Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
getting to the core drivers of climate insecurity. From this perspective, European
governments stand accused of colluding too tightly with non-EU regimes on
techno-
xes none of which exhibits convincingly proven potential, rather than
targeting the more deep-seated governance pathologies that weave the most
menacing links between climate change and geo-strategic tension.
Uncertainty and imprecision persist in this area of policy. In 2012, problems
with a number of prospective geo-engineering projects revealed the absence of
clear international rules to govern such initiatives. In response, the absence
of clear EU positions was evident: member
state governments expressed
'
'
concerns over
while also funding their own explorations into
geo-engineering solutions. A UK-funded initiative on aerosol injection was
aborted in April 2012 due to uncertainty over international rules and intellectual
property implications.
54
There has been no identi
rogue research
ort to develop coop-
erative rules at the international level for managing geo-engineering. Incipient
explorations have taken place on an ad hoc basis, by private companies or on a
national basis, often stirring up concerns across borders over the impact of such
creeping unilateralism. DG Trade o
able e
cials highlight how far they have led policy
in this area with no input from the External Action Service (EAS) on how such
mercantilism might impact the security agenda. Indeed, experts see governments
as still lacking well-thought-through public policy strategies to cover geo-engi-
neering and other alternative climate technologies. They berate Western powers
for failing to knit together strategies for the dissemination of new technologies
which combine interventions at the macro-multilateral level with local-level,
micro-engagements at the community level; and accuse them of failing in this
overdue multi-scalar approach precisely because they do not see the debates over
di
erent technological options fully as a matter of national security.
55
Conclusion
In line with its deeper policy coordination in economic than hard security
domains, the EU has taken the geo-economic dimensions of climate security
increasingly seriously. This trend in policy suggests a broad and comprehensive
conception of the climate security agenda. The seriousness with which questions of
resource scarcity have been addressed militates against claims that the EU has an
unduly narrow, militarised perspective on an essential socio-economic challenge.
The EU
s long-standing insistence that the economic and political dimensions of
security cannot be separated
'
nds an echo in the way that it has sought to con-
tribute a distinctive added value to the climate security agenda. In this sphere,
a marked continuity is evident between the EU
'
s broader external relations
identity and its extension into the
eld of climate security. The latter has been
