Before 1648 and the Peace of Westphalia, states were grouped in geographical blocks, with a focal point usually being the capital of the empire. However, following the treaty, which recognized the territory and sovereignty of each state, the conception of the state shifted to bounded states. At the time, this conception of territory and state sovereignty encouraged individual states’ development over exploitation of larger areas, or colonialism . Now, the implications of that treaty are still very relevant. It suggests that each state is responsible for its own actions, not to other states, successfully paving the way for the breakdown of collective action.

This is a problem when states are confronted with global problems such as global warming. This issue in particular is extremely important given the consequences and costs of inaction – high human costs and essentially an unlivable Earth. A graphic by the CNA Corporation, a think tank funded by the Pentagon , illustrates the impact and probability of impact of the Cold War compared to climate change. For the Cold War, there is on “X” in the quadrant, indicating that while the impact was high (nuclear war), the probability was low. However, in the quadrant for climate change, there are two “X’s” showing that both the probability and impact are high . Regardless of states’ decisions to act politically, everyone will ultimately pay a cost that is greater than any short-term economic gain. In all three perspectives, states’ decisions are constrained by a variety of factors, including economic cost, competing interests and simply, the difficulty of collective action – as evidenced by the tragedy of the commons game. If national interest continues to drive states’ actions under realist theory, then the collective action necessary to combat climate change will not be achieved. However, if there is a readjustment of national interest to include climate change, states’ interest will be redefined to include the common interest, as identity theory suggests, and finding a solution to global warming will ultimately become a rational choice for the state, solving the tragedy of the commons.

Global warming has been researched and analyzed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 2,000 climate change experts. Since the late 1990s, the IPCC has reported about the causal relationship between human activity, or the increase in greenhouse gases, and global warming, with 90 percent confidence . The effects found are disastrous: ocean levels will rise and entire towns will sink, crops and wildlife will not survive, and weather patterns will cause unnatural and frequent disasters . However, the costs are not limited to the environment. If the arctic ice continues to melt, there could be a resource scramble for its methane-rich polar caps, and the possibility of war to gain access to the drastically shorter trade routes . In addition, global warming could threaten already unstable regions, such as Afghanistan and many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, and further exacerbate the crises already in place. Clearly, these consequences will dramatically affect, and possibly threaten, the national security of many countries, including that of the United States.

All of the aforementioned effects will also prompt mass migration of populations due to unlivable environments. Not only will wage and economic prosperity be pull factors for these immigrants, but also quality of life and habitat. However, realists tend to object liberalization of immigrant flows unless it offers a national advantage. In this circumstance though, forced immigration will not contribute to any gain in relative national power and may even be a burden. Even the liberal perspective does not favor immigration unless there is a specific opportunity to match labor skill and economic need . Also, the common rules and standards that liberals desire to govern immigrant flows will be eroded as the cost of protecting borders comes at the expense of human life.

In the same way that states’ actions are constrained by the global economy in that it needs to accepts the costs of integration or be left behind, states’ action in regards to global warming is also constrained by the immediate economic opportunity costs of addressing an abstract and distant problem. This directly conflicts realist theory stating that the states’ primary interest is to advance their own power, economically and politically. If the start of the Industrial Revolution marked the exponential increases in greenhouse gases, then globalization and the increased transport and trade of goods have continued to contribute to that increase. However, if the increase of greenhouse gases is proportional to increased trade and thereby, economic growth, then each state will, rationally, oppose to sacrifice its own growth. The states’ decision remain a compromise between the international community’s desires and its own. The result, therefore, will always be a decision between what is necessary to combat global warming, which is the global interest, and what is less than necessary, or the desire of the state to fulfill its own interests – or simply, the result will always be less than what is necessary . Therefore, it is in the interest of each state, especially the developed countries, to redefine how global warming will affect their political and economic interests.

Since climate change is a global problem, it is a problem of the commons, which can be demonstrated through the tragedy of the commons game, similar to the prisoner’s dilemma quadrants. What is specific to the commons in regards to global warming is the effect of time and enough iterations. There will ultimately be a tipping point, where the commons reverts to tragedy and the consequences listed previously, such as mass forced immigration and environmental disasters, will be irreversible. In essence, the goal is to play the game – before it is too late. The commons, viewed through the realist perspective, will focus on the states’ desire to increase their own power, at the expense of combating climate change – thereby, states eliminate themselves in the game by trying to survive. The quest for power will prevail according to the realist perspective. Through the liberal perspective, similar to the process in the prisoner’s dilemma, negotiations can be made through incremental changes in reducing emissions by each state signaling to the other states that they are collaborating or until both actors recognize the common goal and continue until they’ve both lowered emissions to the necessary levels. Finally, the commons in regards to the identity perspective proposes simply analyzing the intentions of other states and whether their decisions will benefit itself or the good of the collective.

