Why and how the United States should adopt a climate-focused foreign policy-and what it could look like

May 21

May 21 Why and how the United States should adopt a climate-focused foreign policy-and what it could look like

Global climate change is the issue of our generation and it’s finally being placed among decades-old foreign policy challenges such as nuclear proliferation, economic security, and terrorism. Over the long run, climate change will be far more impactful than most contemporary issues in foreign policy and should be considered as such. A vital step on this journey is the development of a climate-focused foreign policy that aims to expand access to clean technologies, encourage sustainable economic practices, and coordinate global institutions in their mission to address pressing environmental issues worldwide.

There are several economic and strategic reasons why countries around the world should take this step. Economically, the cost of the increasingly visible effects of climate change are increasing. The wildfires that raged across Australia in late 2019 and early 2020 were estimated to cost the country $4.4 billion. The cost, however, will be greater in economies that rely on natural resource extraction, particularly in Asia and Africa. Additionally, it is in these regions where vital urban areas are under increasing threat from rising sea levels.

Strategically, a climate-focused foreign policy is a vital step to adapting to a changing global order. Since the turn of the century, green energy and environmental issues have become increasingly important dynamics
in international relations at all levels. For example, East Africa has seen an increase in diplomatic disputes over water rights, especially between Egypt and Ethiopia for control of water in the Nile River. Additionally, the
prospect of hundreds of millions of climate refugees flowing across borders the world over is hardly welcome as many countries increasingly turn inwards. Especially concerning is the notion that these refugees will increase the pressure on areas of poor governance. Furthermore, some argue that the lack of an American climate policy is reducing U.S. influence in critical international decision-making bodies. These institutions will be instrumental not only in addressing immediate climate change issues but also in crafting long-term policies to adapt economies and institutions to this new environmental reality.

Perhaps as daunting as the climate emergency itself is the process of reorientating entrenched policy priorities and expectations of foreign policy around the world to create policies for the climate. The most
important step in this reorientation is showing that economic growth and pro-climate policies are not mutually exclusive both domestically and internationally. Domestically, market-based approaches such as cap and trade have been put forward as important steps in managing the sustainable and cost-effective transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. For instance, if the U.S. can show that a transition is possible on the domestic level, it has a good chance of becoming the undisputed leader of the global response to the climate crisis. Surprisingly, even security hawks have long highlighted the need to step up American commitments to international
action on energy and climate issues. For foreign policies to truly change, the importance of the climate crisis must be grasped; it will be the defining challenge of our era. Whoever takes the leap to substantially change their own policies at home will undoubtedly hold significant influence in the global fight against climate change.

The biggest question is what exactly a climate-focused foreign policy looks like: it is international summits, regional partnerships, conflicts over new resources, or something completely new? First, international relations will likely not take some new form. Despite the headline grabbing ability of large international summits, it is in bilateral relationships where climate policy will thrive. The U.S. is well positioned to maintain critical relationships and agreements with China, India, and the European Union, who will all play critical roles in addressing the climate crisis because of their global economic and political clout. Furthermore, NAFTA potentially provides an
excellent framework for working with Canada and Mexico on North American-specific environmental policies.

Trade will undoubtedly figure prominently in any climate-focused foreign policy. It is critical that trade be negotiated in such a way that environmental regulations and properly and proportionately enforced. If it is not, countries where regulations are lacking will emerge as pollution havens within which pollution-intensive activities will increase. Trade policies could prevent this by both incentivizing stringent regulation and financially or diplomatically punishing countries that do not adhere to the rules. Over a longer timeframe, normative pressures would likely develop and push a greater number of countries to expand environmental regulations and enforce the rules. Just as trade can be used to support international law, effective trade deals also have the potential to encourage increased trade in sustainably produced goods and renewable energies and technologies.

A commitment to a climate-focused foreign policy is essential to mobilizing the power of nation states and global institutions to address the climate emergency. As the financial, strategic, and environmental costs of inaction increase, it is imperative that foreign relations provide another avenue through which governments can push for action whether it be through trade, bilateral diplomatic relations, or strategic agreements. Whoever
becomes the leader of the global response will reap incredible strategic and diplomatic rewards. Most importantly, a fundamental paradigm shift in foreign policy will show that institutional change on an international level to address climate change is possible.