Ambushed: The Kyoto Protocol, the Bush Administration's Climate Policy and the Erosion of Legitimacy
Tóm tắt
The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 164 states and is now fully operational. However, the Bush administration's repudiation of the Protocol combined with the weakness of the targets raise a confronting question for students of legitimacy: is it possible for a regime to be legitimate but ineffective in solving the problem it is designed to address? I argue that effectiveness is an important component of the Protocol's legitimacy but that the parties have been reluctant to make an issue of effectiveness during the early phase of the Protocol's operation. However, the legitimacy of the Protocol is likely to wane, and the chronic international legitimacy crisis of the Bush administration's climate change policy is likely to become acute, as a result of poor performance. I conclude by suggesting what might constitute significant and timely adaptation that might resolve the US's chronic legitimacy crisis and the Protocol's waning legitimacy.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Beetham, D. (1991) The Legitimation of Power, Houndsmill, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Böhringer, C. and Löschel, A. (2003) ‘Market Power and Hot Air in International Emissions Trading: The Impacts of US Withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol’, Applied Economics 35 (6): 651–663.
Brown, C. (2004) ‘Do Great Powers have Great Responsibilities? Great Powers and Moral Agency’, Global Society 18 (1): 5–19.
Brunée, J. (2004) ‘The United States and International Environmental Law: Living with an Elephant’, European Journal of International Law 15 (4): 617–649.
Bush, G. (2006) ‘State of the Union Address’, January 31, www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/index.html.
Christoff, P. (2006) ‘Post-Kyoto? Post-Bush? Towards an Effective “Climate Coalition of the Willing”’, International Affairs 82 (5): 831–860.
Cohen, M.J. and Egelston, A. (2003) ‘The Bush Administration and Climate Change: Prospects for an Effective Policy Response’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 5 (4): 315–331.
Depledge, J. (2005) ‘Against the Grain: The United States and the Global Climate Change Regime’, Global Change, Peace and Security 17 (1): 11–27.
DFAT (Department of Foreign Affair and Trade, Australia) (2006) ‘Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate’, Charter, www.dfat.gov.au/environment/climate/ap6/charter.html.
Falkner, R. (2005) ‘American Hegemony and the Global Environment’, International Studies Review 7 (4): 585–599.
Fisher, B.S., Ford, M., Jakeman, G., Gurney, A., Penm, J., Matysek, A. and Gunasekera, D. (2006) Technological Development and Economic Growth: Inaugural Ministerial Meeting of the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, ABARE Research Report 06.1, Canberra: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, January, http://abareonlineshop.com/product.asp?prodid=13334.
G8 Gleneagles (2005) ‘Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development’, www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/PostG8_Gleneagles_CCChapeau.pdf.
Goel, R. (2004) ‘A Bargain Born of a Paradox: The Oil Industry's Role in American Domestic and Foreign Policy’, New Political Economy 9 (4): 467–492.
Grubb, M. (2005) ‘The Kyoto Protocol: Time for Action, Not Hot Air’, Open Democracy, May 18, www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-6-129-2517.jsp.
Hajer, M.A. (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hare, B. (2005) ‘Global Warming: The Ball is Now in the US Court’, Global Change, Peace and Security 17 (1): 87–94.
Harris, P.G. and Yu, H. (2005) ‘Environmental Change and the Asia Pacific: China Responds to Global Warming’, Global Change, Peace and Security 17 (1): 45–58.
Krasner, S. (ed.) (1983) International Regimes, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Nanz, P. and Steffek, J. (2004) ‘Global Governance, Participation and the Public Sphere’, Government and Opposition 39 (2): 314–335.
Pizer, W.A. (2004) ‘A Tale of Two Policies: Clear Skies and Climate Change’, in R. Lutter and J.F. Shogren (eds.) Painting the White House Green: Rationalizing Environmental Policy Inside the Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 10–45.
Rabe, B. (2004) Statehouse and Greenhouse: The Emerging Politics of American Climate Change Policy, Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.
Scharpf, F.W. (1999) Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic?, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Speth, J.G. (2004) Red Sky at Morning: America and the Crisis of the Global Environment, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Steffen, W. (2006) Stronger Evidence but New Challenges: Climate Change Science 2001–2005, Canberra: Australian Greenhouse Office.
UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2006) Homepage, http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php.
US Department of State (2002) US Climate Action Report, May, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsUSClimateActionReport.html.
Wettestad, J. (2006) ‘The Effectiveness of Environmental Policies’, in M.M. Betsill, K. Hochstetler and D. Stevis (eds.) Palgrave Advances in International Environmental Politics, Houndsmill, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 299–302.
White House (2005) ‘President Signs Energy Policy Act’, http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050808-6.html.
WRI (World Resources Institute) (2001) ‘CO2: Emission Per Capita’, http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?theme=3&variable_ID=666&action=select_countries.