Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The EU, the USA and the Climate Divide: Reappraising Strategic Choices

  • Symposium
  • Published:
European Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Analysing transatlantic relations from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (KP) to the 2009 Copenhagen accord, the article identifies underlying explanations for the divergences between the EU and US during international climate negotiations. It traces how a climate divide opened between the EU and the US in the early 2000s, involving confrontation over the implementation of the KP. However, a phase of EU–US rapprochement closed the climate gap in the late 2000s, leading to common positions during the 2009 COP-15 negotiations. Yet the Copenhagen Accord served to reinforce American influence, while undermining the coherence and credibility of the European stance. This led to multiple rifts in the post-Copenhagen landscape concerning climate treaty architecture, policy implementation and international relationships, jeopardising the success of future negotiations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. At COP-15, Sweden – speaking for the EU as holder of the EU presidency – called for a universal and legally binding agreement, to include non-Annex 1 countries (reported in International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2009).

  2. See United Nations (2009).

References

  • Alessi, M., Georgiev, A. and Egenhofer, C. (2010) ‘Messages from Copenhagen: Assessments of the accord and implications for the EU’, Brussels: Center for European Policy Studies, ECP Report No. 9 April, available at: http://www.ceps.eu/book/messages-copenhagen-assessments-accord-and-implications-eu, accessed 10 June 2010.

  • Bang, G. and Schreurs, M.A. (2011) ‘A Green New Deal. Framing US Climate Leadership’, in R. Wurzel and J. Connelly (eds.) The Europe Union as a Leader in International Climate Change Politics, London: Routledge, pp. 235–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, J. (2008) ‘The worst of friends: OPEC and G-77 in the climate regime’, Global Environmental Politics 8 (4): 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F. (2005) ‘Between the USA and the South: Strategic choices for European climate policy’, Climate Policy 5: 273–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky, D. (2010) ‘The Copenhagen conference – a post-mortem’, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=155316, accessed 19 April 2010.

  • Dimitrov, R.S. (2010) ‘Inside Copenhagen: The state of climate governance’, Global Environmental Politics 10 (2): 18–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J.S., Downes, D., Hunold, C. and Schlosberg, D. (2003) Green States and Social Movements: Environmentalism in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany and Norway, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Egenhofer, C., Pumphrey, D., Ladislaw, S. and Georgiev, A. (2009) ‘Next steps for the transatlantic climate change partnership: A report of the global dialogue between the European Union and the United States’, Washington, DC: Centre for Strategic and International Studies, available at: http://csis.org/publication/next-steps-transatlantic-climate-change-partnership, accessed 19 April 2010.

  • European Commission. (2001) ‘On the sixth environment action programme of the European community: “Environment 2010: Our future, our choice’”, COM(2001) 31 final.

  • European Commission. (2008) ‘20 20 by 2020: Europe's climate change opportunity’, COM(2008) 30 final.

  • European Commission. (2009) ‘Towards a comprehensive climate change agreement in Copenhagen’, COM(2009) 39 final.

  • European Commission. (2010a) ‘International climate policy post-Copenhagen: Acting now to reinvigorate global action on climate change’, COM(2010) 86 final.

  • European Commission. (2010b) ‘Analysis of options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage’, COM(2010) 265 final.

  • European Council. (2009) ‘Information note’, Brussels, 1 December, available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/110889.pdf, accessed 18 June 2010.

  • European Council. (2010) ‘Information note’, Brussels, 14 June, available at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/10/st07/st07562.en10.pdf, accessed 18 June 2010.

  • Falkner, R. (2005) ‘American hegemony and the global environment’, International Studies Review 7 (4): 585–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujioka, C. and Fogarty, D. (2009) ‘Rich nations trying to kill Kyoto pact, says China’, available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE8R05820091005, accessed 29 November 2010.

  • Harrison, K. (2007) ‘The road not taken: Climate change policy in Canada and the United States’, Global Environmental Politics 7 (4): 92–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haug, C. and Jordan, A. (2010) ‘Burden sharing: Distributing burdens or sharing efforts?’, in A. Jordan et al (eds.) Climate Change Policy in the EU: Confronting the Dilemmas of Mitigation and Adaptation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 83–101.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. (1993) ‘The capability-expectations gap or conceptualising Europe's international role’, Journal of Common Market Studies 31 (3): 305–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Institute for Sustainable Development. (2009) ‘Summary of the Copenhagen climate change conference: 7–1 December 2009’, Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 12: 459, available at: http://www.preventionweb.net/files/12138_enb12459e1.pdf, accessed 10 May 2010.

