and reduce these emissions categories to zero. The “Energiewende” (Germany’s energy transition), could be an example of such a policy. On a good day, it has cut greenhouse gas emissions for energy production to zero. The policy was passed in 2010, while it would be simplistic to argue that the Energiewende was and is perfectly executed –and above that, it’s a stretch to argue that its implementation globally is possible (given wealth and development disparities). Nevertheless, it goes to show that policy is able to change the course of a country quickly and effectively. And so, if you’re a betting person –go all in for Germany! However, when taking into consideration global disparities in preferences, development and wealth it becomes clear that the fight against climate change is in disarray. The category of nation-states is not united, which gives the climate an advantage. Regulations limiting emissions could be tightened, the burning of fossil fuels eliminated, and the prices of carbonheavy production methods increased. However, economic realities and interpretations of “alternative facts” and policies make it a challenge to unite the world behind a coherent approach to climate change. And so, a bet on the United States probably isn’t the best nation-state investment, all in for climate change instead? Well, perhaps the European Union or the United States set the example of the previously argued “united” nation-state. In the case of the EU, 28 nation-states have come together to share a set of policies and laws. In the case of the United States, 50 states have come together under a shared federal constitution. However, in both examples, there is no unilateral approach to climate change. Fragmentation is once again the issue. Iceland, Sweden, and Germany are leading the way in Europe; whereas many new EU members still lag behind. In the US, California came out in favor of the Paris Accords whereas South Carolina and Texas weren’t so sure. Financing transition is one worry, state action on the matter is another. As wonderful as the idea of a united front sounds, it's less likely to happen any time soon. Rather, individual nation states can do their part and above all, research and development can pave the way to technologies that make a global transition easier than before. And so, we’ll have to await another hand for further bets –this one was a 50/50 split for both sides.