COMPARING POLITICAL AND
ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS OF
COOPERATION IN THE
INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE REGIME
Joshua Weeks
International Political Economy

Introduction• Climate change is one of

the most pressing policy
issues on a global scale

Introduction• Often acknowledged that climate change requires a global

response for 2 main reasons:• Transnational: states have an incentive to contribute to global CO2

levels without repercussion (“tragedy of the commons”), unless someinternational governance is instated• Intertemporal: benefits of action taken and financed now will not be
experienced until the future• But global response has been inadequate• States have varied widely in their support for the the UNFCCC treaty
produced in 1992, and its principal update, the Kyoto Protocol• Some states have negotiated ambitious reduction targets fordeveloped nations, whereas others have not ratified, havewithdrawn from the Protocol after making commitments, orindicated they won’t support in the futureIntroduction• What explains this variance in states’ behavior?
• Conventional IR scholarship focuses mostly on material interests• But political science/political economy scholarship also looks atimportance of political factors• The goal of my paper is to compare the relative

influence of material and political factors, and identify
which play a stronger role

Methodology
1. Discussion of key material and political determinants ofcooperation in the international climate regime
2. Presentation of 3 country pairings
3. Conclusions/Implications

Material Determinants• States will always consider material interests• States’ international commitments affected by perceptionsof costs and benefits of domestic action requiredMaterial Determinants
FactorReasons

Data Source

Size ofCarbonIntensive
Sector• Most national GHG reduction
policies target high emitting
sectors• States with larger industrial
sectors should experiencegreater opposition• 2010 survey by EBRD foundlarger industrial sectors
correlated with lower levels ofdomestic CC policy

World Bank% contribution of industrial
sector to national GDP,averaged from 1995 to2012

Dependence
on fossil fuelsas energy
source• Expensive structural transitions World Bank
• Resistance from the energy% fossil fuels in country’sand transportation sectors
primary energy supply,
1995 to 2012 average

Material Determinants
FactorReasonsData Source

Dependence
on fossil fuels
as exports• Climate treaty would hurt
exports• Face resistance from businessinterests

World Bank% fossil fuel products
export in GDP, averaged
from 1995 to 2012

Nationalinvestment inclean energy• Better prepared to reduce
domestic energy emissions• International demand for theirproducts may increase- World Bank% growth in renewablecapacity, 1990 – 2010
- Bloomberg
5 year growth rate ofinvestment, 2005-2010

Material Determinants
FactorReasons

Data Source

Opportunity
cost ofabatement• It is easier for some states toabate than others, dependingon growth trends, energy
efficiency

UNFCCCemissions trends between
1990 and 2010

Political Determinants• International responses are formulated under the sphereof domestic politics• Responses are subject to the context of homegrownelectoral interests, national discourse, and domestic
political institutions

Political Determinants
FactorReasons

Data Source

Effective• Greater number of parties
number ofmeans that parties with
political parties /explicit environmental
Representation
agendas, such as the green
by green parties
parties, are able to participate
in governance- Michael Gallagher
Effective # of politicalparties- Center on Democratic
Performance% of seats held by greenparties
Both 1995–2011 average

Concentrationof authority

Parliamentary orpresidential?

• Harder to pass legislation
when authority highly
dispersed (more veto points)• Parliamentary systems more
likely to ratify treaties andimplement climate policies
than presidential systems

Political Determinants
FactorReasons

Data Source

EuropeanUnion
Membership• Rotating leadership has
encouraged member states
to leave “imprint”• System of "collectiveentrepreneurship” wheremost proactive states have
had their agendas promoted

EU member or not

Government
orientation• Left-wing governments more
likely to use tax-based
policies• Left-wing voters view
government intervention
more favorably• Green parties always form
coalitions with left-wingparties

Database of PoliticalInstitutions
1995–2009 averagePolitical Determinants
FactorReasons

Data Source

Voters’awareness ofclimate change• Determines the extent towhich policymakers feelcompelled to deliver climaterelated results

