As governments gather in Dubai for this year’s climate conference, which starts today, two things are painfully clear. First, we are already in a climate emergency. Second, richer countries, and especially the US, continue to turn their back on poorer countries.
This year’s debate will therefore focus on climate justice and financing: how to share the costs of climate disasters, and the urgently needed transformation of the world’s energy and land use systems.
The Dubai conference is the 28th annual Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP28. The first COP was in Berlin in 1995. Our governments do not have much to show for their work. In 1995, they promised to stabilize the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere “to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
COMPARING 1995
Carbon dioxide emissions that year were 29 billion tons, but this year are expected to total about 41 billion tons. Atmospheric carbon dioxide in 1995 was 361 parts per million, but now it is 419 parts per million. Then, the Earth had warmed by about 0.7°C compared with 1880-1920, but by now has warmed by 1.2°C.
The rate of warming is also increasing. From 1970 to 2010, warming was at a rate of about 0.18°C per decade. Now, Earth is warming by at least 0.27°C per decade. Within 10 years, we will hit the 1.5°C upper limit agreed at COP21 in Paris in 2016.
In fact, we will most likely break through that limit far sooner.
As a result, climate disasters are intensifying: floods, droughts, heat waves, super storms, mega fires and more causing deaths, displacements and hundreds of billion dollars of damage each year, with losses of US$275 billion estimated for last year.
What we need to do is clear. We need to shift from fossil fuels — coal, oil and natural gas — to zero-carbon energy: wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, bioenergy and nuclear, depending on location.
Countries need to interconnect their power grids with neighbors to diversify energy sources, thereby building resilience and lowering costs. We need to shift to electric vehicles and the production of hydrogen for industrial use. We need to end deforestation by raising agricultural productivity of farms and managed forests.
These solutions are within reach, but there is no agreement yet on how to share the costs.
There are three costs to consider:
First, loss and damage from climate-related disasters. Second, the cost of adapting to climate change, that is, the cost of “weatherproofing” society. Third, the cost of overhauling the energy system.
When it comes to losses and damage, and adaptation, those who caused the climate crisis should help to pay for those who are suffering, but had little role in causing the crisis. That is, richer countries should cover much of the costs paid by poorer countries.
That is simple justice. When it comes to overhauling the energy system, no country has the “right” to emit carbon dioxide, so all should share the costs. Yet poorer countries need access to low-cost, long-term financing.
Now, here is the rub. Rich countries, especially the US, so far refuse to accept their fair share of responsibility for losses, damage and adaptation costs incurred by poorer countries. Nor have rich countries taken practical actions to ensure that poorer countries have access to low-cost financing for the energy transition.
US RESPONSIBILITY
The US is responsible for roughly 25 percent of cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide emissions since the start of industrialization around 1750, even though the US constitutes just 4 percent of the world population.
The US has emitted roughly 400 billion tons of carbon dioxide, or about 1,200 tons for each of today’s 330 million people, while in poor African countries, cumulative emissions are roughly one-1,000th of the US rate, roughly 1 to 2 tons per person.
Nonetheless, US politicians brazenly recommend “voluntary” schemes to finance poorer countries, a transparent and rather pathetic ploy to shift responsibility away from the US.
If rich countries were taxed just US$0.10 per year for each ton of cumulative emissions, their payment would be about US$100 billion per year, with the US paying about US$40 billion per year. In addition, rich countries should be taxed about US$4 for each ton of new emissions, raising another US$100 billion or so per year.
The combined levies on past and current emissions would bring the total carbon dioxide levies to about US$200 billion per year, with the US share coming to about US$60 billion.
ACCOUNTABILITY
The US will no doubt continue to kick and scream to deny such accountability. It will claim that paying US$60 billion a year for past and current emissions would be far too costly — yet the US spends US$1 trillion per year on the military, a vastly excessive amount.
With an annual US GDP of about US$26 trillion, a levy of US$60 billion per year would amount to just 0.2 percent of it GDP, a sum that is easily within reach.
I firmly believe that justice will come. World power is rebalancing between the rich and poor, so that the ability of the rich world to evade its responsibility is coming to an end. I believe that this rebalancing will lead to new forms of global taxation under the UN Charter and supervised by the UN General Assembly, including global levies on carbon emissions.
Yes, this change will be a rude shock to rich countries that have long imposed their will on the rest of the world. Yet the climate crisis is teaching that we are in an interconnected world, where all countries must accept their responsibilities for past, present and future actions.
This increasing awareness of interconnectedness and responsibility is the path to justice and to sustainable development for all.
Jeffrey D. Sachs, a professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, is president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. The views expressed in this column are his own.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
RSS