Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
this disconnect. DG Climate has remained cautious; its o
cials argue that the EAS
needs to
'
move into gear
'
on climate security, as this is not primarily a concern for
the EU
s mainstream climate action body. DG Climate understands its foreign
policy role in the relatively limited terms of simply keeping the EAS and EU in-
country delegations informed of mainstream and scienti
'
c aspects of the climate
change debate; its aim is mainly to make foreign policy generalists climate-aware.
There has been the occasional connection between environmental and foreign
policy: the best known was when the EU made a very direct geopolitical linkage
between Russia signing the Kyoto agreement and European support for Russia
s
entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). But these are the exceptions that
recon
'
rm the rule of more habitual disconnect. Indeed, linkages can be negative for
climate goals. The EU postponed its carbon airfare tax in 2013 because it was con-
cerned that this was leading it towards a general international, strategic isolation.
Energy security versus climate security?
For many years the EU
'
s rhetoric has pointed to the need to understand
'
energy
security
through the lens of a longer-term horizon that brings renewables and
climate-related considerations into the geo-strategic foreground. Much progress has
been made on rebalancing traditional energy security and climate policies. How-
ever, the risk has emerged of the EU
'
s reinvigorated external energy security policy
crowding out climate diplomacy. To some degree, this beefed-up energy security
policy has been harnessed as a platform from which to build dialogues on climate
security with global producers; but it mostly pivots around e
'
orts to shore up
supplies of conventional hydrocarbon supplies as well as bringing shale oil and gas
into the policy equation. Traditional policies relating to the security of energy
supplies have been
to a much greater degree than climate change.
29
Then UK minister Chris Huhne liked to argue that the
'
securitised
'
'
climate security versus
energy security
debate presented a false dichotomy, to the extent that climate
change is likely to disrupt the supplies of oil and gas too.
30
However, in practice,
the EU
'
orts to secure oil and gas
supplies. While initiatives purporting to prepare Europe for the geopolitical e
'
s most intense area of activity remains that of e
ects
of climate change have remained embryonic, hydrocarbon diplomacy has intensi-
ed to a far higher level. Contrary to all the rhetoric proclaiming otherwise, the
EU has engaged far more assiduously in a geopolitical scramble for oil and gas than
it has moved to address the security implications of climate change. Key ministries
like the British Foreign and Commonwealth O
ce admit to being over-
whelmingly focused on oil and gas when thinking about energy security.
For a long time the EU has had more of a common climate policy than an
external energy security strategy. It has often been remarked that in the EU climate
