U.S. Unilateralism

Chapter six of The Global Environment, written by Elizabeth R. DeSombre, discusses U.S. environmental unilateralism and how it conflicts with the development of global environmental policy. DeSombre writes that, over the last two decades, U.S. support for international environmental agreements (IEAs) has diminished significantly. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, the United States was a major supporter and leader in the world of global environmental policy, signing and ratifying many IEAs including the Montreal Protocol. This started to change in the late-1980’s, with the United States signing but not ratifying several IEAs including the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).[1]

The U.S. has a thick web of domestic environmental policies and regulations on the federal, state, county and city level. However, the U.S. has been uncooperative with the rest of the world by not ratifying global environmental agreements, such as the Basal Convention on Hazardous Wastes, which are important to many different countries. I believe that, if it weren’t for the stubbornness of the United States, the global environment would be on a more optimistic trajectory of environmental protection than we are currently on.

Body

Much of the U.S. is staunchly against global environmental regulation, and I believe it boils down to two interrelated and complex reasons: 1) The United States has often been a bully militarily, often imposing wars other countries, for instance the Vietnam War from the 1950’s to the 1970’s, and the Iraq conflict throughout the first decade of the 21st century. Why does the U.S. act like this? Well, we enjoy being “on top.” To maintain our “top level” status, it’s not in our best interest to get along with everyone, share our technologies and money, and risk losing our “exceptionalism.”[2] 2) Profit-driven global corporations and fossil fuel companies have a financial stronghold on the U.S. government. Our government is mostly shaped by and aligned to business interests, with citizens having minimal impact on policy.[3] Corporations don’t want us to ratify multilateral environmental treaties because then they’ll be coerced to change their processes and lose profits. Corporate influences have created a “top-down” information campaign through avenues such as the tea party to convince citizens to agree with deregulation and anti-government sentiments.

Up until the late 1980’s, the U.S had a history of both signing and ratifying IEAs. This trend changed around 1989 with the Basal Convention on Hazardous Waste Trade, when the U.S. began a new trend of signing without ratifying IEAs.

Bill Clinton, as the democratic president of the United States from 1993 to 2001, should have been influential in supporting IEAs to improve the environment. DeSombre writes that Clinton attempted to get several IEAs ratified including the Law of the Sea and the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD), but the conservative Senate at the time prevented ratification.[4]

One justification for the U.S.’s reticence with IEAs is this: it has fairly strong web of domestic environmental policies that include voluntary programs such as Energy Star, as well as institutions such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA enforces many acts and policies including the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, and even maintains fuel efficiency standards.[5] [6]

However, our Republican federal legislature is not a big fan of regulation, and they have most recently been trying to scale back domestic environmental policy. Why? The U.S. government has essentially been bought by the lobbying efforts of fossil fuel companies and major corporations. The lobbying power of corporations and oil interests is greater and has more financial backing than that of average citizens[7].

Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have some influence on the global level, raising awareness and acting a voice for ordinary citizens.[8] Unfortunately they don’t have the financial backing that multi-national corporations have, but they do provide a method for ordinary citizens to have their voices heard. In addition, NGO’s provide assistance in the negotiation, implementation, and monitoring of IEAs. However, NGO’s for corporations and big oil have their voices heard in these negotiations as well.

I predict that in the next decade, the U.S. will further cave to corporate pressures, and will cut funding to domestic environmental legislation preserving National Parks and to the EPA. I predict we will lose a majority of our National and State Parks and protected lands to development. I predict that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be unraveled or further stonewalled. Furthermore, I believe that, on the state and local level, environmental momentum, such as renewable energy initiatives and sustainable city planning, will be slowed if not reversed in the coming years, due to corporate lobbying pressures.

Major corporations have spent billions of dollars on ad campaigns and top-down movements masked as “grassroots campaigns” such as the “tea party” that persuade U.S. citizens that “big government regulation” and “socialism” are bad things, and that we should support liberty and freedom and sovereignty. Not just sovereignty of state, but sovereignty of man. Corporations promote these thoughts to convince the public that their sovereignty is threatened, when really, it’s the sovereignty of corporations to pollute anytime and anywhere they want to that is threatened.

Nationally, the U.S. has been reduced to a pawn of corporate interests, but internationally, if it wanted to, the U.S. could make global environmental treaties move forward. One reason for this is that the U.S. has a lot of power and influence in the world, and more powerful states are more likely to push IEAs through the world stage.[9] In the past, the U.S has used this “structural” power to get states to go along with IEAs. For instance, in the mid-1980’s, the U.S. signed and ratified the Vienna Convention on the protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, even though the European Union (E.U.) was opposed to signing. The U.S. had a big influence on convincing the rest of the world to go along with these protocols due to their structural power.

