1. 1. Introduce & critique 2nd standard framework: international regimes and agreements. 2. Suggest 3 rd alternative framework: “cultural change” in individual & corporate behaviour.

2. Second standard IR approach to examine global environmental issues.

3. Environmental Regimes and Agreements: Neoliberal Approach David Victor on climate change: How to overcome “law of the least ambitious program”? International agreements will only create state commitments at commitment level of the least interested party. (Underdal) In climate change issue, only willing to prevent catastrophic global warming effects.

4. Environmental Regimes and Agreements: Neoliberal Approach Victor’s proposed strategies to improve policy action through treaties: 1. Limit number of states involved in negotiations to those that really matter, avoid those opposing. 2. Non-binding agreements may perform better than binding ones (paradoxically).

5. Environmental Regimes and Agreements: Liberal Constructivist Approach Examining how environmental NGOs and epistemic communities (ECs) have influenced creation and shape of international agreements.

6. Environmental Regimes and Agreements: Liberal Constructivist Approach TAN approach: E.g. Keck & Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders (1998) chapter on NGO influence on international agreements and IO policies re: tropical deforestation.

7. Environmental Regimes and Agreements: Liberal Constructivist Approach Epistemic communities approach: Pioneered by Peter Haas. EC definition: “broad coalition of actors including scientists, bureaucrats, and politicians, who share a common interpretation of the science behind a problem and the broad policy and political requirements in response” (condensed Haas 1992).

8. Environmental Regimes and Agreements: Liberal Constructivist Approach Epistemic communities approach: Networks of experts have considerable power in agenda-setting and defining range of policy solutions. Many environmental issues involve highly technical science and thus scientists influential in shaping agreements. E.g. ozone crisis, climate change.

9. But are environmental agreements all that effective? International law riddled with shallow agreements that only commit states to what they would already do (Victor; Downs et al). Why? In environmental issues, strong domestic eco movements & voter sentiment  incentives for symbolic but painless gestures by governments.

10. Third, alternative IR approach to examine global environmental issues.

11. “Cultural change” in nonstate actors (Wapner) Constructivist argument about cultural change in everyday behaviour. Important changes in how we treat environment through shifts in individuals’ and corporations’ behaviour. “Governance” vs. “Government”: Changes in norms entirely outside of government policies.

12. “Cultural change” in nonstate actors (Wapner) Routes to NGOs changing global environmental governance: 1. Consciousness-raising campaigns to change individuals’ views. E.g. “Reduce, reuse, recycle”

13. “Cultural change” in nonstate actors (Wapner) Routes to NGOs changing global environmental governance: 2. Pressuring corporations into changing practices. Confrontational – e.g. boycotts. Cooperative – e.g. product certification. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Organic/ fair trade certifications.

14. “Cultural change” in nonstate actors (Wapner) Criticism: Possibly mainly “greenwashing” occurs? Unsubstantiated industry claims of environmentally friendly products. Superficial green changes to products while we consume more and more to erase benefit. Thus, does cultural change make a real difference in environmental outcomes?