Lena Ek
Former Member of the Swedish Parliament, former Member of the European Parliament and
former Minister for Environment and Climate
Sweden
Lekkopparhult1@gmail.com
Climate change was first discussed by the Nobel Laureate Svante Arrhenius in the 1890s. With a pen and calculations on paper, he understood and explained the danger and possible results of too much CO2 in the atmosphere. It took quite a long time before science became interested in the phenomenon and realised the implications for nature and humanity. For a long time, geopolitics and the scientific results on climate change lived in different dimensions and very few decision-makers had the ability, or even bothered, to combine and analyse the two subjects together. However, today we see a radical shift. In an increasingly troubled world multi-lateral organisations and many states realise that geopolitics and climate change are deeply entwined. Global solutions of global challenges need a deep understanding of both geopolitics and the effects of climate change.
Resources like food and water has always been a source of conflict in the history of mankind. This is still the case in many parts of the world. Parts of Africa and Asia are of course well-known examples. Lately this has become a growing interest also for the superpowers USA, China and Russia. Vladimir Putin has for many years in political speeches talked about food as a weapon and the aggressive war against Ukraine takes place not only where minerals are to be found, but in the areas often named the breadbasket of Europe. China is investing in agricultural production in Africa and Russia. In USA is the wheat belt a constant in the political debate. The European Union and it´s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are part of the foundation and creation of the European Union. It was not only the management of minerals but also of other resources. And the starvation after WWII still marks the format of agricultural policies in the union.
Lately forests have been added to the list of unique and necessary resources for many reasons. The balance of global water systems, biodiversity, production of oxygen is some. But the realization of what natural fibres can mean in terms of products like buildings, chemicals, medicines, batteries, energy, textiles, new materials and the substitution of oil-based products has put also forest right in the area of geopolitics and climate conflicts. And right in the centre of discussions between the US and the EU.
Looking back at the multi-lateral negotiation history of Climate change there are a few lessons to learn. (And by 2050 the world will see the results and analyse the different steps that has been taken since 1890s.) Firstly, it takes time to realise the implications of human actions and to find common solutions. The establishment of United Nations and European Union as solution mechanisms are exceptions caused by a severe crisis. Will the effects of climate change be a third example? It remains to be seen. Secondly, the more detailed the proposed solutions are, the longer it takes. Many thought that the Kyoto mechanism could provide measures to handle climate emissions, but it was bogged down by more and more bureaucratic details that finally resulted in more and more countries leaving negotiations. Thirdly, when USA and Europe have been able to cooperate it has been possible to find new solutions and new majorities. Some examples are the foundation for long term loss and damage, the Climate and Clean air Coalition (CCAC) and the Paris Climate agreement. The reasons for these results are of course a common will to cooperate to find solutions. The American policy has varied with different administrations. So has the European negotiation lines and political will. The smoothest process has been the one establishing the CCAC, probably because it was based on other parameters. Here a win-win-win situation based on economy-health-climate criteria was created. There was also a common principle established meaning that everyone should contribute, and everyone should gain from the action platforms created. Diplomats, experts and politicians had met before and had created a certain level of understanding and knowledge. The transatlantic link proves to be extremely important not only for geopolitical issues, but also in the climate context.
The latest report from UN IPCC shows a scientific unity on the raise of average global temperature and the effects caused by this. In an effort to mediate the effects of climate change, the European Union has started an internal decision-making process on a number of legislative proposals and initiatives, Fit for 55. This includes a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, CBAM, aiming at protecting the internal market from carbon leakage. One might compare with when EU decided on Reach (regulation, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals), the same kind of debate took place. At that time several US states had the same kind of control and testing, but the debate was still very heated.
Another part of Fit for 55 concern regulations on sustainable forestry and control by digital tools and geo-location exercised by EU, with the aim of preventing illegal logging. At the same time the proposed EU measures will probably collide with internal policies in some countries. This has caused a lively debate in several forums globally, including the voluntary schemes on sustainable forestry, PEFC and FSC. It is doubtful that these measures will provide results if there isn´t a common understanding in the US and the EU.
Our common picture of how geopolitics and climate change affect the world is today outdated. The combined effects are bigger and affect more sectors than before, simply because of multiplied events. This includes for example food production, water, security, financial markets, housing, education, insurance, defence, new technology and so on. Billions and billions are affected or has to be mobilized.
The global geopolitical and security situation today is extremely worrying. Conflicts based on access to resources are increasing instead of decreasing. Natural catastrophes, more or less caused by effects of climate change, are adding to the problems we as humanity, have to face and solve. History shows that a common understanding, cooperation and trust within the transatlantic link becomes even more important day by day.