The earth is such a complex system that all countries need to band together to make a difference. In the future, the U.S. needs to cooperate globally with the rest of the world on pressing environmental issues such as climate change and biological diversity if we want to slow the earth’s deterioration. Everything on earth is interconnected. The U.S.’s domestic environmental policy may be substantial, but it is threatened every time the federal legislature is in session and wants to slash the budget. If there was a stable global environmental regime, the U.S. wouldn’t be able to back out, or change its policies every time the Senate majority changed and/or a tighter budget was pushed through our legislature.

The E.U. is a powerful force, with the ability to negotiate on the global level on behalf of its 28 member countries.[10] The U.S. and the E.U., which are similar socio-economically, have not mutually supported several key multilateral global treaties. For instance, the U.S. has not gone along with some agreements that the European Union (E.U.) wanted to ratify (such as the Kyoto Protocol) and as mentioned before, the E.U. has not gone along with treaties we wanted to ratify (such as the Montreal Protocol). Since the E.U. and the U.S. are similar in size and socioeconomic level, it would be advantageous to the world if they could band together and agree on IEAs. I believe if the U.S. and the E.U. were to band together, they could have a significant impact on the rest of the world.

Alternatively and/or furthermore, if all 28 countries of the E.U. banded together, I’ll bet they could coerce the U.S. to sign and ratify every single environmental global treaty imaginable. However, the E.U. is busy negotiating the interests of its member countries about issues such as fishery policy, and they won’t likely unite against the U.S. anytime soon. I don’t believe that there’s any other country (or group of countries) that could currently coerce the U.S. to join the global environmental bandwagon, but I think it’ll happen eventually. I do fear that by the time this happens, it’ll be too late to slow many methods of environmental degradation including rapid species extinction, and the dizzying effects of climate change.

The U.S. has been getting away with a great deal because of its “exceptionalism,” but this can’t go on forever. The U.S. may be seriously risking future diplomacy with the rest of the world if we refuse to both lead the way and cooperate with global environmental regulation. Unless the U.S. loses some of its “exceptionalism,” by being weakened enough militarily to get environmental sanctions imposed upon it by another country or a group of countries (for instance the E.U.), I am afraid we won’t achieve the momentum necessary to slow the earth’s deterioration.

Conclusion:

The United States hasn’t been a fan of ratifying IEAs for nearly three decades, and I believe that won’t change until the U.S. loses its bully status. I think it will take at least another decade before the corporate-influenced U.S. will lose its bully status, and this won’t happen until another country (or group of countries such as the E.U.) stands up to us regarding global environmental regulation. If and when this happens, it may be too late to preserve the global environment that we know and love.

The U.S. currently has quite a lot of domestic environmental policy, but I believe that, over the coming decades, corporate and fossil fuel influences – the “Economic-Elite Domination,”[11] will continue to unravel our environmental policies by lobbying our legislation to both propose anti-environmental bills, and to defund any prior legislation that has supported the environment.

[1] Regina S. Axelrod, Stacy D. VanDeveer, editors. The Global Environment – Institutions, Law, and Policy. CQ Press, 2015.

[2] Regina S. Axelrod, Stacy D. VanDeveer, editors. The Global Environment – Institutions, Law, and Policy. CQ Press, 2015.

[3] Benjamin I Page; Martin Gilens, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average

Citizens Perspectives On Politics, Vol. 12, Issue 3, p. 564.

[4] Regina S. Axelrod, Stacy D. VanDeveer, editors. The Global Environment – Institutions, Law, and Policy. CQ Press, 2015.

[5] Energy Star, 2015. http://www.energystar.gov/?_ga=1.79337872.525537250.1433022315. Retrieved June 1, 2015.

[6] United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2015.http://www2.epa.gov/regulatory-information-topic/cross-cutting-issues#asbestos. Retrieved June 1, 2015.

[7] Benjamin I Page; Martin Gilens, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average

Citizens Perspectives On Politics, Vol. 12, Issue 3, p. 564.

[8] Regina S. Axelrod, Stacy D. VanDeveer, editors. The Global Environment – Institutions, Law, and Policy. CQ Press, 2015.

[9] Ronald B. Mitchell, International Politics and the Environment, 2009. Sage Publications, London.

[10] Regina S. Axelrod, Stacy D. VanDeveer, editors. The Global Environment – Institutions, Law, and Policy. CQ Press, 2015.

[11] Benjamin I Page; Martin Gilens, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average

Citizens Perspectives On Politics, Vol. 12, Issue 3, p. 564.