Does the politics of global warming show that the nation state is an outdated political artefact?

The looming crisis of global warming, caused by unsustainable carbon emissions, will continue to dominate contemporary politics. The politics of global warming can be separated into two parts. Firstly, it necessitates increased international co-operation, especially ‘green’ technology and the sharing of common goals to combat global warming. Secondly, more decisive and significant action by governments is essential to adequately address the changes needed to reduce carbon emissions. Though ostensibly counter-intuitive, the solution to addressing these politics lies in the nation state; geographically distinct, politically autonomous regions usually sharing a common culture. Their origins rooted in the Peace of Westphalia (Yale, 2008), nation states are able to harness three characteristics, stability, nationalism and sovereignty, to facilitate effective action to mitigate the impacts of global warming. Nations states also provide a framework for meaningful international co-operation; focusing on international treaties as the most useful form of this, it is clear these are dependent on the existence of nation states. Though the strengths of nation states do come with some drawbacks, these are markedly outweighed by the benefits. The principles and advantages of the nation state make it by far the most robust system of global governance to address the politics of global warming.

Climate change is one of the largest existential threats ever faced by nations, but these two political requirements it necessitates are not new. Increased international co-operation and significant action have long been required to address global challenges, such as wars and their aftermaths, collapses of monetary systems and health crises. The question is whether the nation state can implement these two goals to the extent needed in the short term to mitigate climate change.

Alternatives to the Westphalian state system include carving the world into empires, or even creating a single entity of global governance. These higher levels of organisation, implying the use of extreme force, would initially seem attractive to achieving a single goal; for example, combatting climate change. They would have all the world’s resources at their disposal. However, the idea of a system of global governance by a single entity, or a small number of distinct entities, is a utopia; co-ordinating a response would become an impossible, ineffectual task without the distinctiveness and autonomy that the nation state provides. This co-ordinated response is better achieved through nation states, with the ability co-operate and take action through international treaties, of which nation states play a vital role in supporting.

International treaties signed by nation states can address the problem of global warming through setting international common goals and universal values. The establishment of these common principles increases international co-operation and incentivises individual action by governments. Nation states reinforce this international co-operation by providing a framework through which such agreements can be reached, therefore addressing the politics of climate change. You could argue treaties may not always succeed in their specific aims. However, they are vital as they heighten global awareness and put climate change at the top of governments’ agendas. The Paris Climate Accord, for example, had the goal in 2015 of capping global temperature increases at +2 degrees, which climate scientists, such as Michael Oppenheimer, argue it will not achieve (Oppenheimer, 2020). Regardless, there has been a large rise in climate action from nation states, especially in green technology production, since 2015. Nation states such as Israel and Denmark, both part of the Paris Climate Accord, are innovating said technology at some of the fastest rates (Climate Council, 2016). Nation states therefore can address the politics that climate change requires, through reinforcing and proving a framework for international co-operation. Co-operation in treaties clearly leads to action. Therefore, through the example of treaties, it is evident that nation states can address the politics of climate change and are not outdated.

Nation states have several strengths in this context, one of which being their inherent stability, providing capacity for significant and effective action by governments against global warming. A nation state has clear and distinct borders, political institutions and culture, making it inherently more stable than alternatives. Though there are exceptions to the rule, for example Afghanistan, for each of these there are ten Denmarks or Mexicos; the vast majority of nation states are successful and stable. This stability provided by nation states makes governments much more effective, they can operate efficiently with the threat of unstable internal forces largely removed, with the strength to adapt policy from one crisis to the next; without adaptability there can be no real action taken to address global warming. This in turn allows effective action to be taken by governments against global warming. Therefore, nation states are not an outdated political artefact, their stability means they are well placed to push through significant and meaningful change in order to address climate change.

There is consensus among most experts that climate change threatens the very existence of the human race, ecosystems and food-chains cannot survive if temperatures soar. Future generations will be affected by this global issue. It then seems logical that all governments would spend the majority of their budget on this problem. So why then, is this not the case? The issue is that short-term sacrifices must be made to mitigate the long-term impacts of climate change, but it is much easier to justify vast amounts of government spending on an immediate threat. The coronavirus health crisis exemplifies this. The US has spent over $6 trillion on the immediate crisis of COVID-19 (Washington Post, 2020), a gargantuan amount compared to the mere $154 billion spent from 1993 to 2017 in combating climate change (GAO, 2018). This illustrates that short term problems receive more attention and funding than long-term ones; climate change will have much greater impact globally than a pandemic. Additionally, as temperatures rise, the likelihood of global health crises does too. Short-term change for long-term benefit requires large sacrifices in all aspects of society.

Nation states, through the nationalism they provide, are well equipped to address this difficulty in achieving the significant short-term sacrifices required to mitigate the long-term impacts of global warming. The ‘nation’ element of the nation state stems from shared language, institutions, customs and values; a shared culture. These roots in a shared existence give rise to nationalism: identification with a nation and support for its interests. In some contexts, nationalism can be seen as a detriment to other nations, but that is forgetting the positive side to nationalism, that is wanting the best outcomes for a group of individuals bound by common values and culture. This interconnectedness provided by the nation state produces a certain form of altruistic nationalism, beneficial to all nations. Nationalism creates a willingness to sacrifice one’s own immediate luxuries for future generations of a nation; this extends to future generations of other nations too. International co-operation is increased through nationalism, as there can be no meaningful co-operation with no incentive, nor connection with one another. In Reflections, Edmund Burke noted, “To love the little platoon we belong to in society… is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country and to mankind” (Burke & Mitchell, 2009). This suggests that the connections we share within our cultures provides the basis for a “love to our country,” (nationalism) which extends towards love and co-operation with all mankind. Harnessing the nationalism that nation states foster provides a uniting ideology, adressing the difficulty of large, immediate sacrifice for the long-term goal of mitigating global warming. This characteristic allows for significant action to be taken by nation states both domestically and extending internationally. Thus, the nation state is not an outdated political artefact when faced with the politics of climate change.

