“The Little Kids Table is Raising the Bar” – Climate Action, Multi-Level Governance, and Transatlantic Cooperation

Renedo Alvaro, Juergen Braunstein and Clara Volintiru The Climate Agenda is arguably one of the most contentious and prominent policy sectors nowadays, yet there is a limited understanding on what drives consensus on this topic in two of the largest markets of the world: United States and the European Union. Building on the two-level games theory we propose a novel framework of understanding what moves and blocks the Climate Agenda on the two sides of the Atlantic, and how better cooperation can be achieved. Climate Diplomacy has been increasingly visible for over a decade, but much like the early days of the trade agreements, it has led to little more than limited policy action. Francesco Femia, from the Center for Climate and Security has states in an interview in 2017 that the only way to have effective action to counter climate change is to move the issue from “the little kids table” to the “big kids table”. With a multi-trillion USD budgetary commitment between the USA and EU, the climate agenda is now firmly seated at the “big kids table”. But, before climate action became the banner policy of both the Biden administration and the Von Leyen Commission, it has been maintained in the negotiation box by wide-ranging national and subnational collations of stakeholders that supported it and fought for it. This marks a change in how multi-lateralism can be achieved: it is no longer just about the Wilsonian principles of international cooperation, but also about transnational alignment of interests, public support, public pressure and public action. This section would like to bring together papers and panels that reflect this long formal and informal diplomatic road of the Climate Agenda. To what extent can the lessons of the past in climate action and other multi-lateral negotiations (e.g. TTIP) can inform the future of the transatlantic cooperation agenda? In a seminal work from 1988, Robert Putnam puts forward the two-level game theory through which he conceptualises the extent to which domestic politics interacts with international politics. This two-level framework has been subsequently covered in a variety of studies that portrayed it empirically or revised its theoretical framework. To a limited extent however, has it been linked to the current complexity of multi-level governance in the European Union (Hooghe and Marks 2003), but also, to a certain extent in the United States. Multi-level governance, accounting for various levels of (inter)action (Schreurs and Tiberghien 2007). Within this conceptual framework we can better assess the roles of different national and subnational actors (e.g. companies, trade unions, NGOs, city halls). It is often that the subnational level plays an important, yet largely unaccounted role, in supporting the Climate Agenda when there is weak engagement at national level (Fitzgerald 2020, Kuzemko et al 2019, Kuzemko 2019, Volintiru 2020). This section would like to follow the multi-level governance framework by addressing diplomatic and climate action at different institutional levels in the USA and the EU: (1) International level – negotiations between countries and regional blocks (2) Regional level – negotiations within regional blocks (3) National Level – tensions between and within member states in the EU and beyond (4) Subnational level – local, national or international coalitions and initiatives in cities or states Multilateralism is still needed to consolidate the Green Deal's impact at the global level (Braunstein and Renedo 2020). Building on the regulatory growing power of the EU (i.e. Brussels effect) (Bradford 2020), goals related to climate action will inform new international agreements conducted by the EU with strategic partners in the Transatlantic space and beyond, across various sectors (e.g. energy, trade) beyond the primary area of environmental policy. Effectively the EU is trying to leverage its leadership in climate diplomacy to create a new paradigm in economic exchanges that can consolidate its global power and internal resilience. Furthermore, there are different layers on which climate action resides at national and regional level: (1) financial resources and know-how, (2) rules and regulations, and (3) political will. This section welcomes paper and panels that explore any of these dimensions. For decades now, the EU has positioned itself as a global leader in green diplomacy (Oberthür and Roche Kelly 2008, Bäckstrand and Elgström 2013, Parker et al. 2017). The EU demonstrated its political will to address climate action. It has built a consistent regulatory framework. Still, challenges persist regarding financial support for the Green Deal. EU has piloted over recent years a series of