The Social Conflict and Power at Play in the Climate Change Crisis
The role of social conflict embedded in the climate change debate stems from the
inequity of a mandate to reduce global emissions. While commitments may be based on wealth and emissions history, emerging countries believe the relative reduction restricts prosperity and widens the gap between the “haves” and the “have not’s.” Because they were not required to consider the potential environmental impact of industry, richer countries have been privileged. Without regulatory burden, they prospered. Regulations and thresholds will now squelch the opportunity for emerging countries to “catch up” to the richer countries and improve the social welfare of their people. Furthermore, emerging countries do not have the resources to invest in technology to reduce emissions nor protect their people from natural disasters exacerbated by the effects of climate change. The notion of reduction is punitive given that emerging countries must now own a problem that they did not create. Irrespective of root cause, the richer countries expect all countries to be involved and committed to solve a global problem and believe the relative reduction is fair.
Structural power is at play in this social conflict. The richer countries that are flush with resources, both financial and technological, might bear a part of the solution in emerging countries. The opportunity lies in sharing technology, funding projects and owning the problem with the emerging countries to ensure that social agendas are met and emissions do not escalate.
The power associated with the command of resources is inherent in the structural
power discussed above. However, there are other types of power at play as well. Habitual power affects all parties in the climate change dilemma. The power of the status quo is formidable because the prospect of change brings possible adverse consequences. Richer countries fear losing wealth; emerging countries fear not gaining wealth. Prosperity or poverty is experienced every day and every moment. The impact of climate change is less obvious and immediate. The power of information (communication) or lack thereof, may inform habitual power. To move forward there are two types of power to introduce that relate to communication – definitional power and the power of persuasive capacity.
Definitional power will help create an understanding of the scope and degree of the climate change problem and the power of persuasive capacity will make the case in the context of parties’ needs. The audience for communication must be broad and inclusive because if the communication is effective, it will create strength and momentum for change.
inequity of a mandate to reduce global emissions. While commitments may be based on wealth and emissions history, emerging countries believe the relative reduction restricts prosperity and widens the gap between the “haves” and the “have not’s.” Because they were not required to consider the potential environmental impact of industry, richer countries have been privileged. Without regulatory burden, they prospered. Regulations and thresholds will now squelch the opportunity for emerging countries to “catch up” to the richer countries and improve the social welfare of their people. Furthermore, emerging countries do not have the resources to invest in technology to reduce emissions nor protect their people from natural disasters exacerbated by the effects of climate change. The notion of reduction is punitive given that emerging countries must now own a problem that they did not create. Irrespective of root cause, the richer countries expect all countries to be involved and committed to solve a global problem and believe the relative reduction is fair.
Structural power is at play in this social conflict. The richer countries that are flush with resources, both financial and technological, might bear a part of the solution in emerging countries. The opportunity lies in sharing technology, funding projects and owning the problem with the emerging countries to ensure that social agendas are met and emissions do not escalate.
The power associated with the command of resources is inherent in the structural
power discussed above. However, there are other types of power at play as well. Habitual power affects all parties in the climate change dilemma. The power of the status quo is formidable because the prospect of change brings possible adverse consequences. Richer countries fear losing wealth; emerging countries fear not gaining wealth. Prosperity or poverty is experienced every day and every moment. The impact of climate change is less obvious and immediate. The power of information (communication) or lack thereof, may inform habitual power. To move forward there are two types of power to introduce that relate to communication – definitional power and the power of persuasive capacity.
Definitional power will help create an understanding of the scope and degree of the climate change problem and the power of persuasive capacity will make the case in the context of parties’ needs. The audience for communication must be broad and inclusive because if the communication is effective, it will create strength and momentum for change.
Has there been constructive dialog about climate change? Yes. I believe that every minute there is constructive dialog underway but the question is, will that dialog reach a pitch, intensity, and breadth soon enough to avert irreparable
global consequences?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
About
@ADRHub Tweets
ADRHub is supported and maintained by the Negotiation & Conflict Resolution Program at Creighton University
© 2024 Created by ADRhub.com - Creighton NCR.
Powered by
