Why is humanity so reluctant to save itself?
Despite the buzz around climate action at this year's World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, the world's current environmental prospects look grim. There are three obstacles: climate-change denial; the economics of reducing greenhouse-gas (GHGs) emissions; and the politics of mitigation policies, which tend to be highly regressive.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global carbon-dioxide emissions must be cut by 45 per cent from 2010 levels by 2030, and then eliminated entirely by 2050, to have even a reasonable chance of preventing global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. "We need quick wins," warns the United Nations Environment Program in its latest Emissions Gap Report, "or the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement will slip out of reach."
That is an understatement. Even if the current Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the 2015 Paris accord are met, emissions in 2030 will be 38 per cent above where they need to be. Global average temperatures will be on track to rise by a disastrous 2.9-3.4°C by 2100, with continuing increases thereafter. The NDC targets would need to be roughly tripled just to limit warming to 2°C, and would have to increase fivefold to achieve the 1.5°C goal.
That is not going to happen. The only time in recent history when CO2 emissions have looked as though they might plateau was in 2014-2016, owing to weak global growth. According to the Global Carbon Project, emissions have since increased again, by 2.7 per cent in 2018 and 0.6 per cent in 2019.
Why is humanity so reluctant to save itself? First, many people simply do not accept the predictions issued by climate scientists. But denialism is the least serious of the three main obstacles. There will always be a minority for whom facts and logic are unwelcome distractions. Yet even US President Donald Trump must realise by now that climate change will undermine the future viability and profitability of Mar-a-Lago.
As the real-world costs of climate-driven disasters mount over time, denialism will become less of an issue. The second major challenge is that GHG emissions are the quintessential global economic externality. Climate change doesn't respect borders; GHGs emitted anywhere will affect everyone eventually. That means there is a massive free-rider problem. Under current circumstances, it will always be individually rational to let others cut back on their emissions rather than doing so yourself.
The third obstacle is that effective policies to reduce GHG emissions disproportionately hurt the poor (both globally and within countries). The International Monetary Fund recently calculated that the current effective global price of CO2 emissions is a mere $2 per tonne. To limit global warming to less than 2°C, however, would require an average effective price of $75 per tonne by 2030.
Needless to say, long-overdue growth in developing and emerging economies will bring massive increases in energy consumption and GHG emissions. In India, China, and many other countries, coal-fired power plants will likely continue to be built for years to come. Clean and renewable energy from solar and wind will complement, but not displace, fossil fuels in these countries. Despite the strides made in battery storage technology, the intermittency problems associated with wind and solar imply a continuing role for fossil fuels and nuclear power.
Consider India, which accounts for 7 per cent of annual global GHG emissions, making it the world's fourth-largest emitter, after China (27 per cent), the US (15 per cent), and the European Union (10 per cent). That is despite the fact that India's per capita energy consumption is around one-tenth of America's. And even if that figure doubles by 2030, it will still be only half of what China's was in 2015.
Countries like India and those in Sub-Saharan Africa are not going to sacrifice their economic development for the sake of emissions reductions. The only way to square the circle is to extend financial aid to developing and emerging economies.
Unfortunately, sustained large-scale international aid programmes are deeply unpopular. And given that domestic fiscal solidarity is already wanting, cross-border fiscal solidarity seems like a non-starter. Unless and until that changes, an existential crisis of our own making will only worsen.
- Project Syndicate.
- Willem H. Buiter, a former chief economist at Citigroup, is a visiting professor at Columbia University
This triple crisis has revealed several problems with how we do capitalism, all of which must be solved at the same time that we address...
As India is in a 21-day nationwide lockdown, a billion plus people speak in hushed tones and while social media and the television sets...
The wellbeing of the residents is at the heart of all policy decisions that have been taken so far.
It has been suggested, including by me, that the low reported infection rate might reflect a very low testing rate in India.
The total number of cases in the country stands at 814 now. READ MORE
The board said the system of marking/assessment "will be worked out... READ MORE
Parents had repeatedly requested the concerned authorities to... READ MORE
This is in line with the latest circular issued to all schools by the ... READ MORE