IEEJ: January 2011

Special Bulletin
October 14, 2010
A Japanese Perspective on the International Energy Landscape (14)Confusion of Global Governance and International Energy/Environment Problems
Ken Koyama, PhD
Director
Strategy and Industry Research Unit
Institute of Energy Economics, Japan

There are various viewpoints for analyzing international energy problems. In terms ofinternational political and economic keynotes or trends at present, “the world going in the directionof multipolarization or depolarization,” “the rise of China and other emerging countries,” and “major(industrial) countries plagued by the economic crisis and deflation” may be particularly importantviewpoints. The three are not independent from each other but are rather mutually and closelyrelated to each other. Through these three viewpoints, I would like to look at arguments andconclusions at a meeting of a working group for the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, which took place in China’s Tianjin on October 4-9.
As is well known, international discussions have continued on a framework of global
warming measures after the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. The 15th Conference ofParties to the UNFCC, known as COP15, in late 2009 produced the “Copenhagen Agreement” butindicated how difficult it would be to form a new international framework. The fate of discussions
on the post-Kyoto framework then grew even more uncertain. Negotiations will continue through theCOP16 meeting to be held in Mexico’s Cancun in December 2010 (and through the COP17 meetingin 2011). But at this moment it may be difficult to expect any agreement on the post-Kyoto
framework. As the Tianjin working group meeting came in a run-up to the COP 16 gathering, global
attention focused on whether any progress would be achieved toward an agreement. As indicated bymany media reports, however, gaps between major countries and between industrial and developing
countries have not been resolved. The working group meeting has reportedly made little effective
progress. As a result, a view that any agreement at the COP 16 meeting would be almost impossible
has been reaffirmed (as expected before the working group meeting).
Responses to the global warming problem are directly linked to global interests including
global environmental conservation and the survival of mankind and ecological system. Whendiscussing how to respond to the problem, however, countries have found serious conflicts of theirnational interests over greenhouse gas emission reduction amounts and methods. In this sense, the1IEEJ: January 2011global governance system or order to coordinate between global and national interests or the realleadership in the international order may be indispensable for resolving the global warming problem.
However, the present international politics features the absence of such global governance system orleadership. The lack of global governance has become a significant problem. International politics
experts now point out that the world is going in the direction of multipolarization or depolarization
after a shift from a bipolar world under the Cold War to a mono-polar world led by the United States.
The world is searching out or considering new systems such as the Group of 20 into which theGroup of Two (the United States and China) or the Group of Eight has been expanded. But the world
has yet to form any effective governance or order. Under such situation, we may conclude thatinternational negotiations on the global warming problem include the complex coordination ofnational interests and are naturally difficult.
A large factor affecting the global warming problem is the rise of emerging countries
including China. China and other emerging countries, with growing influences on and presence inthe world economy and international politics, have emphasized industrial countries’ responsibility
for global warming and have refused to take part in any mandatory or binding internationalframework, even though they have offered to voluntarily hold down GHG emissions. The refusal has
reduced the world’s flexibility toward forming an international agreement. The Tianjin meeting wassymbolic as the first meeting of the UNFCC working group in China. But China’s basic stance on
the global warming problem has made no change. On October 10 and 11 just after the working groupmeeting, relevant ministers from China, India, Brazil and South Africa (BASIC 4) met in Tianjin andissued a joint statement emphasizing that industrial countries should assume the responsibility forcutting GHG emissions and promote financial support and technology transfers to developing
countries over a long time. This also indicates the growing influences and presence of emerging
countries.
In contrast, industrial nations are still struggling to overcome the economic crisis and theensuing deflation. Their relative presence and influence have declined. The current deterioration ofeconomic and employment situations has affected their global warming measures. In the UnitedStates just before the midterm Congressional elections, it is very difficult to consider or decide on
global warming measures that are considered as negatively affecting economic growth, income andemployment. At our IEEJ joint seminar with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Tokyo lastmonth and at an earlier workshop of Rice University’s Baker Institute in Houston, U.S. experts inthis respect provided interesting arguments on the difficulties faced with regard to global warming
measures in the United States. We may have to take note of the possibility that some constraints
could be imposed on discussions about global warming measures in industrial countries until an
economic recovery allows them to straightforwardly discuss policies expected to cost much for theireconomy.

2

IEEJ: January 2011

Under such international political and economic trends, future international discussionsand negotiations on the global warming problem are likely to grow more difficult. In the context of
the above-noted international political and economic situations, we pay attention to (1) whethermeasures to hold down GHG emissions could be promoted through bilateral negotiations andagreements and (2) whether arguments could grow for extending the Kyoto Protocol. The latter point
is worthy of attention for Japan. We may have to accurately analyze future developments includingthese possibilities and consider responses amid the broader international political and economic
trends.

Contact: report@tky.ieej.or.jp

3