The New Global Architecture - Where Europe Fits In
Ambassador Sheinwald discusses how he envisages international relations will form in the near and far future. He places particular emphasis on the growing importance of the US-China relationship. At the same time, Ambassador Sheinwald explores the EU as a key global power and its necessary cooperation with the US.
Synopsis
Ambassador Sheinwald clearly feels that the international stage is moving. In fact, for him, the change in the international order is accelerating due to the global financial crisis. In this sense, Ambassador Sheinwald explains that the UK has long supported expanding decision-making international institutions such as the UN Security Council. However, the UK still sees the value in intimate, power-focused bodies such as the G8. Ambassador Sheinwald discusses the fact that there is increasingly a sense that a ‘G2’ is developing between the US and China. To Ambassador Sheinwald, this model would not literally work as he argues China needs, at this stage in its development, a multilateral setting to grow into the active and cooperative power we would all like to see it become. At the same time, Ambassador Sheinwald believes that the partnership between the US and China is important in paving a solution to the current economic state and shaping the future global economy. In fact, the UK and the EU welcome this new cooperation between the two powers. Ambassador Sheinwald feels the US and the EU can harness China’s shared global interest on issues such as climate change, in which the EU has played a front role, to develop at stable global relationship. Moreover, he believes that if the US and EU can cooperate to form low carbon economies, it could incentivize China and India to act similarly. However, Ambassador Sheinwald stresses that for non-economic issues the US and China’s relationship is still important but slow moving, and he expresses the belief that it will take decades for any real ‘G2’ to emerge.
In the meantime, Ambassador Sheinwald argues that while the US looks round the world for support on key issues, it will find that the EU shares the most values and has the capacity to promote them. He cites the enormous investments between the two in comparison to the US and China to show the scale of the US and the EU’s relationship. Ambassador Sheinwald argues that financially the US and EU need regulatory cooperation, using a scientific basis, to set global standards. He stresses as well that the EU is a major global power on its own. It is increasingly seen as an honest, multilateral broker and plays a crucial in global economic recovery. Moreover, it has strong interest in fighting world terrorism. In comparison to other partners, the US can find similar values, intelligence, and capacity in the EU. In addition, the US can see more stability in Europe’s own backyard than perhaps 20 years ago. Looking to the future, Ambassador Sheinwald hopes that the Lisbon Treaty would help the EU organize itself further. Further stressing the importance of the US-EU partnership, Ambassador Sheinwald explains “nothing is more likely to be as dependable a foundation.”
In taking the time to answer questions, Ambassador Sheinwald discusses a number of issues. One partiuclar area of focus much emphasized was Europe's role in the conflict in Afghanistan. In addition, he addresses the issue of Britain and the US's relationship with China. Moreover, he also explains that he hopes that as developed countries deal with increasing security threats, their resolve in keeping their borders open will remain strong. Finally, Ambassador Sheinwald stresses the need to employ methods of sustainable, intelligent, and low carbon growth.
About the Speaker
Nigel Sheinwald joined the British Diplomatic Service in 1976 and has served in Washington (twice), Brussels (twice) and Moscow and in a wide range of policy jobs in London.
He took up his position as British Ambassador to the United States in October 2007. In that role he leads the Embassy in Washington and nine Consulates-General around the United States. He had an earlier posting to Washington in 1983-87 as First Secretary (Political) in the Embassy.
Before becoming Ambassador in Washington, Sir Nigel served as Foreign Policy and Defence Adviser to the Prime Minister from 2003-2007.
Sir Nigel was the UK Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the European Union in Brussels from 2000-2003. Before that he was Europe Director in the FCO (1998-2000). He had an earlier posting in the UK Representation in 1993-95 as Head of its Political and Institutional Section. He began his career in EU work as Deputy Head of the FCO's European Union Department in 1989-92.
Sir Nigel's first foreign posting was in Moscow in 1978-79. He was also Head of the Foreign Office's Anglo-Soviet Section in 1981-83.
Sir Nigel has had a wide variety of other appointments in the FCO in London. From 1995-98, he was the FCO Press Secretary and Head of News Department. He was Deputy Head of the Foreign Office's Policy Planning Staff in 1987-1989, responsible for transatlantic relations and other issues. He also worked in London on the Japan Desk (1976-77) and on Zimbabwe (1979-81), including the Lancaster House Conference.
Sir Nigel was born in 1953 and educated at Harrow County Grammar School and Balliol College, Oxford. He is married with three sons.
This event is jointly sponsored by the Office for International Visitors at the Bechtel International Center, the Forum on Contemporary Europe, and the British Consulate General in San Francisco.
