Delphi take-aways of morality in international relations,
of public and private cooperation for climate governance
Most of this year’s Delphi Economic Forum was grounded in a decidedly realist reading of things evolving. Still, there were moments that brought back glimpses of earlier times; times when a sense of purpose for politics/for political action was sought in what used to be considered the high moral ground.
Thus, George Papandreou and Stefan Loefven (former PMs of Greece and Sweden respectively) presented the perspectives opened by the 2024 Summit of the Future, to be held next September, so as to give some sort of return to multilaterism which seems to be beaten back by the prevailing geopolitical shift to power politics. While a panel discussion oganised by the Climate Governance Initiative (Greece) brought together the IMF, EBRD, academics and business to point towards public-private approaches to climate governance. (An earlier panel described the path to culture-based climate action as political systems navigate the road from COP-28 to Cop-29 and beyond).
George Papandreou did not hesitate to remind the audience of the times when notions of morality were playing quite a role in international politics; he referred to memories of (early UN Secretary General) Dag Hammarskjold or then of (Swedish PM) Olaf Palme whenever issues of global governance come to the fore; Stefan Loefven pointed to the interconnection of intra-generational solidarity, climate issues but also of digital challenges. The tone adopted by both brought an eerie feeling of international politics going back to basics, of the political process seeking a deeper legitimation rather than power projection and zero-sum games. The benefits of an earnest re-discovery of multilateralism would be the focal point of such an approach.
Shifting the lens to the reading of the increased needs for effective climate governance – especially so when extending to the reality of emerging economies where much of the effort should be made – the CGI (Greece) panel pointed to the very scale of such effort. Two trillion US dollars /year investment throughout to 2030 for climate adaptation and energy transition are needed (the IPCC/Intergovermental Panel for Climate Change speeks for 3 trillion dollars/year), which for developing countries would have to go in tandem with their development needs. Further to containing carbon emissions, goals of keeping bio-diversity should be kept in mind.
The EU may offer itself as “role mode” in regulatory matters, but rules should be kept simple – and be credibly associated to an adequate-investment approach. Tax policy can play an important role to that effect, but people’s demand for “green” products and services have also be to mobilized.
Since a major part of funding needed would have to come from the private sector, public-private platforms are of utmost importance. MoUs with CGI could serve both as governance facilitator and as fairness-cum-efficiency contributor.
