Indonesia's environmental policies are at odds with the rhetoric around palm oil production and Indonesians are not equipped with enough information to understand the risks of a changing climate. <\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tDianty Ningrum<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t10 February, 2020\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n\t<\/em><\/p>\n Past arguments<\/a> have suggested that the reticence of countries like Indonesia to take strong climate action is due to a collective action problem, where countries will only pursue climate action when it is assured that others would do so robustly as well. Forging out on its own would mean being a \u201csucker\u201d, sacrificing while others benefit. This ostensibly explains the status quo of slow climate action on a global level, and suggests that the solution lies in having greater global dialogue on the issue through international fora like COP. In these fora, states can attain mutual assurance of climate action and feel more secure that they are not pursuing action alone. This global dimension might also explain Indonesia\u2019s reticence in accelerating its green transition as a response to the failure of developed nations to uphold their end of the bargain and providing the adequate climate finance for developing countries like Indonesia\u2014a call that President Jokowi<\/a> has repeatedly made.<\/p>\n These arguments, while insightful in many ways, are in the process of being overturned. Scholars Aklin and Mildenberger, for example, have argued<\/a> convincingly that collective action problem models are inadequate, and that the strength of a country\u2019s climate action is ultimately determined by distributive conflict, or the balance of domestic coalitions. As the saying goes, foreign policy begins at home. This argument confounds the notion of an objective \u201cnational interest\u201d implicitly built into prior arguments, where a right course of action or interest can be ascertained without reference to the power differentials within a given society. Their arguments have been echoed by other key scholars<\/a> working in this field, and this line of inquiry is maybe presently the most dynamic within climate politics scholarship.<\/p>\n