nm5439: so we can let's let's start again er so this weeks talk is er er 
globalization and the the environment there are two er two presenters George 
and er and George you're going to start us off er so so when you're when you're 
please when you're ready please just fire away
sm5440: okay fine er er i er don't have a handout er for this er presentation 
er for my presentation er so you're just going to have to listen extra 
carefully er cause i'm sure you'll like but i don't know er er i'd like to 
start with a quote from er Martin Huston's approaches to global governance 
theory er er which is one of the central issues facing humans civilization at 
the end of the twentieth century is governance and the following questions have 
come up here who rules whose rules er what rules at what level in what form er 
many of these problems that give rise to questions such as these er are 
transnational and tran-, trans-, boundary in nature er with the result that the 
notion of global management has acquired increasing currency in some circles er 
this could not be more true than in the field of ecology er er i'll be talking 
about the nations response to environmental issues the rise of environmentalism 
er at the national level the questions of Brazil's rainforest and er reasons 
for global action er er so er i'll be expecting some questions from Brazil 
later on er it is fair to say we're all familiar at least on a basic level with 
the issues and problems surrounding the environment the terminology used is 
also widespread in the political discorse the ozone layer pollution global 
warming the issue of global warming underlines the nature of the problem and 
provides er er appointing to its basic solution which er we're coming to accept 
namely a global solution er now i'm sure you're getting slightly tired of the 
whole concept of globalization and the ever growing areas in to which it pulls 
but it does make some sense to look at the environment in terms of both a 
global crises and something that urgently requires a better solution er 
contribute to this a great deal by defining the environment as a collective 
good now that's something that we touched on last week they define the earth's 
resources as strictly limited and that this collective good shared by everyone 
but owned by by no one er and that the selfish actions of the individual 
produces benefits for some but great harm to the wider community er now talking 
of the nation er ecological issues have been on the present agenda of the 
nation states for over twenty years at least according to speeches manifestos 
declarations of intent and general rhetoric of the main parties in addition new 
parties identified on the left of the political spectrum have sprung up across 
Europe er and are concerned primarily with the environmental cause er their 
impact er is very varied in Germany the green party called the balance of power 
in Herr Schroeder's coalition government and have a substantial impact on 
domestic policies and Germany's foreign policies especially with regard to the 
recent debate of the use of German troops abroad so we turn to a question of 
handling the environment on a global scale er i'd like to ask er how is it a 
global issue er and that may not be solved on a purely national level er 
talking of the rainforest er taking the lead on the environment Susan George 
makes clear that deforestation the use of C-F-Cs and poor industrial practices 
cause pollution er levels to rise er and is a direct cause of global warming as 
we now realize pollution carries across the world and the poor practice in one 
nation may lead to acid rain depletion of species skin cancer increasing in 
another nation far from the original polluter therefore a common practice in 
industry must be adopted to prevent this from continuing but a further 
dimension must be added that of debt now debt and self interest the larger 
scale ec-, of ecological problems are welcome in poorer and indebted and less 
developed countries er China is flagged as a key concern by Birnell er er 
doctor of er international assistance who ties C-F-Cs production to skin cancer 
in the UK er er and added that the er the smog in the United States is also 
increased by er by this production er the interests of many nations would be 
served by a form of global governance in this area but what would this mean er 
we were all very confused by these terms last week and it would not be for me 
to further define governance or indeed add to your confusion the nineteen-
ninety-two Rio Earth summit was a very significant development in the way in 
which countries talk about the environment moving from a national to an 
international setting but has talk turned to action in nineteen-ninety the 
concept of a conservation debt squaw was promoted in the United States by 
president Bush this would mean funds would be provided for debt cancellation 
and the reduction of deforestation at the same time this was a specific project 
that er the aim of which was to help er the Brazilian rainforests specifically 
er as er as social scientists have pointed out that this is unique er in its 
scale er and in the er the fact that its er it's considered the lungs of the 
world er er congressional approval surprisingly er took place for this project 
er the scale of such a project led to no real progress being made in this area 
over the decade the following so this shows the importance of celebrating 
grassroots from the implementation and the funding of policies can the same be 
said of targets of current issues targets have been sent with many countries 
especially within the E-U agreeing to a united approach past experience has 
shown that global projects of this nature can take years and years to set up 
and at any point the political world may well be withdrawn and the project 
could fold er and so the issue er of cause and where the solution lies i think 
er can effects er the argument over the First World Third World er problems if 
its if its a debt issue i think er the the concept that jubilee two-thousand's 
promotion cancel Third World debt er is very interesting er and we should 
consider whether er simply cancelling debt in highly debited poor countries 
would affect the environment er would some incentive scheme would be put in 
place so that er as was proposed for Brazil debts would be cancelled money 
would be provided er for financial recovery but that would be very tied to er 
improving industrial practice reducing emissions er and obviously with the 
intent of er self interest of First World countries where er pollution is is 
considered a very high priority er and then the the problem of er hypocritical 
arguments er is the same as i'm told to be touched upon is the same er its the 
same because when you look at the case of nuclear prolif-, prolifer-, er you 
know what i mean the spreading of nuclear weapons er the First World er comes 
on to these agreements and says like you know clearly it's insane for India and 
Pakistan to have nuclear weapons cause this is a very bad thing and if er South 
American countries were to follow suit er Chile Brazil whoever was involved if 
more weapons were to be added er in that way this would be a very backwards 
step for the world er but clearly the United States Britain France er you know 
not considering giving out there own nuclear defences er and and you know the 
issues are very er similar er in this respect er very poor er industrial 
practice has gone in all of the er all of the Third World all of the First 
