Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Global Environment Threats and a Divided Northern Community

  • Published:
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The EU, Japan, and the US now share many environmental norms, laws, and institutions and cooperate on international environmental matters through numerous bilateral and multilateral channels. They disagree, however, on how to deal with some of the most serious issues facing the global environment and the quality of human life including wide-scale biodiversity loss, climate change, the use of genetically modified (GM) organisms; the trans-boundary movement of hazardous wastes, and chemical safety. As these are all issues that require the involvement of developing countries if global environmental protection efforts are to be effective, the discord that exists among the Northern states is of tremendous significance. The US has pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol arguing that the treaty is poorly designed and would be detrimental to the US economy. Japan and the EU have had to try to find a way to bring the treaty into force without the participation of the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases and to convince participating countries to meet their targets even though this may put them at a competitive disadvantage. In the case of biodiversity loss, although the US initiated international negotiations on biodiversity preservation, it has refused to join the EU and Japan in ratifying the Convention on Biological Diversity. There are also differences between the US, on the one side, and Japan and the EU on the other, regarding the use of GM organisms. This article analyses the reasons for the differences that have emerged among northern states in their international environmental policy positions and what the implications of this northern policy divide are for the effectiveness and legitimacy of international environmental protection efforts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 14th Governing Council, United Nations Environment Programme, Rationalization of International Conventions on Biological Diversity, Decision 14/26, June 1987

  • Arata, E. (2004), ‚Japan’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions up 2% in ‘02; First Rise in Two Years’, Japan Times, May 19, 2004

  • T. Bernauer (2003) Genes, Trade, and Regulation: The Seeds of Conflict in Food Biotechnology Princeton University Press Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Christiansen J. Wettestad (2003) ArticleTitle‘The EU as a Frontrunner on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading: How Did it Happen and Will the EU Succeed?’ Climate Policy 3 IssueID1 3–18 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S1469-3062(02)00096-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, W. C. (2004), ‘A Global Environmental Divide?’ Environment 46(3), editorial

  • W.C. Clark N.M. Dickson (2001) ‘Civic Science: America’s Encounter with Global Environmental Risks?’ BibInstitutionalEditorNameSocial Learning Group (Eds) Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks Vol. 1. A Comparative History of Social Responses to Climate Change, Ozone Depletion, and Acid Rain, MIT Press Cambridge, MA 259–294

    Google Scholar 

  • The Committee on the Environment and the Northeast International Committee on Energy of the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers, ‘New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change Action Plan 2001’, August 28, 2001

  • Davis, G. (2002), ‘California Takes on Air Pollution’, Washington Post, July 22, 2002, A 15

  • E. R. DeSombre (2005) ‘Understanding United States Unilateralism: Domestic Sources of U.S. International Environmental Policy’ R.S. Axelrod D.L. Downie N.J. Vig (Eds) The Global Environment: Institutions, Law, and Policy Congressional Quarterly Press Washington D.C. 181–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Earth Negotiations Bulletin (1994), ‘A Brief History of the Convention on Biological Diversity’, ENB: 09:18, http://www.iisd.ca/vol09/09180001.html

  • European Community (2004), ‘Emissions Trading: Community Clears Over 5,000 Plants to Enter Emissions Market Next January’, IP/04/862, Brussels, 7 July 2004, http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/861&format=HTML&aged= 0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

  • European Community. (2004), ‘Emissions Trading: Community Takes Legal Action to Speed Up Member States Preparations’, IP/04/861, Brussels, 7 July 2004, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/eccp.htm

  • European Environment Agency (2003), ‘Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends and Projections in Europe 2003’, January 2003, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Community, http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_report_2003_36/en/tab_summary_RLR

  • European Environment Agency. 2004. The State of Biological Diversity in Europe, MALAHIDE/INF 2, (pp. 25–27), Stakeholders’ Conference, Biodiversity and the EU-Sustaining Life. Sustaining Livelihoods, Grand Hotel, Malahide, Ireland

  • European Parliament (2004), ‘Climate Change: EP Vote Paves the Way for Global Fight Against Climate Change’, IP/04/505, Brussels/Strasbourg 20 April 2004, http://europa. eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/505&format=HTML&aged=0& language=EN&guiLanguage=en

  • European Union Fact Sheet (2004), ‘EU-US Cooperation in the Development of the Hydrogen Economy’, June 2004, http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/us/sum06_04/fact/hydrogen.pdf

  • M. Faure J. Lefevere (2005) ‘Compliance with Global Environmental Policy’ R. S. Axelrod D. L. Downie N. J. Vig (Eds) The Global Environment: Institutions, Law, and Policy Congressional Quarterly Press Washington, D.C. 163–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, S. R. (1995), ‘Biological Diversity: Issues Related to the Biodiversity Convention’, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, 95–598 ENR, May 15, 1995, http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Biodiversity/biodv-2.cfm?&CFID=17320719& CFTOKEN=20693219

  • The Greens/EFA in the European Parliament (2004), ‘EU Again Leads the Way in Fight Against Greenhouse Gas Emissions’, Press Release, Strasbourg, April 20, 2004, http://www.eel.nl/legislation/presrel.pdf

  • P. Harris (Eds) (2000) Climate Change and American Foreign Policy St. Martin’s Press New York

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Hovi T. S. Skodvin Andresen (2003) ArticleTitle‘The Persistence of the Kyoto Protocol: Why Other Annex I Countries Move on Without the United States’ Global Environmental Politics 3 IssueID4 1–23 Occurrence Handle10.1162/152638003322757907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • M. Huber A. Liberatore (2001) ‘Regional Approaches to the Management of Global Environmental Risks: The Case of the European Union’ in Social Learning Group, ed., Learning to Manage Global Environmental Risks Vol. 1 – A Comparative History of Social Responses to Climate Change, Ozone Depletion, and Acid Rain MIT Press Cambridge, MA 295–322