The most sacred element of a nation state is its sovereignty; we can trace this idea back to the very conception of the nation state. Political scientists have traced this non-interference principle to the Peace of Westphalia, ending the Thirty Years War in 1648.As stated by Simpson, “The trajectory traced, in all this, describes a system developing…to a Westphalian order in which the sovereign equality of states becomes a defining quality of the system” (Simpon, 2004). This emphasises how key sovereignty is to our concept of the modern nation state. More recently, international bodies such as the United Nations (UN) have recognised the importance of this principle. The UN Charter states, “nothing… shall authorize the UN to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” (Article 2,7), showing that even a body with the capacity and mandate to intervene internationally must respect the sovereignty of nation states.

This established and respected sovereign nature of nation states, paired with their distinctiveness from one another, allows for policy to be adapted effectively to suit each separate nation state. Therefore, more efficient action can be taken to mitigate the long-term effects of climate change, ultimately enhancing international co-operation. Politically, this sovereign characteristic means that policy can be shaped by governments to fit their culture and political institutions. This allows for more adaptable and effective action, as for real change to occur to mitigate global warming, it must be politically feasible and sit within the public will/culture and be reflective of a country’s capabilities. Otherwise, any action taken will not be realistic nor long-lasting. Sovereignty is also essential for technological developments which can then be shared internationally. For example, Iceland is a world leader in developing hydro-electric technology, whilst Spain paves the way in wind energy technology. Harnessing these different capabilities is vital in reducing CO2 emissions. The sovereignty of nations states is therefore able to address the politics of global warming, as there is no one size fits all approach; through allowing significant action to be taken now, to mitigate global warming, nation states are clearly not outdated political artefacts.

It could be argued that sovereignty is an obstacle in achieving the common goal of addressing global warming, that it gives governments the ability to ignore the necessity of mitigating its long-term impacts. There is sparse evidence for this to be true: ex-president Donald Trump’s pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord does show that sovereignty can have negative consequences for the environment. However, the benefits of sovereignty outweigh this hurdle. Though some individual nation states may occasionally choose to pull out of certain treaties, or fund climate technology to a lesser extent, this will not last long. President Biden’s election campaign promised to re-join this treaty on his first day in office, which he did. Common goals and universal values established by treaties (and public will), which are reinforced by the nation state, ensure that the vast majority of nation states will harness their resources to mitigate climate change. Additionally, the benefits of having effective action through self-autonomy outweigh the small number of nation states who may decide to mitigate climate change less than others. The ability for countries to create their own appropriate policy allows for an overall more comprehensive response to climate change, for more effective and significant action.

The nation state is not an outdated political artefact when faced with the challenges of global warming. It is able to address the politics it necessitates; nation states are able to facilitate significant and efficient action and increased international co-operation. The three main characteristics of the nation state, stability, nationalism and sovereignty, allow for significant action to be taken by states, extending internationally. The notion that the nation state and international co-operation are at odds with each another is a misconception; they are not mutually exclusive, both being the solution in the struggle to mitigate the impacts of climate change. In the near future, global warming will become increasingly influential in the political sphere through the crises it will entail. What will become increasingly apparent is that the nation state is not an outdated political artefact, rather it is uniquely suited to the politics of global warming.

Works Cited

Burke, E. & Mitchell, L. G., 2009. Reflections on the Revolution in France. 18 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Climate Council, 2016. 11 COUNTRIES LEADING THE CHARGE ON RENEWABLE ENERGY. [Online]

Available at: https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/follow-leader-how-11-countries-are-shifting-renewable-energy
[Accessed 31 March 2021].

GAO, 2018. Climate Change: Analysis of Reported Federal Funding. [Online]
Available at: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-223
[Accessed 31 March 2021].

Matyjaszek, H., 2019. Which countries are leading the way in sustainable energy?. [Online]
Available at: https://www.energylivenews.com/2019/07/01/which-countries-are-leading-the-way-in-sustainable-energy/
[Accessed 31 march 2021].

Oppenheimer, M., 2020. The Paris climate pact is 5 years old. Is it working? [Interview] (11 December 2020).

Simpon, G., 2004. Great Powers and Outlaw States. 0 ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Unwin, J., 2019. The top 10 countries in the world by wind energy capacity. [Online]
Available at: https://www.power-technology.com/features/wind-energy-by-country/
[Accessed 31 March 2021].

Washington Post, 2020. The U.S. has thrown more than $6 trillion at the coronavirus pandemic. [Online]
Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fbusiness%2f2020%2f04%2f15%2fcoronavirus-economy-6-trillion%2f
[Accessed 31 March 2021].

Yale, L. G. L. L., 2008. Treaty of Westphalia – Avalon Project. [Online]
Available at: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp
[Accessed 31 March 2021].

Bibliography

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-nation-state-rana-dasgupta

https://www.economist.com/open-future/2019/03/29/can-liberal-democracy-survive-climate-change

https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/follow-leader-how-11-countries-are-shifting-renewable-energy