World countries er and to then say you must do as we say and not as we do you 
know its very er dubious er ground for me to follow er so there the basic er 
issues in uer the environment and globalization in the environment er and er 
and we'll now be discussing more issues and er so back
nm5439: your presentation is directly connected to George's to lead on 
basically from what George is saying
sf5443: er so my presentation will be more specific
nm5439: okay okay so we'll use George's more as background and do you also do 
you need the H-P
sf5443: er yes er does anybody has er a handout
nm5439: everyone's got this yeah
sf5443: er i tried to focus on how political science has been dealing with and 
will be able to deal with the problem of global warming ordinarily er global 
warming is a highly I-P-E issue which requires deployment of various I-P-E 
theories we have studied my presentation will be divided into two parts in the 
first part i will examine the usefulness of what Cox called problems solving 
theories in explaining global warming as a political phenomenon i will argue 
that although problem solving theories such as environment economics and 
neoliberal institutionalism are useful to some extent they are not sufficient 
for us to have a sound understanding of the global warming problem in the 
second part i will argue that alternative I-P-E theories such as constructvi-, 
constructivism and neo-Gramscian theories will have much to offer in 
understanding the global warming problem the second part will be based on the 
ordinance of on this book of Global Warming and Global Politics let's move on 
to the first part er probl-, problem solving theories and global warming in 
this part er i will first discuss about how the problem solving theories deal 
with global warming and and in the latter half of this part i argue the remit 
of problem solving theories er how do problem solving theories deal with global 
warming er i will er mention two theories environmental economics and neo-
liberal institutionalism er economics is a typical problem solving theory and 
it has recently been getting prevalent in the environment problem majority of 
literature on global warming is based on environmental economics i will i will 
explain the essence of environmental economics using er this illustration er 
the essential element of environmental economics is economic efficiency in 
order to achieve economy efficiency not only in sufficient in sufficient 
abatement but also excessive abatement er in other words environmental 
economics seeks to destroy the bonds between costs and benefits of environment 
degra-, degradation of abatement er in the graph er the intersection point of 
er marginal benefit curve and marginal cost curve is the optimal point in terms 
of economic efficiency a major problem that environmental economics has to 
solve is that of externality er particularly environmental economics is 
concerned with international spill over affects of environmental degradation 
environmental problems often cross boundaries of administrati-, administrative 
jurisdiction of states er which associates international coordination of 
environmental politics needless to say global warming is a typical example of 
such problems er this graph formulates the global warming problem and it 
explains why international policy is necessary in solving it er because 
greenhouse gasses spill over globally the global impact of one country's 
emission tends to be much higher than domestic impact er this is er for example 
er in this graph er this line shows er domestic marginal benefit of abatement 
and er in terms of global benefit er the marginal benefit is much higher er 
than domestic benefit 
nm5439: can i just can i just interrupt you for just a moment er what is what 
is sorry the vertical axis
sf5443: er sorry er vertical axis is er monetary value
nm5439: cost
sf5443: yes cost you can use cost yes pound or a dollar
nm5439: okay
sf5443: er therefore er global marginal benefit of the using greenhouse gasses 
tend to be higher than domestic marginal benefit and given that each country 
behaves rationally the amount of er abatement will be Q er and er which is less 
than the global optimum of Q star er in other words abatement of Q is 
compatible with national interests er if the global optimal is to be achieved 
international coordination is required which will force or induce a country to 
carry out Q star abatement er the solutions that environmental economics tends 
to offer are for example carbon tax and trade er however environmental 
economics is not concerned with whether such measures are politically feasible 
or not er i will move onto er neo-liberal institutionalism er as we have seen 
in the first time er neo-liberal institutionalism draws much on games theor-, 
theoretical account of international politics which is based on predetermined 
national interests er such national interests would be derived from the 
characterisation of environment economics er unlike environmental economics neo-
liberal institutionalism tends to focus on political instruments to solve the 
global warming problem er the central assertion of neo-liberal 
institutionalists is that institutions play important roles in achieving 
international coordination er and argues that neo-liberal institutionalism has 
provided to some extent anadequate account of international politics on global 
warming he notes that the international organizations such as U-N-E-P W-N-O and 
I-C-S-U have been highly important in generating outcomes in relation to global 
warming er so let me explain on the many problems on problem solving theories 
er it can be said er that about problem solving theories have provided some 
insights to consider the global warming problem nevertheless er the theories 
involve the following defi-, deficiencies er first it is difficult to calculate 
environmental costs and benefits so er this is due to the fact that environment 
preferences in general are not revealed in the market er if they are revealed 
in the market er it is easy to er work out these lines but in fact it is very 
difficult and although er various techniques have been developed to measure 
such non-market values each technique is subject to its own disadvantage and 
calculation of cost and benefits of global warming abatement is particularly 
difficult er because scientific-, scientific researches of global warming is 
now in progress and data of impact of global warming is variable therefore er 
it is difficult to specify not only the globally optimal amount of abatement 
but also the amount of abatement er that is compatible with national interests 
er given the difficulty of specifying national interests and optimal outcome er 
the very foundations of the problem solving theories are undermined er and er 
another remit er of problem solving theories is that er even if national 
interests and optimal outcome were calculated er problem solving theories would 
find it difficult to explain why actually some international cooperation took 
place in the nineteen-nineties er for example er in the Earth summit held at 
Rio de Janeiro in nineteen-ninety-two the United Nations framework convention 
on climate changed or U-N-F-C-C was adopted the U-N-F-C-C not only defined 
ultimate objective but also specified commitments of developed countries to 
return individually or jointly to the nineteen-ninety eleventh emissions of 
greenhouse gasses by two thousand furthermore the Kyoto conference of U-N-F-C-C 
