‘Many people around the world already consider the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow a disappointment. That is a massive understatement. Global leaders – especially in the developed world – still fail to grasp the gravity of the climate challenge. Although they acknowledge its severity and urgency in their speeches, they mostly pursue short-term national interests and make conveniently distant “net-zero” emissions pledges without clear and immediate commitments to act.’ – Excerpts from recently published Project Syndicate (PS) article ‘The rich world’s climate hypocrisy’ by Jayati Ghosh.
COP26 meetings remained short on indicating a plan as to how first of all climate finance will be defined in a clear and precise way, and then how the developing countries will be provided needed financial support in dealing with climate change crisis. On the other hand, meaningful commitments were not made by a number of advanced countries regarding effectively dealing with coal projects. Jayati Ghosh in her same article indicated about these issues as: ‘Rich countries, which are responsible for the dominant share of global carbon-dioxide emissions to date, are dithering on longstanding commitments to provide climate finance to developing countries. They are also resisting a proposed operational definition that would prevent them from fudging what counts as climate finance. …A group of 20 countries, including the US, pledged to end public financing for “unabated” fossil-fuel projects, including those powered by coal, by the end of 2022. But the prohibition applies only to international projects, not domestic ones. Significantly, the US and several other signatories refused to join the 23 countries that separately committed to stop new coal-power projects within their borders and phase out existing coal infrastructure.’
Sadly, this state of affairs prevailed at COP26 by rich, advanced countries overall, while for instance, some of the countries such as Island countries likely to be affected most by climate change crisis, made a loud plea to G20 countries for more meaningful policy commitments. In this regard, the comments by the President of Palau from his address at COP26 summit are indeed very important: ‘We the islands, that are devastated most, demand that your commitments of one hundred billion [dollars] annually be increased to meet the four trillion dollars the World Bank reports is needed. We see the scorching sun is giving us intolerable heat, the warming sea is invading us, the strong winds are blowing us every which way. Our resources are disappearing before our eyes, and our future is being robbed from us. Frankly speaking, there is no dignity to a slow and painful death: you might as well bomb our islands, instead of making us suffer, only to witness our slow and fateful demise. Leaders of the G20, we are drowning, and our only hope is the life-ring you are holding. You must act now. We must act together.’
Yet, as Daron Acemoglu pointed out in his recently PS published article ‘Climate change vs. the Sino American cold war’ there is indeed a lot left to be desired in terms of policy actions for effectively dealing with climate change. For instance, he indicated: ‘The last-gasp effort at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) to keep global warming below 1.5° Celsius, relative to preindustrial levels, was destined to fall short regardless of how many heads of state and business leaders flew to Glasgow. For the world to meet even a 2°C target requires collaboration between the United States and China. Climate change represents a unique opportunity for the two countries to cooperate, and their surprise announcement of a plan to work together on curbing methane emissions provides some hope. But the current geopolitical environment stacks the cards against broad cooperation. …China, for example, is still investing in new coal plants, building more than one per week in 2020. India has nearly doubled its coal consumption over the last decade, while refusing to commit to a meaningful net-zero emissions target. And Russia is doing almost nothing, claiming that its forests, tundra, and swamps will absorb enough carbon to render it carbon neutral by 2060.The US, too, is proving unequal to the challenge… It can afford to invest much more in renewable energies, and to support the broader global transition to cleaner technologies. Yet it is still subsidizing the fossil-fuel industry, rather than taxing carbon emissions and regulating the big energy companies that bear most of the blame for the problem. (That said, Iran, Russia, Brazil, China, and India are even worse offenders when it comes to fossil-fuel subsidies.)’
Even where carbon is being taxed, like in the European Union (EU), some countries, including Italy, are not taxing carbon while others like Poland are taxing too little. In the same article, Daron Acemoglu calls for an effective global carbon tax in the following words: ‘To reduce emissions and stop the extraction and combustion of existing coal, oil, and gas reserves, there is no substitute for a global carbon tax and sustained support for the development of green technologies. The European Union has taken a first step toward a global carbon tax by proposing not just a domestic tax on fossil fuels but also a carbon border adjustment mechanism (tariff). For the carbon tax to have a meaningful impact, it will need to be set sufficiently high. Right now, carbon taxes within the EU range from €116 ($134) per metric ton of carbon dioxide in Sweden to less than €0.10 per ton in Poland, with some major economies, such as Italy, having no carbon tax at all. But even with a robust European carbon tax and tariff regime, we would still need the US and China to adopt and enforce similar policies in order to keep climate change in check.’ Sadly, there was no decision at COP26 with regard to a global carbon tax, and hence a consensus on this needs to be reached at the earliest possible given the window of effectively dealing with climate change crisis is closing fast. The current decade is indeed essential in effectively keeping global warming to needed level of less than 1.5C.
The main elements of the ‘Glasgow Climate Pact’ which was agreed by 197 parties, that came out of the COP26 summit include, as highlighted by a recent Economist published article ‘COP26 ends with a pact that is neither a triumph nor a trainwreck’ as follows: ‘Countries committed themselves to further accelerating their decarbonisation plans and, specifically, to strengthening their emissions-reduction targets for 2030 by next year, rather than in 2025 as per the five-year schedule set out under the Paris agreement. Developed countries were “urged” to double funding for adaptation in developing countries by 2025. Rules to create a framework for a global carbon market were approved, settling a problem that had plagued negotiators since 2015. The need to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions by a whopping 45% by 2030 was formally recognised. Not the stuff of triumph; but not a trainwreck, either.’
Director of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Professor Johan Rockstrom, was quoted in a Financial Times (FT) published article ‘COP26 deal offers relief for rich nations but vulnerable face “death sentence”’ with regard to how well ‘Glasgow Climate Pact’ fared in terms of policies that could lead to global warming below 1.5C as saying: ‘This is probably the COP meeting, after Paris, that has been most constructive.” According to Rockstrom, “On the other hand, as a scientist, I’m also disappointed. We came to Glasgow knowing the science, and every nation had to align to get to 1.5C, and we didn’t get to that.”’ Moreover, as per the article, he also pointed out that ‘The agreement would shift the world’s trajectory from about 2.7C of expected warming to 1.8C or 1.9C if all the national net zero targets are achieved, he told the Financial Times.’ It is, therefore, essential that world leaders should come together at the earliest possible and countries overall reach a consensus of policy action, which allows reaching global warming level of below 1.5C, a target which needs to be met if life on earth has to continue in any reasonable sense, as we know of.
(The writer holds a PhD
in Economics from the University of Barcelona; he previously worked at the International
Monetary Fund)
He tweets@omerjaved7
Copyright Business Recorder, 2021
The writer holds a PhD in Economics degree from the University of Barcelona, and has previously worked at the International Monetary Fund. His contact on ‘X’ (formerly ‘Twitter’) is @omerjaved7
Comments
Comments are closed.