The problem of the commons directly applied to addressing and combating global warming is more complex and shows the obvious disagreements between perspectives. As Nau suggests, realists emphasize the scarcity of resources and competition, and individualized solutions, not blanket proposals . A single set of rules will not suffice because it implies a single hegemon will govern. This will fail in the realist perspective due to the states’ unwillingness to give up their own sovereignty and the clear imbalance of power. The realist perspective warrants two options: to consume as much fuel to further economic growth, or if technology to reduce emissions is in demand, to produce more technology to lower emissions and gain economic power that way. In both situations, the main goal is to seek more power. However, if the latter option is emphasized, power can be reconceptualized to include combating global warming. Therefore, lowering emissions and greenhouse gases will be included in the states’ national interest, and will be a rational choice.

The liberal perspective again proposes the use of international institutions to seek broader solutions by emphasizing absolute gains. However, the problem lies in the two groups that gain and lose through cooperation and each group will advocate the use and disregard of said international institutions. The biggest struggle for liberals in proposing international institutions to overcome the collective action problem is to bypass each state’s individual interests for the common goal – this is where the liberal perspective and realist perspective come at direct odds with one another. Identity theorists propose ideas that transcend borders, specifically the idea of sustainable development.
The identity perspective complements both the liberal and realist perspective separately in combating global warming. First, through the realist perspective: changing the idea of national interest and power to conform to the desire to reduce emissions and greenhouse gases by including it into national security policy makes it a possible policy solution. By emphasizing the economic benefits of technological innovation to lower emissions, the state may pursue it as part of its national interest to gain power. Second, through the liberal perspective: ideas are built upon language and language is one of the easiest signals to send in the international arena. To successfully complete or avoid the commons tragedy, each state needs to signal to one another that it is willing to compromise and collaborate. By changing the language and redefining the identity of each states’ goals in regards to global warming, the incremental changes can continue until the goal is reached. Overall, the necessary force to escape the tragedy of the commons is collective action, which is not probable in the near future. Instead, a very plausible alternative is a redefinition of the goal to include national interest and the pursuit of power, incorporating both realist and identity perspectives.

The problem with proposed solutions is the concentration on the liberal perspective and organizing successful international institution and consensus to address the problem. Take, for example, the problem with nuclear disarmament. It has been discussed for years on end and there is still no solution or drastic progress on the proposal. This is because realism prevails over liberal desires to institute global and blanket policies that threaten the balance of power. The liberal perspective in both the commons and the prisoner’s dilemma requires successful signals to continue the incremental changes, but changes in the international arena are clouded and often difficult to interpret. Therefore, global warming, like nuclear disarmament, will not be solved through liberal proposals, or at least, not in the near future. The liberal process is a very long process of action and legitimizing. Unlike nuclear disarmament, global warming is time-sensitive. This is why the Kyoto Protocol, which groups developing countries, or Non-Annex I countries, such as Burkina Faso and China, which have very different emission outputs, together will not succeed. However, the cap and trade proposals already enacted by several cities and countries, which emphasize market incentives and economic benefits, have been relatively more successful. It, again, embeds incentives for power within the national interests, but in an effort to combat a global problem.

The solution must be a fusion of both realist and identity perspectives. The liberal approach to prescribe a blanket solution to all has failed or made minimal progress in the past, as evidenced by the Kyoto Protocol. Waiting for an international institution to find consensus among all states is not a practical solution to a problem that is time sensitive. Similar to the lofty goal of complete disarmament, universal agreement to cut carbon emissions will not come into fruition unless there is an international body that is willing and able to regulate and penalize those who defy the rules. Instead, by reimagining global warming as a security threat to everyone, we change the definition and consequently the identity of the problem to each state. By taking preventative measures now, despite short-term costs, the state will still be acting within its self-interest and continue seeking power, congruous to the realist perspective. It is through these two strategies that states will have a chance against global warming. In a globalizing world, global problems require transnational state cooperation, but this will only be achieved if it is in each states’ national interest.

Imagine: It’s 2059. You’re in the Guiyu of Guangdong Province, China, strolling the streets. The air is crisp and the grass green. The cafe-lined streets are littered with people chatting and typing away on their laptops.

Actually, at this rate, the only thing Guiyu will be littered with is electronic waste, or e-waste, an umbrella term for discarded electronic devices.

Instead of the idyllic image of Guiyu above, the town is the main center of exported e-waste, in China.

The benefits of computers are obvious, but we often overlook the environmental costs and increased e-waste. For instance, it was Earth Day on Wednesday, and I’ll bet that we all used our computers without a thought of where they’d eventually end up.