in nineteen-ninety-seven sold the adoption of the Kyoto protocol er which is er 
described er here er and obviously er this progress is hard to ex-, explain 
from the viewpoint of problem solving theories which regards states as a 
rational utility maximizers er even the account of neo-liberal institutionalism 
is not sufficient er provided that it is based on the assumption of 
predetermined self-interests er because according to the neo-liberal 
institutionalism theory it is unlikely that states cooperate without perception 
of obvious future benefits from cooperation er this is the end of er first part 
er i will move on to the second part alternative I-P-E theories in explaining 
global warming er and this part er will be a review on Patterson's argument er 
um i first refer to constructivism and then history commentary and finally i 
make comments about them and constructivism Patterson argues that 
constructivist's accounts give more plausible interpretations of global warming 
than problem solving theories er as we have studied constructivi-, 
constructivism is concerned with the identities and or interests of actors such 
as states constructivism also pays attention to the level of inter-
subjectivities that is the collective understandings that give a meaning to the 
material world constructivism would interpret states as trying inter-
subjectively to develop norms and to er sorry er er constructivism interprets 
as trying inter-subjectively to develop norms and a sense of what their 
interests are in relation to global warming er this perspective would allow us 
to see the negotiations process of global warming in terms of er this 
perspective would allow us to see the negotiations process of global warming in 
terms of the production and reproduction of state identities as environmentally 
conscience states er er the emerging norm er that states should study their 
greenhouse gasses emissions can be seen as a transformation of their identities 
in relation to global warming er historical materialism er Patterson also 
argues that historical material-, materialism by which he means Marxist 
theories including the dependency theory and the neo-Gramcsian theory is very 
useful in understanding the global warming problem he states that historical 
materialism can explain the unli-, underlying forces influencing states 
positions in negotiations through the assumption of the states relationship to 
capital accumulation for example er much of the differences in industrialized 
states policies can be explained through the different relationships with 
economics have to energy and Patterson also argues er that historical 
materialism gives the most plausible fram-, framework for analyzing the North-
South conflicts on global warming in the negotiations er nevertheless he does 
not provide anything between historical materialism and the actual 
international cooperation that took place in the nineteen-nineties instead he 
emphasizes that it is to be expected that proposes for emissions reduction will 
be resisted by powerful fractions of capital with substantially substantial 
capacity to exert exert er power over state decision making and finally er i er 
make comments on these arguments i i agree with Patterson er that 
constructivism and historical materialism are very useful in understanding the 
global warmi-, warming problem er i also agree with him that we should 
integrate the constr-, constructivist position on interstate relations with an 
understanding of the states positions within a global capitalist system however 
i do not think that his explanation on the relationship between historical 
materialism and the global warming problem is sufficient his explanation is too 
abstract and fragmented for example although he refers to the usefulness of the 
Gramscian usage of hegemony he just uses it to explain variety of forms of 
different characteristics of societies but i'd like to consider that the 
concept of hegemony is much more useful in explaining the fundamental traits 
underlying the global warming negotiations my intuitive hypothesis is that the 
process towards international cooperation in global warming reflects hegemonic 
incorporation of environmental issues on the part of the global capitalist 
system which would contain counterhegemonic movements of the greens against 
global capitalist er this is the end of my movement er thank you very much
nm5439: all right er thank you very much George and Shigeru two very er wide-
ranging presentations of the following material er especially Shigeru's 
presentation is quite er quite theoretical er very interesting er before we go 
into sort of general discussion is there anything in the two presentations 
which was a little bit hard to follow er or you wanted to yeah
sf5445: er this was about Patterson who th-, the link he made between 
constructivism and historical materialism er i didn't quite understand
sf5443: er so yes he er yeah he states that it is necessary to link 
constructivism and historical materialism but he doesn't offer any concrete er 
ways to do it 
sf5445: to do it yeah
sf5443: no he doesn't provide that
sf5445: why why does he say it is important er why is it important to link 
these two
sf5443: er er i'm i'm not sure but er er maybe er maybe he thinks both theories 
are necessary to explain global warming and and that it will follow from this 
that it is necessary to integrate to make a coherent understanding of global 
warming
nm5439: so he he just leaves thi-, this question hanging at the end he doesn't 
really er 
sf5443: no
nm5439: he just says all of theories are sufficient historical matericalism is 
is the best solution or possibly we need historical materialism but he doesn't 
actually say why
sf5445: could you amalgamate the two
sf5443: yeah er maybe er maybe he thinks that both theories are necessary er er 
and sort of yes both theories are necessary to have a complete understanding of 
global warming er but er his argument does not er refer to such coherent 
aspects er but he only deals with the specific problems 
nm5439: right er okay so he's so he's indicating towards the sort of general 
than to a particular solution did anyone else Lucio did you have another 
question
sm5442: let me just ask something about the conscious state 
nm5439: sorry
sm5442: the er conscious state when you er when you talk about constructivism 
er conscious state i thought you mentioned conscious yes state
sf5445: c-, conscious
nm5439: i think er i think that you referred to environmentally conscious states
sf5443: oh yeah er environmentally conscious state so er 
sm5442: what do you mean about po-, policies made by governments and stuff is 
that it
sf5443: so er it may be that states are getting er er it may be that states are 
trying to er pretend er pretend or er appear that er they are environmentally 
friendly and so to make a political appeal er to be environmentally friendly
nm5439: therefore therefore you're so that's that's what you're saying states 
are attempting to appeal both internationally and domestically
sf5443: er i think both
nm5439: both
sf5443: both internationally and domestically
nm5439: that there have been environmentally friendly policies but are you 
saying that they are actually inhere-, sort of inherently becoming 
environmentally friendly or is this just a kind of propaganda
sf5443: er it maybe a contentious point er and yeah er i think it needs to be 
er examined first
nm5439: yeah i mean the reason i ask is the key key the key thing which i 
