Envisioning a sustainable future
The United Nations climate summit in Dubai this year is unlikely to accomplish much because decisions must be approved by all 197 states. Unanimity is a prescription for people to dither as the earth burns.
It is feasible to think of a more effective, alternate strategy to combat climate change. A small group of strong countries could decide on audacious goals and then persuade others to do the same.
Eventually, nations can become so afraid of not doing enough that they actually do just that. However, horrific forecasts, record temperatures, and natural disasters haven’t yet had the desired effect.
The problem is that the initiative would need to come from China or the US, who in 2021 accounted for 25% and 11% of carbon emissions, respectively. Better still, they would do it in unison. However, neither nation is prepared to reduce its own carbon emissions at the necessary rate, and their leaders have only just decided to resume discussing climate change.
For this reason, the only event left for the world is the yearly Conference of the Parties (COP), where representatives travel to various regions of the globe in an attempt to reach a consensus. Since this summit in Dubai is the 28th of these conferences, it is referred to as COP28. Attendees typically hammer out a deal, but it’s toothless.
The 2015 COP21, which produced the Paris Agreement, marked a turning point in this process. Every nation committed to aiming for 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming and to limiting it to 2 degrees over pre-industrial levels.
That’s all well and good, but each nation is free to decide how it will work toward this common goal. It is hardly unexpected that the UN projects global temperatures would rise by 2.5 to 2.9 degrees, with disastrous effects, based on the whole of their commitments.
If not COP, What ?
China and the US might create a critical mass to persuade the rest of the world to follow them if they decided to do substantially more to reduce emissions. They would first need a way for determining each nation’s fair share, though.
Examining the amount of emissions each nation has produced per person is one way to start. The largest polluters would therefore need to reduce their emissions the most, or they would need to make other contributions, such providing financial aid to other nations to hasten their transition to a greener economy. The calculation could start in 1992, when the Rio Earth Summit agreed the first UN climate change treaty.
By this standard, the US is a major polluter. Between 1992 and 2019, the average American produced around 700 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, which is more than three times the global average. To achieve net zero emissions by 2050, the United States would need to perform far better than its present pledge to cut emissions in half by 2030.
During the same year, the average Chinese person emitted almost 200 tonnes of emissions, which is about the global average. The People’s Republic, however, continues to construct coal-fired power plants, and as a result, its emissions are increasing. It would also need to fulfill its commitment to peak emissions by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2060.
From G20 to the World
Imagine if Beijing and Washington could agree upon such strict goals and adhere to them. The next stage would be to include the other major polluters in the group, maybe starting with the other large industrialized nations that make up the Group of 20. In 2021, the G20 was responsible for 74% of emissions.
All of the other wealthy democracies in the G20 are allies that the US might rally. While accounting for 13% of global emissions, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Japan, Canada, and the European Union are all at least reducing pollution.
China might undertake the task of arm-twisting Russia, which accounts for 4.4% of global emissions. It would not be simple to do this. But Xi Jinping, the president of China, has the ability to convince Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, to take more action against climate change.
Beijing and Washington would have to adopt a different strategy when dealing with other G20 nations like Indonesia, Brazil, and India, who together produce 19% of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. Since these developing nations have not yet made significant contributions to global warming, it would not be just to order them to reduce their emissions. The same is true for the 8.7% of emissions that come from African nations. The G20 has welcomed the 55-state continental organization known as the African Union.
Instead, the better-off G20 countries should help less prosperous nations grow in a green way. That’s the thinking behind the Just Energy Transition Partnerships that the United States and its allies have cut with Indonesia, Vietnam and South Africa. China could also play a role with its Belt and Road Initiative, which started off helping developing countries build dirty infrastructure such as coal-fired power stations but is increasingly focussing on deploying green technology.
If the bulk of the G20 agreed, members could encourage the rest of the world to get onside with a mixture of carrots and sticks. The latter could include levies on the imports of those countries which do not pull their weight, along the lines of the carbon border tariffs that the EU is introducing.
However, at this time, it is not feasible to proceed with the strategy. There are enormous barriers at every turn. For instance, following the elections in the next year, Donald Trump, who as president forced the United States out of the Paris Agreement, might win reelection.
There is still room for improvement in the global climate. Businesses can keep using green technology since they are becoming more affordable than fossil fuels. Governments can continue to expand the World Bank and other multilateral development banks to support emerging economies in their transition to greener economies. Additionally, nations can advance the process by applying moral pressure to one another during COP summits.
It’s all better than nothing at all. However, it won’t avert a climate catastrophe. The leaders of the globe will eventually have to do far better.
A Reuters breaking views columnist