    Google Scholar 

  • H. K. Jacobson (2002) ‘Climate Change, Unilateralism, Realism, and Two-Level Games’ S. Forman S. Patrick (Eds) Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy: Ambivalent Engagement Lynne Rienner Boulder, CO 415–436

    Google Scholar 

  • The Japan Times (2004), ‘Japan, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trade Market Set for 2005’, August 4

  • Y. Kameyama (2003) ‘Climate Change as Japanese Foreign Policy: From Reactive to Proactive’ P.G. Harris (Eds) Global Warming and East Asia Routledge London 135–151

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Kauffman (1997) ‘Domestic and International Linkages in Global Environmental Politics: A Case Study of the Montreal Protocol’ M. A. Schreurs E. Economy (Eds) The Internationalization of Environmental Protection Cambridge University Press Cambridge 74–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Keidanren (2003), ‘Results of the Fiscal 2003 Follow-Up to the Keidanren Voluntary Action Plan in the Environment-Section on Global Warming Measures’, November 21, 2003, http://www.keidanren.or.jp/english/policy/2003/113/report.pdf

  • Keilbach, P. ‘TransAtlantic Food Fights in an Era of Globalization: Impacts on Democracy, Equity, Sovereignty and Sustainability’, in M. Schreurs, H. Selin, and Stacy VanDeveer, eds., Enlarging TransAtlantic Relations: Environment, Agriculture, and Trade Politics across the Atlantic (manuscript)

  • K. T. Litfin (1994) Ozone Discourse Columbia University Press New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Marland, G., T. A. Boden and R. J. Andres (2003), ‘Global, Regional and National Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions’,http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/em_cont.htm

  • Ministry of Environment, Japan (2003), ‘Feasibility Studies on Climate Change Mitigation Projects for Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation in 2003’, http://www.env.go.jp/en/topic/cc/030828.pdf

  • Mossinghoff, G. J. (1998), ‘The Biodiversity Convention and Intellectual Property Rights: Conflict or Harmony? Presentation made at the 37th World Congress of the International Association for the Protection of Industry Property’, Rio de Janeiro, May 28, 1998,http://www.oblon.com/Ip/display.php?biodiversityconvention.html

  • Myers, S. L. (2004), ‘Russian Legislators Vote to Ratify Kyoto Protocol’, New York Times, October 22, 2004

  • National Energy Policy Development Group (2001), ‘Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America’s Future’, May 2001

  • New Rules Project, Democratic Energy: Communities and Government working on our Energy Future, “Automobile Greenhouse Gas Emissions-California”,http://www.newrules.org/environment/climateca.html

  • The New York Times (2001). ‘In President‘s words: “A Leadership Role on the Issue of Climate change”, June 12, p.12

  • Natural Resources Defense Council, (2001), ‘Second Analysis Confirms Greenhouse Gas Reductions in China’, October 2001, http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/achinagg.asp

  • Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, (2003), ‘U.S.-EU Summit: Cooperation on the Development of a Hydrogen Fuel Economy’, June 25, 2003,http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/21929.htm

  • E. A. Parson (2003) Protecting the Ozone Layer: Science and Strategy Oxford University Press Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Pew Center on Global Climate Change (2002), ‘Climate Change Activities in the United States’, June 2002

  • B. G. Rabe (2004) Statehouse and Greenhouse: The Emerging Politics of American Climate Change Policy Brookings Institution Press Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • K. Raustiala (1997) ArticleTitle‘Domestic Institutions and International Regulatory Cooperation: Comparative Responses to the Convention on Biological Diversity’ World Politics 49 IssueID4 482–509

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaper, M. (2004), ‘The U.S., Europe, and National Interest: Environmental Standard-Setting When Trade Interests Collide’, in M. Schreurs, H. Selin, and S. VanDeveer, eds., Enlarging TransAtlantic Relations: Environment, Agriculture, and Trade Politics across the Atlantic (Manuscript)

  • M. A. Schreurs (2002) Environmental Politics in Japan, Germany, and the United States Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Development Programme, Millenium Development Goals, 2002, http://www.undp.org/mdg/abcs.html

  • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, FCCC/SAI/2001. Synthesis and Assessment Report of the Greenhouse Gas Inventories Submitted in 2001, http://unfccc.int/programs/mis/ghg/sai2001.pdf

  • U.S. Department of State (2002), ‘U.S. Climate Action Report: Third National Communication of the United States of America Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’, Washington, D.C., May. http://Yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming. nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BULRY/$File/front.pdf

  • N. J. Vig M. G. Faure (2004) Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United States and the European Union MIT Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • R. T. Watson (Eds) (2002) Climate Change, 2001: Sythesis Report: Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Wettestad (2005) ArticleTitleThe Making of the 2003 EU Emissions Trading Directive: An Ultra-Quick Process due to Entrepreneurial Efficiency?’ Global Environmental Politics 5 IssueID1 1–23 Occurrence Handle10.1162/1526380053243477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • InstitutionalAuthorNameThe White House (2002) Economic Report of the President United States Government Printing Office Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • The White House (2003), ‘Fact Sheet: Hydrogen Fuel: A Clean and Secure Energy Future’, February 6, 2003, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-25.html

  • The White House (2003), ‘Hydrogen Fuel: A Clean and Secure Energy Future’, January 28, 2003, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-25.html

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miranda A. Schreurs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schreurs, M.A. Global Environment Threats and a Divided Northern Community. Int Environ Agreements 5, 349–376 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-005-3809-4

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-005-3809-4

Keywords

Navigation