The climate-change agenda heats up
By Michael Jacobs
Senior Adviser at the Institute for Sustainable Development and
International Relations in Paris and a visiting professor at the
Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
at the London School of Economics.
For many people around the world this year, the weather has
become anything but a topic for small talk. Typhoon Haiyan in the
Philippines, America's record-breaking freeze, California's
year-long drought, and flooding in Europe have put the long-term
dangers of climate change back on the political agenda. In
response, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has sent an
urgent letter to government, business, civil society, and finance
leaders, urging them to attend a special Climate Summit in New York
in September.
The event will be the first time that world leaders have met to
discuss global warming since the UN's fateful Copenhagen
climate-change summit in 2009. Amid high expectations - and
subsequent recriminations - that meeting failed to achieve a
comprehensive, legally-binding agreement to reduce greenhouse-gas
emissions. So, at September's summit, leaders will be asked to
re-boot the diplomatic process. The goal is a new agreement in 2015
to prevent average global temperatures from rising by two degrees
Celsius, the level that the international community has deemed
"dangerous" to human society.
At first sight, that looks like a hard task. Since Copenhagen,
climate change has slipped down the global agenda, as the
restoration of economic growth, voter concern about jobs and living
standards, and violent conflict in key trouble spots have taken
precedence.
But the tide may be turning. More people are grasping the true
extent of the dangers ahead. In its latest authoritative
assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
concluded last year that scientists are now 95% certain that human
activities are the principal cause of rising temperatures. Over the
next two months the IPCC will release further reports detailing the
human and economic impacts of probable climate change and the costs
and benefits of combating it. US Secretary of State John Kerry
recently described climate change as "perhaps the world's most
fearsome weapon of mass destruction," warning of "a tipping-point
of no return." Few serious commentators now dispute the
science.
So the key question now is how the world's leaders will respond.
There are grounds for cautious optimism.
First, New York will not be like Copenhagen. Leaders are not being
asked to negotiate a new agreement themselves; that job will remain
with their professional negotiators and environment ministers.
Moreover, the process will not be concluded this year but at the UN
climate conference in Paris in December 2015. That provides plenty
of time to translate political commitments made in New York into a
legally-binding accord.
Second, the world's two largest greenhouse-gas emitters, the United
States and China, are now more committed to action than they were
five years ago. US President Barack Obama has announced a
far-reaching plan that authorizes the Environment Protection Agency
to take dramatic measures in the next few months to limit
power-station emissions, virtually ending coal-fired electricity
generation altogether.
In China, worsening air pollution and growing concerns about energy
security have led the government to consider a cap on coal use and
an absolute reduction in emissions within the next 10-15 years. The
government is experimenting with carbon pricing, and investing
heavily in low-carbon wind, solar, and nuclear energy.
Further, the two countries are actively cooperating. Last year
Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping committed to phase out
hydrofluorcarbons, a potent greenhouse gas. In February, they
announced their intention to work together on climate policy - a
marked contrast to Sino-US tensions over Pacific security and trade
issues. With the European Union also preparing to commit to new
2030 climate targets, hopes for a global deal are rising.
A third cause for optimism is the re-appraisal of climate-change
economics. Five years ago, policies aimed at cutting greenhouse-gas
emissions were seen as a cost burden on the economy. Negotiations
were therefore a zero-sum game, with countries seeking to minimize
their obligations while asking others to do more.
However, new evidence may be altering the economic calculus.
According to research conducted by the Global Commission on the
Economy and Climate, far from hurting the economy, well-designed
climate policy may actually boost growth. Chaired by former Mexican
President Felipe Calderón and comprising former prime ministers,
presidents, and finance ministers, the Commission is analyzing how
investments in clean-energy infrastructure, agricultural
productivity, and urban transport could stimulate sluggish
economies. Its conclusions will be presented at September's summit;
if accepted, the Commission's work could mark a turning point,
transforming the way in which climate policy is perceived by the
world's economic policymakers.
None of this guarantees success. Powerful vested interests - not
least the world's fossil-fuel industries - will no doubt seek to
limit progress, and most governments are not yet focused on the
problem. But one thing is certain: the reality of climate change is
making it impossible to ignore.
Copyright: Project Syndicate