thought was interesting which you said that based on the theories of 
constructivism that there's a objective er subjective understanding amongst 
policy making in the East er in developed nations and maybe in undeveloped 
nations that there is a need to respond to the problems of the global 
environment so that's that's that's the key the key point i think but i wasn't 
but the the interesting issue in the debate is whether is how deeply held that 
is its just paying lip service to it whether its actually permeated down into 
the into the really into into the consciousness of these of these policy makers 
and states but that's something that we'll come back to has anyone else got any 
other points Luca
sm5441: well er exactly what you were talking about i'd like to ask a question 
on that er on Patterson's argument on constructivism where he says that it's a 
collective understanding on the material world and states er or the elite er 
elitist states developing intersubjectively set of norms is that linked to 
norms or is that also in Patterson's view does that also comprise standards and 
then to come back to George's point start who are supposed to er is it is it 
the elitist states that are supposed to impose those standards and to enforce 
those standards and norms or is it going to be global governance framework kind 
of thing like can you elaborate on that
sf5443: er maybe er maybe er i'll have made an app-, appropriate answer to your 
question so er yes er this is er one of the most important point and er if er 
if er so er if er we are to have er com-, co-, if we are to have a coherent 
understanding of what is going on int-, internationally nego-, international 
negotiations over global warming er er it would be necessary to consider 
whether er states are er really committed to er environment programs or not and 
er so er perhaps er if if the constructivism is to be er really useful er it is 
necessary for er constructivism to er prove that er states are moving from er 
from a er former situation to er more environmentally committed stage
sm5441: on a global level
sf5443: yeah
nm5439: okay that's i mean that's a very interesting question i think we'll 
come back to that a little later in the discussion is there any other kind of 
technical sort of questions which anybody has if not there's i think maybe 
there's a whole range of issues which came out of both presentations and er 
maybe we could just go back a little bit and try and com-, sort of a categorize 
er compartmentalize some of the issues that we've come up with and try and work 
through them in stages perhaps er er i mean the first question that we should 
er i think George is addressing it er my impression is that George does does 
believe that this is the case er but my first question is er and i don't think 
i don't know if it's just me er you know saying something that sounds 
ridiculous or not er i mean these are really a global an environmental crisis 
or not er i mean certainly issue we're all conscious of er it certainly seems 
to be important er and it's become you know increasingly important to policy 
makers and also as we've seen from the readings this week it's become it's come 
on to the agenda I-P-E er but there really er i mean how how convinced are 
people that there is a genuine global environmental crisis brewing er you know 
is this is this just a fact of I-P-E or is this actually a genuine issue which 
we need to er need to address er i think from George's presentation er i think 
we would be convinced that there is er there are genuine problems which need to 
be addressed we really need to rethink some of our conceptions of I-P-E and how 
to understand this problem but what what what does everyone else feel
sf5443: it's not imminent as such the global problems the environmental problem 
but at the rate countries are going down er you know er the rate there going er 
i mean i think in like er ten twenty years we will see a huge problem that will 
suddenly like take us by surprise so it's good to see that there is like you 
know the states are getting quite conscious about it but then there's also the 
other argument that they're being a bit too paternalistic with such opposing 
views like you don't develop like this you know er you don't pursue such you 
know development and er but then how are these states going to pursue their 
economic growth how are they going to grow if they don't if they don't cut 
green forests if they don't do things how are they supposed to move on er so 
that's i mean you don't want to say it you know i guess international 
institutions can play a roll er just in a very er broad ranging yeah
nm5439: so so so in your own opinion er you'd say this is er there is really 
something seriously
sf5443: there is something wrong er yeah er but there has to be an alternative 
yeah
nm5439: happening which is a challenge or a mode of political economy in terms 
of what political economy is today so that er did did you want to add something 
to that
sf5445: yeah i was just going to say because that's not how you can say we can 
sit there in Western Europe and come to this all this wealth as we have today 
because we've been cutting back our trees and its kind kind of like pathetic 
that we've like cut all of our forest back i mean if you think back a thousand 
years ago the U-K was one big one big forest then it was cut down er and now 
we're like telling telling telling Brazil and the whole South America and 
Africa don't cut back your forest er and that's kind of pathetic and we have 
done it er and we're not trying to restore our own green environment 
nm5439: right
sf5445: and we like take it really far and we're like telling the developing 
country er don't develop don't develop the way we did er but we're not telling 
them how to should they do develop
sf5443: i mean it's like er yeah you get people coming in this Greenpeace and 
stuff like that coming to Malaysia and saying things like let people live in 
the trees er let them do this er i mean come on you know er that's silly you 
know you want to move on er and you have all the comforts in life and then you 
tell us to just live basic i mean with basics that's you know
nm5439: so therefore so that means this kind of er the attention which the 
environment problems are getting at the moment some would say that they are 
lacking that kind of historical perspective in terms of er you know we've been 
talking about development all the states have to go through this period of er 
you know altering their environment and it's all very well informed to those
sf5445: and they're not really critical to themselves er they criticize er 
criticize everything else but not 
nm5439: okay er so all of that kind of shades into condescension or even 
hypocrisy er on the parts of of of the developed states
sm5446: draw into that er the er nuclear pro-generation 
nm5439: well that's the same issue isn't it
sf5445: that's the same thing 
nm5439: Luca
sm5441: i think it has not so much to do with history i mean you could approach 
it from a historical point of view er but i think it has to do with 
responsibility i mean if you talk about forests like you do the forests that 
are still there er in the Amazon or wherever they are er they're the lungs of 
the world er and if you cut them down you you have a serious problem so if 
there is an imminent global environmental crisis with respect to forests er 
which you could also talk about pollution like er George already pointed out er 
