James Osborn

After the 115 heads of state and world leaders who met in Copenhagen in 2009 failed to come to a binding resolution for action to combat climate change, many thought that hope of ever coming to a global agreement on the climate was lost. The seeming unwillingness of nations, both developing and developed to bind their economies to carbon emissions left many feeling that no great benefit came out of Copenhagen and some feeling that it was “a step back from the Kyoto protocol”.

Developing countries are facing a quandary of sorts, continue to feed their unprecedented growth by relying on dirty power and manufacturing and ignore any consequences of global climate change, or put regulation in place which limits emissions and risks slowing down the very growth which, in some countries is the only thing sustaining corrupt and autocratic governments. Many developing countries are seeing this as their time to shine, industrialisation has finally arrived and with it has come cars, electricity and consumer goods for all. And who can blame them for emitting copious amounts of CO2, after all developed countries such as Britain has been pumping out carbon for over 150 years? Developed countries would point out that environmental issues have only come to forefront in the last 20 years and that the world simply can’t sustain the same level of pollution that the west produces on a global scale. “If China’s carbon usage keeps pace with its economic growth, the country’s carbon dioxide emissions will reach 8 gigatons a year by 2030, which is equal to the entire world’s CO2 production today.”

It may not be fair to look down on poorer countries, which developed economies have actually been encouraging for over 60 years to ‘work their way out of poverty’ and inform them that they ‘simply must cut back’. But if we don’t it’s not the just west that will suffer from climate change but the globe. Indeed, a report commissioned by the UK government said that “if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more” .
By now most people have come to terms with the fact that the climate is changing and that CO2 emissions are the cause, however coming to a rational agreement – one which does not just pray on one area of the globe but affects every country evenly – is something which eludes us. So what can be done? Although there have been talks of a global carbon credits scheme this requires agreement on a global level to cap and allow trading of emissions. Currently there is a scheme such as this operating in Europe however many countries refuse to consider it. Another is to bring capitalism in to play to force countries who want to compete to adopt carbon cutback schemes. This would most likely feature a tariff on goods and services coming from the most polluting countries and being sold to non-polluting markets. For example Europe, which has so far been a forerunner in combating global climate change, would place a tariff on goods and services originating from countries which are polluting at more than a percentage of their 1990 emission levels (the internationally recognised standard for countries who signed the Kyoto protocol), after 2 years this tariff would increase thereby both encouraging countries who want to continue to sell to developed markets to cut back on emissions and also readdressing the trade deficit which has plagued most of Europe for the past 30 years. As more countries agree to the deal they would be included in the tariff, leaving countries unwilling to reduce emissions unable to compete.

The carrot and the stick approach is one which developed countries have been employing on LEDC’s for century’s and is one which no doubt will be employed in the future. Most of the global population by now agree that something has to be done. It is up to world leaders to listen to the public and come to a rational agreement even if it sacrifices economic growth in the short term. Even in the last few years we have seen the result of our actions, Hurricane Katrina, the Tsunami which hit Asia and continuous melting of glaciers throwing both floods and starvation at some of the worlds’ most poverty stricken inhabitants have all been stark warnings of what is to come unless nations act.

References

[1] International Institute for Sustainable Development. (2009). A brief analysis of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. Earth Negotiations Bulletin .

[2] Madrigal, A. (2008, February 8). China’s 2030 CO2 Emissions Could Equal the Entire World’s Today. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from Wired: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/chinas-2030-co2/

[3] (2006). STERN REVIEW: The Economics of Climate Change. London: Cambridge University Press .

Related articles

• Rich nations urged to develop climate aid plan for Cancún (guardian.co.uk)

Categorized as Business, Commentary