policy reforms and is now pursuing a much more comprehensive program in the form of the Green Deal (COM (2019) 640)—essentially defined as "a new growth strategy". With the Just Transition Fund, and it's €40 billion behind it, it aims to mobilize at least €89-107 billion in investments over 2021-2027 in the most affected regions. It requires an ambitious approach to reshaping the way we live and work within the EU. It is all made more urgent and more difficult by the immediate economic effects of the COVID crisis. By all accounts, the funding proposed so far falls short of Green Deal's very ambitious goals. As such, ECB aims to mobilize more funding by buying national green bonds aimed at financing climate projects or supporting zero-interest rate loans. In comparison, the USA will put forward a robust financial package supporting climate and a clear political commitment under the Biden administration. Biden's climate and environmental justice proposal aims to provide a federal investment of $1.7 trillion over the next ten years, leveraging additional private and state and local investments to total more than $5 trillion (The Biden Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice). But it still must develop a comprehensive regulatory framework in support of climate action (e.g. Green New Deal). Bottom-up political commitment to the climate agenda (e.g. Pact of Free Cities, Covenant of Mayors, C40, American Cities Initiative) benefits from grassroots action, community-led initiatives, and legitimacy. This changed the way we think about diplomacy and political action, as it is no longer just about the top-down executive power, but also about building grand coallitions of cities, businesses and citizens that step up and support climate agenda. To a large extent, such local initiatives have maintained the climate agenda on track even in a context of poor political support at the national level. This section aims to cover how such subnational initiatives in both the USA and the EU have been formed, supported and what where their goals and impact. Finally, the Covid19 crisis has offered decision-makers in both the USA and the EU the opportunity to fund the green transition with large financial packages as part of the economic recovery plans. We welcome papers that using different methodological approaches, from quantitative, to qualitative, and mixed-methods approaches. The goal of this section is to chart the various tensions and interest alignments between different stakeholders (i.e. general public, civil society organisations, MNCs, trade unions, public sector, political actors). As such, both single case studies and comparative papers are welcomed, coming from a variety of disciplines—public policy, political science, political economy, institutionalism, game theory, area studies etc. Selected Bibliography Bäckstrand, K., & Elgström, O. (2013). The EU's role in climate change negotiations: from leader to 'leadiator'. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(10), 1369-1386. Braunstein, J. & Renedo, A. (2020) Transatlantic Dialogue: The Missing Link in Europe's Post-Covid-19 Green Deal? Harvard Kennedy School, Belfer Center Paper, April 2020. Bradford, A. (2020). The Brussels effect: How the European Union rules the world. Oxford University Press, USA. Fitzgerald, J. (2020). Greenovation: Urban leadership on climate change. Oxford University Press. Hooghe, L. & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level Governance and European Integration. Rowman & Littlefield. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American political science review, 233-243. Kuzemko, C., Lawrence, A., & Watson, M. (2019). New directions in the international political economy of energy. Review of International Political Economy, 26(1), 1-24 Kuzemko, C. (2019). Re-scaling IPE: local government, sustainable energy and change. Review of International Political Economy, 26(1), 80-103. Oberthür, S., & Roche Kelly, C. (2008). EU leadership in international climate policy: achievements and challenges. The international spectator, 43(3), 35-50. Parker, C. F., Karlsson, C., & Hjerpe, M. (2017). Assessing the European Union's global climate change leadership: from Copenhagen to the Paris Agreement. Journal of European Integration, 39(2), 239-252. Pisani-Ferry, J., Papaconstantinou, G., & Tubiana, L. (2019). The Governance of Climate Change: Making it Work. Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games. International organization, 427-460. Schreurs, M. A., & Tiberghien, Y. (2007). Multi-level reinforcement: Explaining European Union leadership in climate change mitigation. Global Environmental Politics, 7(4), 19-46. Volintiru, C. (2020) Eu's Soft Power in Green Diplomacy - Scaling-up Consensus from Subnational and National Initiatives. IED Policy Paper.