or or or nuclear waste or whatever i mean those are issues that are not limited 
to borders er it's the same in like in virtual reality er i mean it's not 
limited to borders er so there needs to be some kind of regulation er some kind 
of framework er setup i think to to address those problems er and a crisis is 
imminent er in that respect 
nm5439: okay er do you want to
sm5441: social responsibility
sf5445: yeah er we er the problem actually and i think that everyone's agreeing 
on that this is something environmental problems and of course there's some 
limitation to how much you can explore er but the one we're like putting 
question to is that the way we're using the environment in our rhetoric to 
pursue er i mean put up a discourse er an environmentalistic discourse and we-, 
we-, we're not even questioning it isn't in a way that when ou-, our 
perceptions er true er i mean that
sf5443: this is like how a parent is telling a child er 
sm5441: no of course
sf5443: don't do that because i've done it and it was wrong and now you don't 
do it and er then tell me another way of doing it er and that's what we're 
saying er it's obvious that we know it's wrong 
sm5441: its facing the facts its its facing the facts its quite obvious to a 
country what its responsibilities are
sf5445: what's fact er what's fact 
sm5441: what's responsibility
nm5439: what is i mean what is the fact i mean the fact is people are
sm5441: you have to face the facts
nm5439: well the fact is that there's environmental destruction going on er but 
people miss always argue it's always been going on er why are we suddenly so 
much more concerned about it now
sm5441: it's a question of responsibility
nm5439: wha-, wha-, what is it so suddenly the developed world having destroyed 
its environment for the last hundred years can suddenly turn around and say er 
okay we don't want anymore
sm5441: it's a question of responsibility
nm5439: so what facts are there er i mean the facts are that the states are er 
other states are trying to develop 
sm5441: no of course
nm5439: er some states are developed er and it's perceived by some er that you 
know they're creating the fact of environmental destruction or er they're 
calling a crisis er when the fact is that it's it's all a process of 
development er which all states need to undergo
sm5441: i think you're view's is too limited er i mean you see it simply in the 
form of development i think you should see it in the form in the form of 
responsibility as the responsibility of those countries who still have the 
natural resources er in in the form of forests or whatever they have the 
responsibility towards the rest of the world to keep those intact and whatever 
like development is is then it er comes in second place
sf5443: this has all just come about because there are more people getting skin 
cancer in the developed economies right and suddenly like this oh we're getting 
the illness it's all the C-F-Cs its suddenly but this has been going on for so 
long and what about the damage i mean no one is talking about the damage to the 
Brazilian people as such no one's bothered by them it's bothered by the impact 
that goes onto the developed economies i think i mean er no one talks about 
people from there er like what impact it is on them 
nm5439: okay well lets have lets have a Brazilian
sm5442: no it's just i find that the whole concept if we talk about environment 
if if you use in the context of the present system economic system political 
system you cannot get to a a a kind of a result when markets are the ones who 
talk loud so countries are going to try to maximize as much profit as they can 
so therefore if you talk about the environment you also have to also talk about 
the economic system so is they are very much linked politically economic 
environment so i think that's would be the core of the problem
nm5439: so when you said core of the problem so in other words what you're 
saying is that we have an international political economy 
sm5442: yeah you
nm5439: which is sort of inherently destructive to the environment 
sm5442: yeah
nm5439: that in its that's the argument of some some some would argue the other 
case but
sm5442: we all live in a system where the idea of creating er er wealth is by 
depleting natural resources
nm5439: right
sm5442: by then er you know by doing that i mean is something that is a 
continuing er process so if you want to tackle it you have to create new 
alternatives where economic growth can be achieved without er depleting the 
natural resource
nm5439: right I just want to go round the class here George you were
sm5440: well er i was just going to say that er if we were going to look at 
this er self interest or just a realistic point of view er do er First World 
governments genuinely care about er people in Brazil er or you know do they 
care about rainforests because it affects them and i've er i mean i've recently 
been er been doing this whole question of er debt cancellation and all the 
arguments put are er well with relation to Mexico and it's drugs economy er 
Brazil rainforests i say that look well if you cancel debt it will mean that 
more people will get jobs er in the legal economy er and this will be good for 
the United States and for Britain because er less drugs will be coming through 
the ports and that's that's a reason to do it and they say the reason the 
reason to tackle the rainforest in Brazil from er you know for a positive 
reason for First World governments to do it is cause it will help them because 
as you say your children won't get skin cancer there won't be so much smog 
prevalent in the United States you know and reasons like this er they don't 
they don't necessarily care about er the people involved in these things you 
know and is this er is this a realistic point of view you know do people 
believe that's how First World governments er feel you know or do you generally 
think that they you know they care about levels of poverty and you know and how 
people live in er the much poorer countries
sf5443: it's just that taking up Mozambique at what's happening recently er i 
mean we saw a natural disaster an environmental disaster but no country i mean 
the US can't even send fli-, I mean planes in er and they're operating with 
seven planes er and when there was a Gulf War and all that and they just went 
in directly i mean where where's the Gulf War and stuff like that er that just 
shows how interested some countries are er i mean their being hypocrites 
outright er and that's sad come on let's face it the people are dying that we 
see on T-V it's appalling 
nm5439: can we link this then with the idea of social responsibility and maybe 
Lu-, Lucas can come back to that it's er i mean who has who's er who's i mean 
the the developed world to a large extent is asking the developing world to be 
to be responsible
sf5443: what can you when there's a natural disaster
nm5439: but responsibility in a sense it wants the developing world to to bear 
some of the costs er of er the developed world the developed world doesn't want 
to necessarily reciprocate in that way er it just it just says you know you do 
this if you do that okay well maybe we'll cancel some debt but they don't 
they're not doing it for any altruistic reasons they're just doing it you know 
because it's in their particular interests so whe-, when we talk about 
responsibility i mean they're not they're just saying that you have to be 
responsible because it's going to help us you know rather than the other way 
