It is
incontrovertible that the climate is changing, and the cause seems clear-
emissions of greenhouse gasses due to human activities including burning fossil
fuels. However the scale, nature and pace of the changes, and their likely
specific local impacts, are still
uncertain. Changes
continues around the world, but global average temperature rises have slowed
over the last decade or so, leading some to doubt that the accuracy of the
computer models, which predicted continuing increases. Revisions to the models
have offered a variety of explanations for the ‘pause’, of varying degrees of
plausibility, one being that the heat has gone into the depths of the seas.
Most contrarians
are unconvinced by these explanations, and by the models in general, and the
media has often amplified their doubts, adding to a sense of uncertainly.
Certainly the possibility that bad impacts will be slowed has made it harder to
maintain wide support for a sense of urgency when it comes to radical climate
action. A delay in significant response could be tragic, if the overall models
are right, since, whatever the cause of the pause, once it ends, they imply
that we can expect rapid ‘catch up’ temperature rises and massive impacts. But that is not certain.
So for some,
climate change is a busted flush- not something that needs urgent attention,
for others it remains a central concern, with any doubts balanced by a
commitment to the precautionary principle: if a threat is large it is wise to
take it seriously. Somewhere in between these two views are the various
allegedly ‘least regrets’ pragmatic approaches. Prepare for the worst by
investing in simple local adaptation measures, and /or in low cost low carbon
energy supply/energy saving, but not in major costly technology or policy
changes. If climate change turns out not to be significant, then we will not
have wasted a lot of money, or set off on a costly path of unnecessary radical
change.
There are
problems with this. Will adaptation be enough and will it be cheaper than major
mitigation measures? Far from new energy technologies like renewables being
expensive, in fact they are getting cheaper, even leaving climate impacts out
of the assessment. Delaying serious responses may end up costing a lot more, if
climate impacts do turn out to be serious. So it may not actually be a ‘least
regrets’ policy.
However there is
another, arguably more nuanced approach- don't rely just on concerns about
climate change to promote the development of clean green energy options. There
are other drivers, including the huge and costly health impacts of burning
fossil fuel. That’s not far off, it’s now, and very visible in terms of poor
air quality, especially in newly industrialising countries like China. Moreover, even without taking those
costs into account, many renewables are now getting competitive with fossil
fuel on their own merits; the green path can sell itself. Will that happen fast enough to deal
with climate change? Probably not,
if just left to market pressures. But, with pollution issues being very
immediate, governments can impose regulator pressures which may also help
with subsequent climate problems.
Very much a middle-way approach.
A much broader
and more radical alternative approach is to link climate and pollution issues
into a wider political campaign against globalization and capitalism- along the
lines adopted by Naomi Klein in her new book ‘This changes everything’. To some extent she has updated the old
Marxist view that capitalism was fundamentally flawed and would come up against
a final existential crisis. For Marxists it was the need to increase profits
and expand markets, while lowering wages to maintain competition, a conflict
which (to summarise awfully) was partly deflected by the advent of more
productive technologies and a bit of ‘trickle down’ of affluence to some
participants. But that
process led to ever-increasing exploitation of the natural environment. So the
new crisis is climate change, and the wider attack on nature, as well as the
continuing exploitation of labour globally, as markets grow and production
expands. Which means that the poor, low paid workers, the dispossessed, and
other politically excluded and marginalised communities across the world, are
all recruited, along with the greens, to the struggle. Eco-socialist ideas have
been pushed for some while and, with the global economy in a mess, they may now
become more relevant, but, with capitalism still dominant globally and powerful
culturally, locking aspirant communities into consumerism, an effective
challenge to it seems a long shot.
More likely we
will see a mix of all the above approaches being adopted, resistance and and
denial, reforms and revolutions, unevenly in various parts of the world. Most
of the ‘old’ industrial countries
have adopted quite radical long term climate targets: the UK and Germany aim
for a 80% GHG cut by 2050, France now has a 75% cut by 2050 target, the US is
working on it! But now has a 26-28%
emissions cut by 2025 target. Australia and Canada may be heading the other
way, but China is taking it seriously, at least medium term (an emission cap by
2030). So far most of this has come from the top, technocratically, but it’s
buttressed increasingly by grass roots pressure. Who knows, we may yet see
radical change in the political climate in response to the threat of radical
changes to the planetary climate.
The EU has set a ‘40%
by 2030’ GHG reduction target, conditional on other countries coming up with
similar goals at the upcoming Paris UNFCCC Climate negotiations- COP 21. That sadly may be yet another COP-out,
and even if not, the momentum of and likely wider support for policy change
will depend on whether climate change is taken seriously across the world. That is not certain. So maybe it is
wise to add some other policy drivers.
Can renewables be sold as simply a better set of less polluting, more
socially appropriate and economically cheaper options? That case gets stronger by the
day, quite apart from the climate issues. There may of course be short-term
reversals- fossil fuel prices are currently falling. But, longer-term, fossil
fuels are bound to become scarcer and more expensive and, whatever the direct
costs, the health impact of using them will continue to impose increasing
social costs. In my next post, I
will look at the situation in the developing world, where pollution impacts are
already significant and the climate impacts are likely to become even more so.
And where, thankfully, renewables are expanding rapidly.