CISAC Conference Room
Big Organizations and Climate Change: The Rubber Hits The Road And The Smell Is Awful
Charles Perrow is an emeritus professor of sociology at Yale University and a visiting professor at CISAC in the winter and spring terms. Among his award-winning research is Organizing America: Wealth, Power, and the Origins of American Capitalism (Princeton, 2002), and Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies (Princeton, 1999). His 2008 articles include "Complexity, Catastrophe, and Modularity," Sociological Inquiry 78:2, May 2008 162-73; "Conservative Radicalism," Organization 15:2 2008 271-77; "Disasters Evermore? Reducing our Vulnerabilities to Natural, Industrial, and Terrorist Disasters," Social Research 75:3 Fall, 2008. His recent membership on a National Academy of Science panel on the possibilities of certifying software led to his current work on cyber security. He is also researching organizational forms in economic globalization. He received his BA, MA, and PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, all in sociology.
Stephen H. Schneider is the Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor of Biological Sciences, Professor by Courtesy of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and Co-Director and Senior Fellow at the Center for Environmental Science and Policy in the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University. Dr. Schneider received his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics from Columbia University in 1971. In 1975, he founded the interdisciplinary journal, Climatic Change, and continues to serve as its Editor. Dr. Schneider was honored in 1992 with a MacArthur Fellowship for his ability to integrate and interpret the results of global climate research through public lectures, seminars, classroom teaching, environmental assessment committees, media appearances, Congressional testimonies, and research collaboration with colleagues. He has consulted with federal agencies and/or White House staff in the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Clinton administrations. Dr. Schneider was elected to membership in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 2002 and received both the National Conservation Achievement Award from the National Wildlife Federation and the Edward T. Law Roe Award of the Society of Conservation Biology in 2003. He has been a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program from 1997 to the present. His recent work has centered on the importance of risk management in climate-policy decision making, given the uncertainties in future projections of global climate change, and he continues to serve as a noted advisor to decision makers and stakeholders in industry, government, and nonprofit sectors regarding possible climate-related events. He is also engaged in improving public understanding of science and environment through extensive media communication and public outreach.
If you would like to be added to the email announcement list, please visit https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/socialscienceseminar
Reuben W. Hills Conference Room
Hubbert's Peak, The Coal Question, and Climate Change
Abstract
An accurate estimate of the ultimate production of oil, gas, and coal
would be helpful for the ongoing policy discussion on alternatives to
fossil fuels and climate change. By ultimate production, we mean total
production, past and future. It takes a long time to develop energy
infrastructure, and this means it matters whether we have burned 20% of
our oil, gas, and coal, or 40%. In modeling climate change, the carbon
dioxide from burning fossil fuels is the most important factor. The
time frame for the climate response is much longer than the time frame
for burning fossil fuels, and this means that the total amount burned
is more important than the burn rate. Oil, gas, and coal ultimates are
traditionally estimated by government geological surveys from
measurements of oil and gas reservoirs and coal seams, together with an
allowance for future discoveries of oil and gas. We will see that where
these estimates can be tested, they tend to be too high, and that more
accurate estimates can be made by curve fits to the production history.
Bio
Professor Rutledge is the Tomiyasu Professor of Electrical Engineering at Caltech, and a former Chair of the Division of Engineering and Applied Science there. He is the author of the textbook Electronics of Radio, published by Cambridge University Press, and the popular microwave computer-aided-design software package Puff. He is a Fellow of the IEEE, a winner of the IEEE Microwave Prize, and a winner of the Teaching Award of the Associated Students at Caltech. He served as the editor for the Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, and is a founder of the Wavestream Corporation, a manufacturer of high-power transmitters for satellite uplinks.
This talk is part of the PESD Energy Working Group series.
Richard and Rhoda Goldman Conference Room
Climate Change and the Energy Challenge: A Pragmatic Approach for India (Working Paper)
India has been famous for arguing that it (and the rest of the developing world) should incur no expense in controlling emissions that cause climate change. The west caused the problem and it should clean it up. That argument is increasingly untenable-both in the fundamental arithmetic of climate change, which is a problem that is impossible to solve without developing country participation, and in the political reality that important western partners will increasingly demand more of India and other developing countries. India's own public is also demanding more.
The Indian government has outlined a broad plan for what could be done, but the plan still lacks a strategy to inform which efforts offer the most leverage on warming emissions and which are most credible because they align with India's own interests. This paper offers a framework for that strategy. It suggests that a large number of options to control warming gases are in India's own self-interest, and with three case studies it suggests that leverage on emissions could amount to several hundred million tonnes of CO2 annually over the next decade and an even larger quantity by 2030. (For comparison, the Kyoto Protocol has caused worldwide emission reductions of, at most, a couple hundred million tonnes of CO2 per year.) We suggest in addition to identifying self-interest, which is the key concept in the burgeoning literature on "co-benefits" of climate change policy, that it is also important to examine where India and outsiders (e.g., technology providers and donors) have leverage.
One reason that strategies offered to date have remained abstract and difficult to implement is that they are not rooted in a clear understanding of where the Government of India is able to deliver on its promises (and where Indian firms have access to the needed technology and practices). Many ideas are interesting in theory but do not align with the administrative and technological capabilities of the Indian context. As the rest of the world contemplates how to engage with India on the task of controlling emissions it must craft deals that reflect India's interests, capabilities and leverage on emissions. These deals will not be simple to craft, but there are many precedents for such arrangements in other areas of international cooperation, such as in accession agreements to the WTO.