I have written a few times about the economics of the green revolution, how I believe it could be more successful, and what the potential monetary implications could be for both developed and developing nations. Most notably, in my analysis of IEA goals for carbon emissions going forward, I noted that the potential costs to developed nations in any scenario were likely to be higher than those for the lagging nations. The EU has attempted to put some of these thoughts in concrete terms, though in doing so has also managed to avoid putting its money where its collectivized mouth is.
In this weekend's edition of the Financial Times, it is reported that the EU has concluded that rich nations should give developing nations up to $74 billion per year by 2020. However, it also avoided pledging anything itself, an obvious concession to the former communist states in the bloc who would like some assurances of their own commitment before agreeing to such measures. It could also possibly be seen as a gauntlet thrown down to the US to see if such a pledge is forthcoming from this side of the Atlantic.
However, it could be part of another strategy entirely. In the leadup to climate talks in Copenhagen this December, it just might be a ploy to point to if talks break down at the scheduled meeting. In other words, in planning for failure over a month before the meeting, the EU can point elsewhere (most likely at the US) and not lose face with proponents of progress as it has already put forward a concrete plan for change.
Assuming arguendo that such payments will be necessary for the attainment of any sort of global climate plan, which announcements such as the one at hand seem to do, the EU missed an opportunity to take the lead in an issue it clearly holds as critical. Those at the forefront of climate issues will always have a fight on their hands when dealing with the Chinas and Indias of the world, not to mention Africa, South America, and indeed parts of eastern Europe. Missing opportunities to act as the stimulus of a plan rather than as the focal point for ridicule over pusillanimity is not the path to progress.
I have noted whenever dealing with climate issues that the way forward for those who believe change is needed is through the purse strings. Not just with spending however, as untrackable payments from rich nations (always an interesting term when you look at the current debt of the US) to developing nations with human rights issues, dubious stakes in changing the current status quo and leadership sceptical of the science behind environmental issues is always likely to be a thorny issue. Conversely, I believe that the way to success for advocates of environmental change is in proving the economic benefits of doing so. That is, market based solutions available through smart grid technology, savings inherent from substituting alternative sources for fossil fuels, and the reduction in spending inherent in increased efficiency. Additionally, taking a cue from China and developing an economy focused on high demand green technologies is likely to benefit developed nations in the short and long terms.
If climate change is indeed the dominant global issue of our time, it is time to figure out solutions that benefit everyone in tangible monetary terms. The long term overall benefits to the climate are too difficult for short-sighted and vote-dependant politicians to worry about, and too many so-called rich nations are in poor enough economic times that the types of costs advocated for by the EU are politically difficult. However, if jobs, exports, and ultimately GDP can rise on the tide of the green revolution, change will become palpable and indeed welcome. Until then, it seems that those in charge can do no more than attempt to save face in planning to fail.
The "climate plan" sounds good to European ears at first glance. We – I say “we” because I am from Europe, currently studying in the U.S. - like the idea of our governments taking care and responsibility of the climate change and having a leadership role in saving the world. "Green" is hip.
ReplyDeleteThere has been an "eco-wave" rolling over Europe the past years. It started with eating organic food, sending your children to so-called "forest-kindergartens" (literally, a kindergarten in the forest, the kids are outside all ear except for pouring-rain or snow) and a new trend of staying within the homeland for vacation. The payment of voluntary CO2-compensation-fees for flights (inured to the benefit of environment protection organisations, see i.e. www.atmosfair.de) has us not yet taken to the tip of the iceberg.
Europe is aware of the climate change, there is no doubt about that. And Europeans have, I'd say in general, a more pronounced awareness of eco-issues in daily life (as Americans, for example). We drive small, fuel-efficient cars and you can hardly find a private house running an AC, to name only two obvious examples that left me stunning when I first came to the U.S.
I don't want to judge any of the said measures, but some are more, some are less efficient and appropriate to fight the climate change. To come back to the point, this is the light in which the "climate plan" has to be considered.
A view at the following link might help clarifying its relevance http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=de&pcode=tsdgp410&tableSelection=1&footnotes=yes&labeling=labels&plugin=0 (the indicator shows the level of CO2-emissions). In 2006, the EU (27 countries) caused in average a CO2-emission of 8.6, whereas the developing nations (listed by the OECD-DAC [Development Assistance Committee]) got an index of 2.4.
This mere number reveals that the developing nations are not the battlefield where the problems of climate change are carried out. Their impact on climate change can be considered little. And even Europe is only number 3 on the "Top-CO2-Emitter"-list (depending on the sort and indices of measurement, Europe is listed 3rd or 4th). However, the top five are always the U.S., Russia, China, Europe, and India (see i.e. http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/0,1518,559908,00.html).
Whatever the intent of the "climate plan" might have been, the said nations - and especially Europe - should mind its own business and not point its finger at the developing nations. There are enough environmental issues within our own sphere of influence where effort, time and the taxpayer's money can be spent on.
How to deal with climate issues in particular is a complete different story, as Josh mentioned in the foregoing post. But I doubt that a "climate plan" for developing nations is the solution to our problems.
Europe, stick to your last.
There appear to be signs of change on the energy front in the US as well...it is difficult to say what would happen in a full Senate vote, however.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5A42WB20091105?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11621