As Jim Puckett, founder of the Basel Action Network, a recycling watchdog group, said in a statement, “It just so happens that the most benign part of a product’s life cycle is when it’s sitting on your desk. That happens in rich countries. The ugly parts of the life cycle, the dirtier parts, the production and the waste, happen in developing countries.”

An alarming 50 to 80 percent of American e-waste is exported to developing countries, driven by economic benefits and often in violation of international law.

It is counterintuitive to send emerging countries a defunct bundle of lead, mercury and cadmium wrapped in wires coated with highly toxic plastic and expect them to prosper. Nascent countries should not serve as virulent dumping grounds for our trash.

The emergence of netbooks – which are cheaper, smaller laptop computers – will dwarf efforts at regulating e-waste. The proliferation of netbooks means more people will be able to afford them. Efforts to bring computing technologies to developing countries calls upon these pillars of affordability to increase accessibility.

However, netbook consumers aren’t made up of the growing middle class or those who are buying a computer for the first time.

As of November 2008, 70 percent of netbook sales occurred in Europe – presumably to those who wanted an additional, more portable computer.

Netbooks range from about $200 to $400; that’s nearly a third of the price of a regular laptop computer, which ranges from about $600 to $1200.

Last month, AT&T offered customers in Atlanta and Philadelphia a netbook for only $50 if they signed up for an Internet service plan.

These low-priced computers will increase competition and drive prices down, but they will also drive up production and – in the long run – create more e-waste. Netbooks will stimulate a culture of disposable electronics.

This notion of planned obsolescence has already been cultivated with the rapid consumption of iPods, which are updated every year or two. It seems illogical to fix your iPod if it’s cheaper to buy a new one.

Hopefully, you won’t have to make a decision about recycling your computer anytime soon, but when you do, there are options. The Goodwill branch in Southern California offers a free computer recycling and donation program.

If you are considering purchasing a computer, check whether the company has a “take-back” program and, if so, where they will take back your computer to recycle. Dell, Lenovo and Toshiba all offer completely free take-back programs for computers. Hewlett-Packard, Apple, and Asus (laptops only) will take back some products for free. The quest for computing accessibility and affordability does not have to be synonymous with increased production and e-waste.

Thousands of people campaigned tirelessly for their respective candidate, and one campaign saw the product of its hard work materialize with Obama winning the presidency. But the grueling months of campaigning are over. The political jargon from pundits is over. The passion and drive to get someone elected has reached its climax, and we are left in a state of complacency.

If you didn’t follow the presidential race, you may have missed one of the most exciting elections in America’s history, but that’s OK. It’s never too late to follow current events. In fact, today or tomorrow would be an opportune time. The issues haven’t disappeared: The economy is still unstable, the health-care problem is still looming, the war is ongoing and a bevy of other pertinent issues are still hovering just below the surface. Now that we’ve voted and received an answer as to whom we believe can best tackle the issues facing our nation, we shouldn’t accept the answer passively.

The relationship between questions and answers is a difficult one. In 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was the answer. It brought a formal end to World War I on the provision that Germany and its allies pay reparations, disarm and accept almost full responsibility for the start of the war. The Treaty of Versailles may have been the answer, but it didn’t address the question – who would keep Germany from rising again as a military power? Then again, maybe that wasn’t even the question. At a time when the world was in such an upheaval, the treaty was unable to build a lasting peace. Thus, Germany rearmed and as history goes, a second world war.

The question of climate change saw its answer in the Kyoto Protocol. It categorized countries into Annex 1, or industrialized countries, and Non-Annex 1 countries. These classifications determined how different countries would be responsible for tackling the problem. While this answered the question of categorization and responsibility, questions of fairness remained.

In following current events, the mere act of observing facts and being cognizant of what is happening has the power to change the way we view the question.

Current events aren’t limited to just international relations or election season though. Following the news used to be a daunting task for me, not because I was uninterested, but because I felt that I didn’t have the whole history of a story yet, that I couldn’t put what I just read into context and make it relevant. I’ve come to realize that I don’t have to know every intricate detail of oil and the history of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to understand that gas prices surged this summer. Knowing the history is important, but it is not imperative and shouldn’t discourage people from following the news.

The context doesn’t need to be built from point A of the time line to point B. You can build your knowledge from somewhere in the middle and slowly fill in the gaps – your own little grassroots endeavor to be an informed citizen. You can begin to form context and make it relevant with the more you know.

Look at what is happening around you. Hopefully the initial immersion will spark a curiosity that leads you to explore the finer details of history. We cannot assume to derive answers merely through osmosis – it is an active process of inquiry and constant reevaluation. So the election is over. Know the answer, but keep reading and keep following, because the questions continually change. It’s never too late, because the question can never really be answered.

This column was also featured in UWire, The Cornell Daily Sun (PDF), Tufts Daily (PDF) and CBS News.