Gallup Poll
% of respondents saying
they know “something” or“a great deal” aboutclimate change

Measuring Cooperation• Measure created by Bättig et al, with five indicators thatmeasure:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

If and how quickly a state ratified the UNFCCC
If and how quickly a state ratified the Kyoto Protocol
If a state has submitted national communications on time
How timely a state’s payments to the UNFCCC have beenState’s improvement in per capita emissions

Country Pairings

1. Australia vs. Germany• Germany played a leading role in establishing the agenda

for the international climate negotiations and convincing
other countries to accept ambitious emissions cuts
• Agreed to 8% cut from 1990• Wants a strong treaty in the future, willing to join second

commitment period• Australia has approached negotiations warily, initiallyrefusing to ratify Protocol• Agreed only to limit GHG increase to 8%• Wants a legal framework instead of a treaty, to be postponed until

2015, with no mechanism for guaranteeing ambitious cuts

1. Australia vs. Germany

1. Australia vs. Germany• Political Factors• Similarly conducive to cooperation in both countries• Green representation in both, although more influence in Germany• But climate change not a traditional platform for the green party inGermany, as it was championed by the nuclear lobby• No real differences in political orientation, issue awareness• Material Factors• Provide a clearer picture• Australia clearly more dependent on fossil fuels, both as energy
source and export, government supports coal exports• Germany more developed renewable energy• Most importantly: Germany emissions naturally decreasing fromcollapse of industry in the East, so could achieve goals with little
disruption to domestic economy

SCORE
Political Factors: 0Material Factors: 1

2. UK vs. Japan• UK played a leadership role in negotiations• Agreed to 8% reduction from 1990 levels• In favor of “almost unilateral” increases in the EU’s target, without
any commitments by third party countries• Will agree to second commitment period• Japan much less cooperative• Agreed to 6% reduction, but unable to meet it• Announced it would not participate in second commitment period

2. UK vs. Japan2. UK vs. Japan• Political Factors• Similar, and not as conducive in both countries (no green parties)• Awareness high in both countries• UK political orientation more left than Japan• But climate change not necessarily a “left-wing” policy issue in the UK.

Right-wing parties have fully supported Kyoto participation and 2008
domestic Climate Change Act law.

• Material Factors• UK made coal to gas conversion after 1990, accounting for ½ ofemissions reductions between 1990-2010, whereas Japan had
already made transition in 70s and 80s• Japan was already more energy efficient than UK by 1990
• UK has done more to realign material interests with climate changeaction (10 times more renewable energy growth)

SCORE
Political Factors: 0
Material Factors: 2

Canada vs. Russia• Canada initially ratified the Kyoto Protocol, but withdrew in2011• Originally committed to 6% reduction from 1990 levels• Russia has remained a party to the Protocol, but will notsupport it going forward• Agreed to a zero percent increase from 1990 levels

Canada vs. Russia

Canada vs. Russia• Political Factors• With a more liberal, parliamentary government with green party
representation and a higher awareness of climate change, politicalfactors would indicate that Canada has a higher level ofcooperation• Material Factors• Clearly material factors dominate• Russia’s emissions trajectory, a result of collapse of industry
following the fall of the Soviet Union, means that it had absolutely
nothing to lose from its zero reduction pledge (“hot air”)• No way Canada could meet its commitments given its economy• Now, Russia is growing quickly, so it is cautious about futurecommitments

SCORE
Political Factors: 0
Material Factors: 3

Conclusion• Material factors play a greater role in determining

international cooperation in the three country pairings inmy study

Implications• In particular, the relationship between emissions

trajectories and reduction commitments is meaningful• Should future agreements take countries’ differing opportunity costs

for abatement more into account when determining reduction
commitments?

• Could be taken cynically, in that states will only act in theirown interests• But also means that states that successfully align political
will to address climate change with material interests will
be more supportive of international agreement in thefuture• States should encourage investments in renewable energy andclean technology