It seems likely
that climate change will hit most countries, but possibly the poorer developing
countries the hardest. Adaptation to climate change may be urgent and
mitigation of its causes may also be vital, but many poor developing countries
don't have the financial or technical resources for either and certainty not
both. They often claim that the rich countries, who have benefited in the past
from burning fossil fuels, should shoulder some or even most of the cost, for
example by contributing to aid programmes. Agreement in principle has been
reached on establishing a $100 billion p.a Green Climate Fund by 2020, with
donations from the major industrial countries: the USA recently provided $3
billion- though that may yet be blocked by a Republican backlash.
A perhaps more
direct, but very aggressive, route may be adopted by those seeking compensation
for victims of major climate change related events. But who to sue? One NGO
report listed 90 global companies who it said produced 63% of the cumulative
global emissions of industrial CO2 and methane between 1751 and 2010. They
include big coal and oil companies. Some may be feeling bit nervous, although
name and same list like this may be rather partisan and limited: see the Onion’s satirical take on it: we are all
responsible http://t.co/gPQaXKQzAP. Litigation
may have its merits, but it mostly earns lawyers fat fees; what is really
needed is changed policies for the future-though fear of litigation may lead to
that. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y The UN Sustainable Energy for All programme may be a bit more hopeful as a
direct way ahead, helping developing countries to build up renewable energy
capacity : http://www.iisd.ca/energy/se4all/2014f/html/crsvol181num7e.html
However all this
is set in the wider context of the debate about global climate and energy
policy. Should developing countries be allowed to expand their emissions for a
while to catch up- e.g. using a ‘contraction and convergence’ approach, with
all countries aiming to get to a set carbon per capita level by a specified
date. But who would police it?
The use of per
capita measures, although arguably equitable in human terms, does of course
favour countries like China, with large populations, but in terms of global
impacts, where the emissions come from is not important, just the total
amount. And on that basis, China
now leads the world, with many other newly developing countries following them with
ever-increasing emissions. China
may now aim to cap it’s emission by 2030, but the level at which they will be
stabilised would, on current projections, be well beyond that of any other
county, a claim forcefully made (and perhaps overstated) by those who objected
to the USA’s much more stringent proposed emission cuts- 26-28% by 2025.. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-congressional-leaders-denounce-us-china-deal-on-climate-change/2014/11/12/ff2b84e0-6a8d-11e4-a31c-77759fc1eacc_story.html
Interestingly,
some analysts in India were unhappy with the US-China deal. They felt much more was needed: www.downtoearth.org.in/content/us-china-climate-deal-maker-or-breaker
And certainly many less developed countries will wonder why
they should be expected to curb their emissions when the industrial countries
are only making relatively minimal efforts.
That view does of course reflect the assumption that making
the necessary change will be very expensive- and that may not be true. As the International
Renewable Energy Agency and the International Energy Agency have both
pointed out, renewables are getting cheap and may soon be competitive with most
conventional energy sources in many locations. Some already are. www.irena.org/remap/
That assessment is based on simple levelised cost
comparisons. If the immediate and urgent air quality related health issues and
medium term but already apparent climate change impact costs are included, then
many renewables already look like a better deal. Moreover, using them avoids
the cost of having to import increasingly expensive fossil fuels. It's the same
for energy conservation measures- they make sense now. Obviously the change
over will be hard, and there will be incidental transition costs, but scenarios
are emerging suggesting that, for example, India could, in theory, get up to 90% of its total
primary energy from renewables by 2050, assuming major energy savings: http://www.wwfindia.org/?10261/100-Renewable-Energy-by-2050-for-India
And this in a densely and highly populated country without a
lot of room for PV or wind.
In developing regions in Africa and elsewhere, the situation
is very different and the potential may be even larger. For example, the
International Renewable Energy Agency says that Africa has the potential and
the ability to utilise its renewable resources to fuel the majority of its
future growth with renewable energy. It adds ‘doing so would be economically
competitive with other solutions, would unlock economies of scale, and would
offer substantial benefits in terms of equitable development, local value
creation, energy security, and environmental sustainability’.
www.irena.org/menu/index.aspx?mnu=Subcat&PriMenuID=36&CatID=141&SubcatID=276
Clearly the interaction between global geopolitics and
climate/energy policy is complex, as are economic development issues, but the
technology is emerging to simplify the situation. What is now needed is the
political will and vision to make the changes. The industrial countries are
making some effort, some more so, others less, but the future may lie with what
the others now choose to do. The rich world can help, with properly targeted
aid programmes and technology transfer. The World Bank says it will
henceforth invest heavily in renewables and clean energy and only fund coal
projects in ‘circumstances of extreme need’, where no clean option was viable
at a reasonable price, because climate change will undermine efforts to
eliminate extreme poverty. www.theguardian.com/business/worldbank
That is good
news- we clearly need new priorities. But the changes can’t be driven just by ‘top-down’
programmes, however altruistic. It’s a big responsibility, but, especially for
developing countries without easy access to fossil fuels, the opportunities for
doing it right may be large. Of
course all this would be easier if were not for the gross global imbalance in
power and wealth and the dominance of multi-national corporations locked onto
and defending the old path. But the new path beckons and may even be part of
the revolution that will change the balance of power.