around to some extent is a large you know it's a large element of that
sm5442: isn't it rather interesting that institutions like you know where are 
base the er policies international policies where they come come and say listen 
you have to export to acquire more er er er have currency able to er develop so 
that's er i'll go back to the aspect of the whole process er where the in the 
economic system you have to deal with hard currency in the developing countries 
to do that you do have to kind of er use those er what they must have in a in a 
as a hard currency where you can sell it such as commodities like in Malaysia 
where they're selling hard er selling trees wood you know to to developed 
countries er er i think it's very er if you talk about environment and you 
think neo-liberal system is er is very er i mean almost impossible to sort it 
sf5443: yeah er and some countries are very er you know 
sm5442: primary commodities
nm5439: this is is the next next question that i wanted to come to in terms of 
er how does it challenge us to sort of understand things about the system you 
know er the system of the international political economy er and what does it 
what do these environmental problems do how do they challenge our sort of 
preconceptions of are understanding up to this point about the way this 
international political economy works as a system er i think Shegara was was 
touching upon this er by looking at the different schools of I-P-E the 
different understandings and trying to critique them and say you know how they 
they fail to to cope with er you know with this kind of this this eventuality 
you know the fact that the more that we you know er push on with economic 
development er the more that this may actually be unsustainable now er you know 
some there are criticisms associated with each of the schools but also each one 
of the schools kind of er well especially the liberal school which is the 
dominant one at the moment you know tries to come back and say well actually 
you know we can achieve environmental er you know sustainable development and a 
sustainable environment er in certain ways er so in a sense this this it's all 
the solutions which are put forward by the developed states at the moment they 
quite sort of technocratic and i think what Shegara was getting at is they're 
kind of problem solving theories they're not critical theories so there kind of 
an existing system of largely liberal based e-, you know eco-, economic 
organization and all the all the all that the developed states want to do to a 
large extent is to kind of tinker with it and adjust it er but they're not 
asking as Lucio says for any kind of major restructuring of the system you know 
they just want to solve environmental problems by using kind of liberal based 
market economies but the the question is are these actually compatible er you 
know does anybody have any feeling you know kind of opinions on that i mean is 
is liberal based marketing economics actually compatible with sustainable 
development with sustainable growth er and a sustainable environment sorry i 
mean Lucio i think what you're arguing is that maybe not does anyone want to 
try and defend that position i mean people do it all the time er i mean the the 
developed states are doing it
sm5441: i think it is er what if what if the environment is part of your your 
of your economy
nm5439: mm right
sm5441: look for instance at Israel or India or even Brazil er i mean it's in 
your own interest to plant like new trees for continuity for sustainable 
development of your industries er your paper industry or your or your like 
water industry or whatever er so its it is it is compatible er but it depends 
on the country but i think the responsibility of the countries is more 
important than
nm5439: can you say why it depends on the country er what kind of country
sm5441: well countries that have financial resources they for them it could 
work but they er but most of most of the countries don't really see it
sm5442: er this is a point er America is the most country that chop trees down 
than Brazil er if you put it in you you know er i mean America is much more of 
a of a er er it's got more effect in the whole environment system than more 
countries with this idea that they are concerned as the main cau-, the cause of 
environmental instability er its its its they are very much putting the blame 
to those that are weak to answer for it where there you know when actually the 
countries who are most depleting the forest are the developed er countries
nm5439: can you give some examples of how the environment can economists are 
trying to solve these costs
sf5443: so for example as long as these curves are correct and if environmental 
economists can offer appropriate measure to shift from to Q to Q star it would 
be possible to solve the sustainable development of this point so for example 
by using a kind of taxation or tradable funds if if it is appropriately cre-, 
created it is not impossible
sf5443: but then you have that dilemma where users try to that yeah 
sf5443: of course yeah environmental economists we'll take into consideration 
the present di-, dilemma of development
nm5439: there's also some interesting stuff been done by a there's a guy in the 
states called John Walley he's an economists and he's done stuff for the world 
trade organization he's a he's very well Known in his field and he's working on 
an idea of a sort of to go with the W-T-O or the W-E World Environmental 
Organization and one of his ideas is was was was that without you know getting 
to a kind of technocratic solution you know problem solving solutions sorry 
it's not the same as kind of tear up the whole system but to do it with some 
kind of finesse and adjust the system so you can avoid some of these 
environmental costs so one of his ideas also was that rich countries if they're 
getting worried say about deforestation in a particular country what they would 
do is that would say to the they would say to the the developing country which 
has these forests which you know obviously the rich countries need and wants 
them to preserve they would actually pay you we're going to rent the forest off 
of you okay you know we'll we'll we'll transfer you know we'll trans-, we'll 
give you a kind of transfer payment so we'll we'll transfer some money across 
and what you do is you you know you you look after those forests instead of you 
ripping them down and selling them we'll kind of rent them off you you know 
they'll stay on your your territory we're not going to do anything to them but 
we'll pay you some money to be just to sort of keep them preserved er which is 
which is one kind of solution but again you know its very sort of technocratic 
but obviously there are all these there are all these problems to that as well
sf5443: it's condescending
nm5439: well it is quite condescending but again you know its its this idea of 
well us what else can you do you know within the limits of of the of the system 
you know you've got to try and you know the developed states are not going go 
give up their advantaged position in in international political economy but 
they need some kind of you know you've got to work within the boundaries you've 
got to problem solve within the existing sort of paradigm but there are also 
all sorts of problem because you know you can imagine that then developing 
countries can sort of turn around and say well if you don't pay us the money 
