The Colby Reader

Interview with Elizabeth DeSombre

Assistant Professor of Government and Environmental Studies at Colby, Ph.D Harvard

Reader: When did you first become interested in the politics of environmental regulation and the movement to protect the environment on a global scale?

DeSombre: I got there from two different directions. On the personal level I got interested in environmental issues and local efforts to protect the environment when I was in middle school and high school. I was interested in political action in general and worked on things like starting a recycling program in my school (at a time when these things were rare). I also became a vegetarian at age 12, at least partly out of environmental concerns.

On the intellectual side, in college I was interested in international relations and international cooperation and decided to study that in graduate school. I didn't necessarily plan to work on environmental issues, but it turns out that a lot of the most interesting work and the most pressing questions in looking at international cooperation generally relate to environmental issues. So my graduate work focused particularly on environmental issues as a way to understand broader questions of international cooperation. It is nice to have my personal and intellectual interests converge, and to be able to teach things to students that I think will allow them to go out and make an important difference in the world.

Reader: There have been a number of recent meetings between both large industrial countries and lesser-developed states regarding the implementation of worldwide initiatives to reduce pollution. Generally, have these been successful?

DeSombre: Generally, yes. A notable example is the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. When the framework agreement to address ozone depletion was negotiated in the mid-1980s there was profound uncertainty about human impact on the ozone layer, and no real substitute chemicals or processes that could safely and cost-effectively be used in place of substances that deplete the ozone layer. Developing countries had little reason to want to join an agreement that would limit their access to chemicals the industrialized world had used in the process of development. A decade and a half later almost all the countries in the world have joined the set of agreements to protect the ozone layer. Most developed countries have completely ended their use of ozone depleting chemicals that were once considered essential. Developing countries have been provided with funding and technical assistance that should help them either end or prevent use of these chemicals in the future, and some developing countries have phased out or avoided use of these substances already.

Several caveats, however. Addressing environmental problems is slow, particularly at the international level. Changing the behavior of most developed states within the span of 10 or 15 years (even though that may seem like a long time) is remarkably fast, and some elements of the ozone case made that relative speed possible. In a lot of other environmental issues international cooperation and national implementation of policies will take much longer than a decade. Keep in mind that fundamental

industrial practices and human activity need to be changed, in ways that will hurt some sectors of society more than others. That's politically difficult, even if there are gains to be had in the aggregate. In

addition, the environment may take much longer to respond. In the case ofozone depletion the substances already in the atmosphere can harm the ozone layer for up to a century. So we have not only not yet seen improvement in the health of the ozone layer, it is still getting worse. But it is getting worse at a slower rate than previously, and the accumulation of ozone depleting substances in the atmosphere is also slowing, so there is reason for optimism. But we should not expect problems to be fixed quickly. That's all the more reason to start early in attempting to create international agreements.

Finally, you have to consider what constitutes success. Often actors can change their behavior along the lines states have agreed to internationally and the environmental problem can still get worse. Or some actors will change their behavior but others won't, or will cheat. The important question is whether the situation is worse than it would have been absent regulation (which would be the case if the regulation is targeting the wrong source of the problem or influencing actor behavior negatively) or whether environmental conditions, while still less than ideal, are better than they would have been without the efforts undertaken. If the latter is true, that's still some degree of success, even if it does not completely

ameliorate a given problem.

Reader: Some have noted that the United States should not bind itself to treaties that force us to reduce pollution, as long as developing nations continue to pollute. That this, in effect, puts us at a competitive

disadvantage. How would you respond to these assertions?

DeSombre: The eventual involvement of developing countries in most of these types of agreements is essential, because in their process of industrialization they will create exactly the types of pollution problems that the developed world has already created if they do not use other methods of developing.

Moreover, the environmental gains that are made by environmental protection actions undertaken by the developed world (often at a cost to at least some actors in society) can be negated by uncontrolled pollution in countries with rapidly growing populations. It is for that reason that the United States should be concerned about creating truly global agreements to address global environmental problems.

The competitive advantage concern is largely a smokescreen in these instances, used by those domestic industries that do not want to change their behavior. It is true that environmental regulation can be costly, at least initially, for the specifically regulated industries. They make this claim about almost all domestic environmental regulations. But unless the United States wants to engage in a global "race to the bottom," removing all environmental and labor standards, there are going to be aspects of operating in the United States that will cost more than operating elsewhere. The goal should be to harmonize standards upwards so that more and more countries are persuaded to adopt such standards. Refusing to make a move until everyone else, including those form whom environmental protection is more difficult or more costly, has done so, is misguided and will accomplish little.

Nevertheless, it is important to think about the best ways to bring developing countries into such agreements. Does it make sense for the United States to refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change until developing countries take on substantive

obligations? Certainly not. The developed world is at this point responsible for almost all of the global pollution that has been produced, and has a level of wealth to allow it to focus on environmental issues as a

top priority. But enticing developing countries to take on environmental obligations earlier rather than later will make environmental protection easier in the long run. Funding, technical assistance, and programs that

allow environmental protection measures to be undertaken as cost-effectively as possible will do far more to advance the ultimate U.S. goals than will refusing to participate internationally in agreements that

developing countries are not yet required to uphold.

Reader: Do environmental groups generally find mass demonstrations such as those surrounding the current WTO meeting in Seattle or say the movement to save the Headwaters Forrest in California to be the most successful at getting their message out to the public?

DeSombre: Different environmental groups have different strategies and avenues for success. But, yes, the types of large-scale protests we've seen at the WTO meetings play an important role and actually do accomplish something beneficial in the process of environmental policymaking. Although there

may be a public opinion backlash (and there's actually less of one so far than I might have expected resulting from the WTO meeting protests), the highly visible protests get an issue out into the public awareness. Have you seen any coverage of the WTO negotiations that has not mentioned

environmental issues? News outlets are all doing follow-up stories about the relationship between trade and environment that are deeper and more analytical than the protests. I happen to think that a lot of what the protesters in this case are concerned about is not realistic (or that they have the wrong targets). But there are relationships between free trade and environmental protection, and there are ways in which environmental conditions could be made a greater priority in trade issues without inherently harming free trade. And to the extent that these issues get put on the agenda, it is partly due to the awareness that comes because of big disruptive protests. Did you notice that President Clinton expressed sympathy for the goals of the protesters and suggested that environmental concerns should be taken into consideration in discussions of free trade? That he is making that statement now is not unrelated to the fact that

there are people dressed as sea turtles chaining themselves to buildings in Seattle.