Climate Change in Regional Perspective

This work assesses the potential effectiveness and impact of the European Green Deal (EGD) and the consequent European Climate Law in the local, regional, national, intra-community, and international relations of the European Union (EU) in terms of climate change and its effects in the medium term. The article is developed under the dogmatic decision theoretical framework of the EGD. The general objective of the chapter is to discuss the innovations and effectiveness of the premises of the EGD as the EU’s guiding policy in achieving environmentally sustainable development, especially in the field of climate change and its effects. As specific objectives, the chapter aims to analyze (i) the European initiatives on climate change and the paradigm of the highest-level protection and (ii) the European Climate Law and the enforcement of climate change policies.

This chapter analyses the norms, agendas, and initiatives implemented by regional organizations in Latin America regarding climate change, and focuses on the Southern Cone Market (MERCOSUR), the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), the Forum for the Progress and Integration of South America (PROSUR), and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). Drawing on the secondary literature and official documents and the concepts of path dependence and unintended consequences from historical institutionalism, the chapter explores the role that these regional organizations have played so far in addressing climate change, as well as the key actors promoting and hindering environmental and climate change commitments. The conclusions advance recommendations based on the premise that climate change should be a key area in a new cycle of regionalism following the period of paralysis and disintegration that culminated at the end of the decade of 2010s.

The main objective of this chapter is to analyse the significance of environmental concerns in the most recent diplomatic relations between the European Union (EU) and Latin America. The chapter begins with a discussion of theoretical premises addressing the relationship between environmental preservation from the perspective of philosophy of global ethics. The analysis then employs a comparative perspective between the EU and Mercosur to determine if the two regional blocs act as “normative powers” and “ethical agents” in green policies, either in their respective spheres of influence or in international relations. The chapter also analyses the relations between the EU and Latin America, and the EU-CELAC Action Plan. The final section of the article focuses more narrowly on the EU-Mercosur trade agreement, examining the environmental provisions of the agreement and exploring why green policy in particular is dragging down the ongoing negotiations.

This chapter discusses the climate change challenges common to both the European Union (EU) and the Latin American and Caribbean (CELAC) regions, and advances recommendations and a concrete method applicable to the bi-regional level. Bi-regional cooperation would spur – thanks to the virtue of the «competitive cooperation» dynamics of direct contacts among national experts at both regional and bi-regional levels – the implementation of the principles able to reach a net-zero emission regime. In the current context of weakened multilateralism, the proposed method could be extended to other regions for working out technical consensus independently of geopolitical conflicts.

This chapter examines the important role that can be played by national and regional development banks in the green transformation. Our focus is on the European Investment Bank (EIB), but we argue that EIB’s effective mechanisms to fund the initiatives of the European Green Deal can be diffused worldwide to other regional and national banks, including in Latin America. Carbon shadow carbon pricing, green taxonomy, climate roadmap, and new instruments such as venture debt constitute experiences that can be drawn on by Latin American and other countries.

The transformation towards a zero-carbon economy requires a comprehensive renovation of the capital stock. This chapter proposes a system of effective carbon pricing that avoids the rebound effects of the related (transitory) “green growth” on carbon emissions. Technically, a system of effective carbon pricing could easily be implemented: a group of countries like the EU, or the biggest carbon emitters as “China-US-EU climate club” or a “Mercosur climate club” sets a path of steadily rising prices of crude oil, coal, and natural gas by skimming off the difference between the target price and the respective world market price through a flexible quantity tax.

Amidst growing concerns about the impact of agriculture on the environment, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been overhauled to prioritize sustainability in European agriculture. This chapter delves into the details of the CAP’s shift, analyzing the elevation of environmental concerns within the policymaking framework. Drawing upon concepts from the field of political science that examine the process of policy change, like those found in historical institutionalism, the study explores how the CAP’s move toward “greening” is redefining the trajectory of EU and global agriculture. Throughout the analysis, the study highlights the key role played by initiatives such as the Green Payment Scheme and other measures in promoting measurable environmental and climatic criteria. For example, measures aimed at preserving carbon-rich soils and enhancing water resources can have positive impacts on the environment. However, the study also recognizes that these measures may limit the power of farmers. In addition, the study underscores the EU’s commitment to addressing climate change and sustainable development challenges and how conditionality is being used to link funding to results. Upon analyzing the CAP’s shift, the study argues that the new architecture of the policy represents a more flexible and rational approach. By incorporating both CAP pillars, encouraging collaboration with compatible policies, and allowing for greater adaptability in response to the unique circumstances and objectives of each Member State, the CAP is taking significant steps toward sustainability and climate action. These insights into the significance and implications of the CAP’s shift toward sustainability offer valuable recommendations for future policy developments, emphasizing the need to balance environmental concerns with the needs of rural workers and other stakeholders.

