The politics of countering climate change in Southeast Asia
Bama Andika Putra
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1486796
IF: 5.411
2024-10-24
Frontiers in Environmental Science
Abstract:Even though ASEAN member states collectively and individually seem to be undertaking measures across multiple sectors, the performances remain incommensurate with the threat. This is well documented in studies published in the past five years, indicating a lack of decisiveness in Southeast Asia's climate change mitigation efforts (Fulton et al., 2017;Johnson, du Pont and Gueguen-Teil, 2021;Gogoi and Sarmah, 2024;Overland and Seah, 2024;Qiu, Seah and Martinus, 2024). Quantitative research attempting to understand ASEAN's slow performances in climate change countering efforts concluded the presence of an energy paradox in Southeast Asia's climate change responses, in which the high environment threat is not responded to decisively, similar to the conclusions of Ding & Beh's 2021 inquiry (Overland et al., 2021). The Singapore-based research center, ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, also concluded the presence of 'ambivalence' in ASEAN's climate change efforts (Seah and Martinus, 2021). This opinion article attempts to complement and build up those existing studies to make sense of the empirical puzzle. It argues that a qualitative approach is needed to assess the relevance of political contexts in comprehending these nations' incommensurate counter-climate change responses to provide a nuanced understanding of this phenomenon. In doing so, this qualitative inquiry utilizes secondary data from the last two decades. It descriptively bridges the hedging literature of international relations as the political context to understand Southeast Asia's climate change mitigation and adaptation measures. It provides an alternative lens of interpretation to show why progress is slow.This opinion article argues that under the lens of hedging, despite categorizing climate change as a 'threat,' mitigation and adaptation measures will continue to be a secondary priority for Southeast Asian states. Hedging in international relations is an alignment strategy between 'balancing' and 'bandwagoning' (Goh, 2007(Goh, , 2016)). In simple terms, secondary states such as those in Southeast Asia do not clearly define their alignment preferences in international politics. In aspects such as security, for example, they tend to engage with one great power, while in economic sectors, they engage with the competing great power. One of the main conclusions in this literature has been how Southeast Asian states have engaged with the US for security purposes, which coincided with engaging with China to secure economic funding (Kuik, 2008;Lim and Cooper, 2015;Kuik and Rozman, 2017;Ciorciari and Haacke, 2019;He and Feng, 2023;Putra, 2023a).Consequently, the hedging literature shows that Southeast Asian states are trapped in a constant cycle of alignment decisions, and their choices are determined by a complex geopolitical context concerning great power influence in the region. It also shows that Southeast Asian states, as thriving economies, prioritize either the security or the economic domain as their foreign policy priorities (Ba, 2009;Kuik, 2016Kuik, , 2022Lai and Kuik, 2020;Putra, 2024a). The labeling of 'threat' to nontraditional security threats such as climate change would not automatically lead to the diversion of mass resources in achieving nationally determined climate-change-related targets. This is due to the economic pragmatic lens Southeast Asian states perceive of climate change (Farajzadeh, Ghorbanian and Tarazkar, 2023;Gogoi and Sarmah, 2024;Suwandaru et al., 2024).Southeast Asian states view that the reduction of emissions requires funding. However, Arino and Prabhakar argued in 2021 that the intention to counter climate change that coincides with economic development is feasible, considering its relations towards ASEAN's long-term climate vision (Arino and Prabhakar, 2021). This study argues the opposite, as Southeast Asian politics is preoccupied with issues of greater importance. In the security realm, issues such as the South China Sea, the stability of Myanmar, and internal insecurities dominate the regional headlines (Blazevic, 2012;Chen, Pu and Johnston, 2014;Aoyama, 2016;Jones and Jenne, 2022;Putra, 2023b). Meanwhile, in the economic realm, Southeast Asia's energy and infrastructural demands have made the need to secure foreign investments (primarily from China's Belt Road Initiative) the dominant policy among the states in the region (Pempel, 2010;Lim and Cooper, 2015;Jones and Jenne, 2022). This explains the economic pragmatism in climate change countering efforts.Addressing climate change is a convoluted process due to the need for multisectoral responses. Southeast Asian states have acknowledged this by raising the issue of climate change to the interministerial level after a series of reforms took place within the states' institutional governance in Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Brunei Darussalam (Seah and Martinus, -Abstract Truncated-
environmental sciences