From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec

From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec

12.07.2015 Views

5 THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM CLIMATE CHANGEtobacco and fast food industries, for failing to anticipate regulationof emissions. 238A dwindling band of economists still question whether the benefitsjustify the costs in terms of foregone growth and poverty reduction,taking the view that future costs and harm are much less importantthan current costs. 239 (This view ignores the possibility or impact ofirreversible damage that cannot be meaningfully costed). The SternReport effectively countered such arguments. Progress has also beenhampered by the intellectual gulf between the natural scientists whohave so far dominated the climate change debate and the social scientistswho lead discussions on development. The two academic tribes speakdifferent languages, and so have struggled to build a common front.Technology is bound to play a central role in the transition to alow-carbon economy that drastically reduces reliance on fossil fuelsfor transport, agriculture, and energy production. Technology is seenby some as a form of ‘get out of jail free’ card that will allow both richand poor countries to keep growing their market economies whilesimultaneously achieving the reductions in carbon emissions needed toavoid catastrophic climate change. But is this techno-optimism justified?One possibility is a new technology that transforms the world’sreliance on carbon – for example, clean nuclear fusion that producescarbon-free energy. Nothing of that kind appears imminent, however(scientists have been trying to tame fusion for some 50 years, with littlesuccess), and even were such a technology to be discovered, it wouldtake decades to commercialise and disseminate.With the global economygrowing, and carbon emissions rising, the world cannot afford to waitany longer for such a painless technological fix to the problem.Existing technology could in theory buy us some time, but only ifthe most advanced, cleanest techniques were rapidly to spread to allcountries. If the whole world was able rapidly to become as carbonefficient (in terms of tonnes of carbon per unit GDP) as the moreefficient, but not exceptional, developed countries (Germany, Italy,Japan, UK, Switzerland), global carbon emissions would fall by some43 per cent. That, together with existing technological trends (globalcarbon efficiency has improved by about 1.6 per cent per annum since1975), would buy us about ten extra years in which to find a technologicaland development pathway that would allow us to cut global419

FROM POVERTY TO POWERemissions by 80 per cent by 2050 compared to 1990 levels (the level ofreductions required to minimise the risk of catastrophic climatechange). 240Such a wholesale switch to new and existing clean technologieswould require a massive effort on a global scale, overriding intellectualproperty rules and short-term commercial self-interest, and backedby appropriate funding. It also ignores issues such as the rapidly risinguse of air travel, which is becoming increasingly significant as a sourceof greenhouse gases, without any low-carbon alternative in sight. Itmay well be that patterns of consumption have to change as much aspatterns of production. These are huge challenges, but the alternativesare equally unpalatable: cross your fingers and hope for sometechnological magic bullet to emerge, or accept lower global rates ofgrowth in the market economy.In practice, avoiding catastrophic climate change is likely torequire a mix of solutions, including accelerated technology transfer,innovation, and reduced emissions in the big polluter countries. Itremains an open question whether this will include lower growth ratesin some or all countries, or whether a combination of human ingenuityand political leadership will be enough.For the poorest countries, the transition to a low-carbon economymay not be so urgent – after all, with the exception of the giant andrapidly growing economies of China and India, their carbon footprintremains very small. Eventually, however, they will have to find a pathto development that does not rely on massive fossil fuel consumption,either because prices are simply too high or because (in a manneranalogous to the nuclear proliferation treaty) those countries thathave already used huge reserves of carbon to industrialise their owneconomies will deny that option to others. Another key considerationis whether poor countries can afford to be ‘locked out’ of new,low-carbon energy systems that will inevitably become a driver ofcompetitiveness in the future.In effect, poor countries will have to make transitions to carbonefficienteconomies earlier in their development paths than today’sdeveloped countries did, just as they are currently doing in terms oftransitions to literacy, low child mortality rates, and lower birth rates.At the very least, this will require a change of mindset among elites in420

FROM POVERTY TO POWERemissions by 80 per cent by 2050 compared <strong>to</strong> 1990 levels (the level ofreductions required <strong>to</strong> minimise the risk of catastrophic climatechange). 240Such a wholesale switch <strong>to</strong> new and existing clean technologieswould require a massive effort on a global scale, overriding intellectualproperty rules and short-term commercial self-interest, and backedby appropriate funding. It also ignores issues such as the rapidly risinguse of air travel, which is becoming increasingly significant as a sourceof greenhouse gases, without any low-carbon alternative in sight. Itmay well be that patterns of consumption have <strong>to</strong> change as much aspatterns of production. These are huge challenges, but the alternativesare equally unpalatable: cross your fingers and hope for sometechnological magic bullet <strong>to</strong> emerge, or accept lower global rates ofgrowth in the market economy.In practice, avoiding catastrophic climate change is likely <strong>to</strong>require a mix of solutions, including accelerated technology transfer,innovation, and reduced emissions in the big polluter countries. Itremains an open question whether this will include lower growth ratesin some or all countries, or whether a combination of human ingenuityand political leadership will be enough.For the poorest countries, the transition <strong>to</strong> a low-carbon economymay not be so urgent – after all, with the exception of the giant andrapidly growing economies of China and India, their carbon footprintremains very small. Eventually, however, they will have <strong>to</strong> find a path<strong>to</strong> development that does not rely on massive fossil fuel consumption,either because prices are simply <strong>to</strong>o high or because (in a manneranalogous <strong>to</strong> the nuclear proliferation treaty) those countries thathave already used huge reserves of carbon <strong>to</strong> industrialise their owneconomies will deny that option <strong>to</strong> others. Another key considerationis whether poor countries can afford <strong>to</strong> be ‘locked out’ of new,low-carbon energy systems that will inevitably become a driver ofcompetitiveness in the future.In effect, poor countries will have <strong>to</strong> make transitions <strong>to</strong> carbonefficienteconomies earlier in their development paths than <strong>to</strong>day’sdeveloped countries did, just as they are currently doing in terms oftransitions <strong>to</strong> literacy, low child mortality rates, and lower birth rates.At the very least, this will require a change of mindset among elites in420

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!