Climate change poses a challenging and distinct problem for agriculture as it is a sector especially vulnerable because it depends heavily on weather and climate. On the other hand, a considerable portion of global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are caused by agriculture itself, both directly and indirectly. Since climate change impacts every region, Development Goal 13 for Climate Change, endorsed by the EU28 and all other UN members in 2015, calls for “urgent action to tackle climate change and its impacts” within the framework of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Responding to the above conditions, the European Union (EU), in the context of the new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which is into effect in 2023, aims to foster an agricultural sector that is competitive, resilient, and climate-neutral. The challenges of dealing with the agricultural sector and climate change will be addressed in this chapter, along with the efforts to achieve global climate goals. Finally, the role of research and innovation (R&I) in achieving the above goals and the opportunities and threats involved in the global and the EU context will be addressed.

Climate change, food systems, and food and nutrition security (FNS) are strongly interlinked. Food systems (FSs) contribute to global greenhouse emissions, while climate change impacts livelihoods, food choices, and all determinants of malnutrition, jeopardizing international efforts to reduce hunger and promote nutrition. Climate extremes are key drivers behind the recent worsening of global hunger, which is also exacerbated by other crises, such as the lingering effects of the pandemic, the economic slowdown, and the impacts of the conflict in Ukraine on the global rise of food prices. Building resilient FSs is vital to increasing access to affordable, healthy diets for everyone in this uncertain and challenging context. Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) fosters regional and local solutions, innovations, and best practices to strengthen FSs resilience and adaptive capacity to improve rural people’s livelihoods. This chapter analyzes how climate change is worsening food security and malnutrition in LAC and essential regional pathways for building sustainable climate-resilient FSs, presenting the case study of IFAD’s Pro-Semiarid Project in Bahia, Brazil (PSA). It also highlights challenges and project-specific solutions implemented to strengthen FSs resilience, which can be scaled up and disseminated along LAC and between regions with relevant impacts on FNS.

This chapter analyzes EU-Brazil relations and joint initiatives to tackle the climate crisis, particularly the optimism surrounding green hydrogen as a possible new source of “sustainable connectivity” between them, through the prism of the psychoanalytical concept of disavowal. The chapter makes a distinction between climate denial, when climate change is deliberately denied, and climate disavowal, when climate change is acknowledged, but ineffective responses to mitigate it keep being repeated, in spite of contrary evidence and recurring failures. It argues that mainstream responses to climate change, centered on the conference of the parties (COP), which include net-zero pledges, carbon markets, and natural or artificial carbon sinks, constitute an international circuit of disavowal, in which the EU and Brazil are also caught up. This chapter presents some of the “solutions” being advanced to tackle climate change, presents the ample and readily available evidence that they do not work fast enough or on a scale needed to keep global warming below 1.5 °C, and investigates some of the reasons why they keep being offered despite all the evidence. It proposes that while climate denialism is obviously very dangerous, climate disavowal, which is in operation in the international climate regime, and in EU-Brazil relations and initiatives, including cooperation on green hydrogen, is much more insidious and constitutes a relation of cruel optimism, i.e., “when something you desire is actually an obstacle to your flourishing” (Berlant, 2011, p. 1). It may not work to mitigate the climate crisis, but it works in other spheres: it allows capitalist accumulation to continue unabated; it presents new market niches, new investment opportunities, and new activities in which one can feel useful, productive, creative, and virtuous. There are many benefits, material, symbolic, and psychic, being distributed by this international circuit of disavowal, which explains its durability and expansion despite, or because of, all the evidence that shows that we are heading for catastrophe.

This chapter summarizes the main findings and presents a compilation of key recommendations advanced by the authors of this edited volume to address the climate change. Given the interdisciplinary nature of the volume, which includes theoretical perspectives from international relations, law, economics, global ethics, and psychoanalysis, the recommendations refer both to the political and the policy level, as well as the institutional design of cooperation.