we're going to rip down this forest they can hold the forest for ransom
sm5442: i have a question why not developed countries just open up fields and 
plant loads of trees destroy loads of buildings that you know they've got a big 
house they have loads of space to create their own forest in twenty years to 
thirty years time they don't need us anymore so why don't they work in that way
nm5439: but that's you see that's what political theorists say
sm5441: that's the facts
sf5443: what's that
sm5441: that's the facts you have to face the facts
sm5442: which facts
sm5441: the facts are that the developing the developed world has industries 
and the developing world is developing 
sm5442: talk to me one simple
sf5443: we need to grow we need to grow
sm5441: we need to grow in another way the point the point
sf5443: how are we going to grow in another way that's why we produce low added 
goods low value added goods
sm5441: there are other possibilities to grow you leap forward you leap forward 
with communication technologies why not with other technologies and other other 
means of production 
sm5442: look fair enough but lets well lets understand it developed countries 
do have to develop to achieve a certain level of standard supposed to be kept 
the way 
sm5441: i completely agree with that
sm5442: a country is set up now if you ask to kind of er consid-, to kind of er 
to break this cycle this development cycle to give you air to breathe
sf5443: yeah give you nice holiday destinations
sm5441: it's like the movie Total Recall
nm5439: yeah i i mean yeah i mean this intere-, i mean i think there are all 
sorts of it's interesting the way it's divided i mean Luca is a he is a 
critical theories and he doesn't like the system as it exists he wants to think 
outside the existing system and Lucio who is kind of saying that this is the 
way the system is and we have to try and so-, solve the problems
sm5441: i don't see why not i see myself as a critical theorist and i'll 
explain why i'll explain why because Lucio was trying to solve the problem of 
development and he's using the existing theories the existing theories to 
develop and critical theory is exactly getting out of those theories right and 
maybe like developing a new problem solving theory and that's critical thinking 
it's not problem solving
sm5442: your kind of er imperialistic notion by
sm5441: why is it imperialistic
sm5442: by er by er by li-, limiting my my development you are kind of keeping 
the status quo by saying do that you know you can do that you cannot do that 
but i can because i've got power and and wealth and power
sm5441: but you do you can say listen if you don't pay us we'll continue 
cutting our down cutting down our forests
sf5443: but it doesn't work that we don't have as much say as you do lets face 
it because we're not developed
sm5441: but you have also the developed world is crying for it otherwise the 
whole issue the whole issue would not have been raised
sm5442: wait this is important is very important don't you forget that we too 
have feelings we too [laughter] 
sm5441: no no no no
sf5443: i think we need a break
sm5441: we'll talk about that later Lucio
[laughter] 
sm5442: we too we too can kind of get skin cancer we too are concerned as well 
we are not robots or whatever we do have those concerns it's not just you you 
know Western kind of environmental minds
sm5441: do you have feelings for 
sm5442: i mean because we are suffering we are suffering as well it's not just 
a question of 
nm5439: yeah yeah i mean it's a good point i just want to i just want to ask i 
want to ask Luca here and again i'm not i'm again i'm not trying to label you 
as as being the developed world or being whatever i think you're in that kind 
of problem solving area but the question sort of is though especially are you 
pre-, do you think then that the developed world should change its its its 
economic system does the developed world have to i mean in a sense what maybe 
what you're suggesting the sympathies you might suggest you know the developed 
world is saying they've got to develop in a certain way you can't develop in 
the same way we've developed because it's just too destructive you know if 
China tries to develop in the same sort of industrial pattern with a billion 
people it's just it's just not sustainable it's just it's just it's going to 
create such terrible problems that we can't cope with it so you've got to 
change your pattern of development you know maybe you're going to leap-frog 
into a new industry or whatever you know but there's some kind solution out 
there okay but but but that does involve imposing some form of of of 
restriction or you know a change in development pattern of other states okay 
and you're saying that's that's that's critical theory okay whatever but you 
know to turn it around then what about the developed world do you think the 
developed world also has to to change
sm5441: of course
nm5439: yeah so like what
sm5441: the developed world has already changed
nm5439: well how how has it
sm5441: it's changing it's changing with norms and standards like pollution 
standards pollution norms like antipollution of course i mean you don't see 
that in the develop-, in the developing world do you
nm5439: don't don't you think that the i mean the developed world is still the 
pri-, one of the prime polluting and er 
sm5441: i think i think a country like Nigeria is more polluting than for 
instance say than a country like Belgium 
sf5443: it's because of Shell Shell it's because Shell let's put it in 
perspective
sm5441: its because of Shell that's the only reason but you can but you can 
impose you can impose Shell like say to Shell like listen like say why don't 
you impose these rules 
sf5443: Shell controls the whole thing do not be na've about it 
sm5441: they're going to leave the oil is there come on
nm5439: what about what about the United States what has the United States 
changed i mean this is er yeah er we're always pinning bad things to the United 
States it's the biggest economy in the world the biggest national economy and 
it's it's by far the biggest polluter in the world in terms of you know carbon 
dioxide emissions has the United States changed has anyone detected the United 
States trying to change its fundamental problem of economic growth has the 
intern-, international political economy of the United States changed over the 
last thirty forty years or so not not fundamentally
sm5441: but there is there is a process of awareness and a process of awareness 
is not is not prevalent in the developing nations and that is a question of 
responsibility it's the responsibility of the developed world i think and you 
can say that sounds patronizing or whatever but it's it's the responsibility to 
the Western developed to the industrialized world 
sm5442: it's not patronizing it's demoralizing you are saying that we don't 
think do you say that the Western are the only ones that got knowledge you're 
saying that you know do you know we kind developed countries are people that 
stupid you know iron age stone age they do have education they do do have 
access to Internet they do know about you know world affairs so they are aware 
in as much us the Western but the alternatives that Western world have and the 
alternatives that developing cultures have are different so you have to have a 
balance so you cannot you know
sm5441: what's the alternative what's the alternative for the Western world for 
the Western developed industrialized world the Western model if you like