  • Jänicke, M. (2008) ‘Ecological modernisation: New perspectives’, Journal of Cleaner Production 16: 557–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberthür, S. and Roche Kelly, C. (2008) ‘EU leadership in international climate policy: Achievements and challenges’, The International Spectator 43 (2): 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ochs, A. and Sprinz, D.F. (2008) ‘Europa Riding the Hegemon? Transatlantic Climate Policy’, in D.B. Bobrow (ed.) Hegemony Constrained: Evasion, Modification and Resistance to American Foreign Policy, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 144–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson, M. (2009) ‘Post-hegemonic climate politics?’ The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 11 (1): 140–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purvis, N. and Stevenson, A. (2010) ‘Rethinking climate diplomacy: New ideas for transatlantic cooperation post-Copenhagen’, Washington, DC: The German Marshall Fund of the United States, Brussels Forum Paper Series, available at: http://www.gmfus.org/brusselsforum/2010/docs/BF2010-Paper-Purvis-Stevenson.pdf, accessed 16 June 2010.

  • Rajamani, L. (2009) ‘The Copenhagen agreed outcome: Form, shape and influence’, New Delhi: Centre for Policy Research Climate Brief (November), available at: http://www.cprindia.org/publications/policy-briefs/2564-copenhagen-agreed-outcome-form-shape-influence, accessed 9 February 2010.

  • Reuters. (2009) ‘Copenhagen accord was a ‘disaster’, says Sweden’, available at: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE5BL2WT20091222, accessed 29 June 2010.

  • Schmidt, J. (2008) ‘Why Europe leads on climate change’, Survival 50 (4): 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreurs, M. (2004) ‘The Climate Change Divide: The European Union, the United States and the Future of the Kyoto Protocol’, in N. Vig and M.G. Faure (eds.) Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United States and the European Union, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 207–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreurs, M. and Tiberghien, Y. (2007) ‘Multi-level reinforcement: Explaining European Union leadership in climate change mitigation’, Global Environmental Politics 7 (4): 19–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, A. (2009) ‘Danish draft an attempt to kill Kyoto protocol, say developing countries’, available at: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/danish-draft-an-attempt-to-kill-kyoto-protoc/55181, accessed 29 November 2010.

  • Skodvin, T. and Andresen, S. (2006) ‘Leadership revisited’, Global Environmental Politics 6 (3): 13–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, T., Tangen, K. and Korppoo, A. (2010) ‘The EU and the global climate regime: Getting back in the game’, Helsinki: Finnish Institute of International Affairs (UPI), Briefing Paper No. 55, 25 February, available at: http://www.ciaonet.org/pbei/fiia/0018327/f_0018327_1569.pdf, accessed 10 May 2010.

  • United Nations. (2009) ‘Copenhagen accord’, available at: http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/application/pdf/cop15_cph_auv.pdf, accessed 4 January 2010.

  • Vidal, J. (2010) ‘Copenhagen climate failure blamed on ‘Danish text’’, The Guardian, 31 May, available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/31/climate-change-copenhagen-danish-text, accessed 18 June 2010.

  • Vogler, J. and Bretherton, C. (2006) ‘The European Union as a protagonist to the United States on climate change’, International Studies Perspectives 7: 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White House. (2009) ‘Remarks by the president during press availability in Copenhagen’, 18 December, available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-during-press-availability-copenhagen, accessed 24 June 2010.

  • Wurzel, R.K.W. and Connelly, J. (eds.) (2011) The European Union as a Leader in International Climate Change Politics, London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynn, G. and Harrison, P. (2009) ‘Africans accuse rich of trying to kill Kyoto’, available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE5BD0MJ, accessed 29 November 2010.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of European Studies, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK

    Joseph Szarka

Authors
  1. Joseph Szarka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Szarka, J. The EU, the USA and the Climate Divide: Reappraising Strategic Choices. Eur Polit Sci 11, 31–40 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2011.9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2011.9

Keywords

Search

Navigation