sm5442: you could have instead you have two cars you could just have one car 
instead you have
sm5441: or really do you do you honestly think that the that the C-O-two 
emissions from cars within the European Union is is is is the same as what five 
ten years ago
sm5442: well would you how would you you're not putting in the same comparison 
like you use Nigeria and i suppose England is fine as the amount of pollution 
that Britain you know creates does not compare with Nigeria it doesn't there's 
not even comparability there
sm5441: do you realize do you realize talking about C-O-two emission of cars do 
you realize that cars are able to drive on water already but the only reason 
why we're still driving on oil is to keep your countries alive 
sm5442: oh
sf5443: oh please that is the worst i've heard Luca i've been in this 
university and that's the height of Luca please
sm5441: the only reason
sf5443: i don't think that the Western lifestyle is for sale is for sale at all 
they won't give up anything so there has to be something else and i think that 
the Western world is still polluting the most and we have to start with 
ourselves we have to start with every Western country before we can say to 
developing world to
sm5441: do you have any statistics or figures to show that that the Western 
world is the most polluting
sf5443: yeah
sf5445: look in the book
sf5443: lies lies lies
nm5439: even the United States you know which is the most polluting 
acknowledges that it has the largest emissions of of greenhouse gasses they 
don't no they don't they 
su: 
nm5439: no they don't no they try to impose gasoline taxes energy taxes and it 
was it was you know voted down too much opposition too much domestic opposition 
because people like their cars
sm5442: there's sorry there's another issue that most companies you find in 
Third World countries that are polluting they're not from Third World countries 
they' re other companies 
sm5446: with a developing country cannot cannot impose taxes 
sm5442: you have a whole bunch of shareholders who want profitability what are 
you going to so what it's got to do with you know it's not just however you you 
you want produce er the most you know maximize your profit as much as you can 
so you go down there you deplete forests you deplete another resource then to 
be able for you you know for you to have a proper health system to have a 
proper structure er this structure it has to be running soundly so that its not 
its not you know it goes with the economic and political ar-, arrangement 
configuration of how you you know in the way er er international institutions 
are based on that is that's my argument is my argument is that if you want to 
change it you have to think you know what you know how who implements who does 
you know initiate policies international policies 
sf5443: i mean you cannot preach something i mean what you don't practicing you 
cannot do that it just doesn't work and we are not ignorant we're not stupid we 
know when you when you're preaching what you're not practicing
sm5441: who's preaching
sf5445: you
sm5441: no who's preaching its governments who are preaching its governments 
who are preaching
nm5439: is there any other there are five people here from from er Asia 
developing Asia does anyone else want to participate in this debate give your 
opinion i mean you're all from countries who are trying to basically trying to 
get rich right catch up i mean do you think you should all be allowed to have 
two cars why not a lot of people in Europe have got two cars why can't you have 
two cars
sm5441: three even four
nm5439: why can't you use your rainforest they're your rainforests
sm5441: they're cleaner than the cars in your country
sf5443: what
sm5441: they're cleaner than the cars in your country
sf5443: i mean look we're getting on a big personal level let's not do that
nm5439: no seriously does anybody is anybody do you have any comments
sf5443: shall i start using coal for cooking
nm5439: coal 
sf5444: i have different opinion i mean i don't think about like all the cars 
and all the rainforests trash or something like that for example like those 
corporations in the First World country just like Lucio say like exploit all 
the environment and stuff and er they try to er impose some kind of 
environmental rules on certain products that you have to export to those 
countries and stuff and at the same time like for example in the United States 
when people use their stuff they don't care much about the environment like 
once they they finish their stuff even though like for example if you go to a 
restaurant you order food you finish half you throw away half of them but in in 
developing countries you like 
sf5443: we finish our food
sf5444: yeah 
sm5441: i mean if you eat half of you food its not a good restaurant so you 
shouldn't go there in the first place and you wouldn't do so in a developing 
country
sm5442: its a very important issue i think its how you know waste you produce 
here in relation to waste of Third World Countries which is very relevant to in 
relation to the environment issue i think that's might be what's quite important
sf5443: i mean to extract i mean if you you know you guys want to corporate to 
have corporations sorry yeah and then you and then you base your factories in 
our countries and then say we are polluting we are doing that but just to stay 
comparative to just sustain your growth you move companies you do you know 
operate with all these M-N-Cs 
sm5441: who's you who's you is that is that a
sf5443: it's the Western countries all your T-N-Cs M-N-Cs emanating coming from 
your from sorry not your Western countries yeah let's say and and then you base 
yourselves in our countries okay pollute us and then leave reprea-, repatriate 
profits and then accuse us i don't draw the line i draw the line somewhere
sm5441: who's responsibility is that why why are why are the companies why are 
the T-N-Cs moving their their their their operations abroad because
sf5443: so that you can stay competitive so that you can go
sm5441: no because of norms and standards within within the Western model of 
countries are at a certain degree where it becomes a need maybe too expensive 
for these T-N-Cs because there are other countries in the world that have not 
yet the responsibility or the or the or the or maybe the ignorance overall of 
of pollution if you impose if you impose collectively
sf5443: we're not ignorant Luca
sm5441: no if you impose collectively the same norms and standards 
nm5439: okay let's let's have let's have one more comment and then i know it's 
a bit late but we'll have a very quick break okay so you know
sf5445: what i want what i want to say is this
nm5439: you forgot
sf5445: this discussion is like what happened on on the high on international 
level when we talk about environment the developed world is crying for that 
more responsibility but don't want to do anything but the developed world well 
we need to develop but we don't want to we we we don't want to have any green 
taxes or have any green policies
sf5443: that's not why though
nm5439: sha-, shall we
sf5445: i mean we but this lack of responsibility because who's going to be the 
in this it's the environment because both parties all the countries use the 
environment has the excuse 
sm5442: but you have the technology you have the technology to give us if you 
could its not its there
nm5439: alright let's let's let's just stop lets just stop and have a very 
quick five minute break