COP26 climate talks in Glasgow starting on Sunday may be the world’s best last chance to cap global warming at the 1.5-2 degrees Celsius upper limit set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement.
The stakes for the planet are huge — among them the impact on economic livelihoods the world over and the future stability of the global financial system.
Here are 10 climate change-related questions that economic policy-makers are trying to answer:
Photo: REUTERS
HOW MUCH DOES CLIMATE CHANGE COST?
From floods and fires to conflict and migration: economic models struggle with the many possible knock-on effects from global warming. The ballpark IMF estimate is that unchecked warming would shave 7 percent off world output by 2100. The Network for Greening the Financial System (NFGS) group of world central banks puts it even higher — 13 percent. In a Reuters poll of economists, the median figure for the output loss in that scenario was 18 percent.
WHERE IS THE IMPACT GOING TO BE FELT HARDEST?
Photo: AP
Clearly, the developing world. Much of the world’s poor live in the tropical or low-lying regions already suffering climate change fall-out like droughts or rising sea levels. Moreover their countries rarely have the resources to mitigate such damage. The NFGS report projects overall output losses of above 15 percent for much of Asia and Africa, rising to 20 percent in the Sahel countries.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR INDIVIDUAL LIVELIHOODS?
Climate change will drive up to 132 million more people into extreme poverty by 2030, a World Bank paper last year concluded. Factors included lost farming income; lower outdoor labour productivity; rising food prices; increased disease; and economic losses from extreme weather.
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST TO FIX IT?
Advocates of early action say the sooner you start the better. The widely used NiGEM macroeconomic forecast model even suggests an early start would offer small net gains for output thanks to the big investments needed in green infrastructure. The same model warns of output losses of up to 3 percent in last-minute transition scenarios.
WHO LOSES OUT IN A “NET ZERO” CARBON WORLD?
Primarily, anyone with fossil fuel exposure. A report by think tank Carbon Tracker last month estimated that over US$1 trillion of business-as-usual investment by the oil and gas sector would no longer be viable in a genuinely low-carbon world. Moreover the IMF has called for the end of all fossil fuel subsidies — which it calculates at US$5 trillion annually if defined to include undercharging for supply, environmental and health costs.
WHAT SHOULD CARBON REALLY COST?
Tax or permit schemes that try to price in the damage done by emissions create incentives to go green. But so far only a fifth of global carbon emissions are covered by such programs, pricing carbon on average at a mere US$3 a tonne. That’s well below the US$75/tonne the IMF says is needed to cap global warming at well below 2°C. The Reuters poll of economists recommended US$100/tonne.
WOULDN’T THAT LEAD TO INFLATION?
Anything which factors in the polluting cost of fossil fuels is likely to lead to price rises in some sectors — aviation for example. That could in turn lead to what central banks define as inflation — broad-based and durable price rises across the whole economy. Yet history shows this hasn’t necessarily been the case: carbon taxes introduced in Canada and Europe pushed overall prices lower because they cut into household income and hence consumer demand, a recent study showed. It is also true that doing nothing could lead to inflation: a European Central Bank paper last year warned of food and commodity price rises from extreme weather events and the land shortages being caused by desertification and rising sea levels.
ARE GREEN ADVANCES REALLY DECOUPLING EMISSIONS FROM ECONOMIC GROWTH?
Genuine sustainable growth implies that economic activity can grow as needed without adding yet more emissions. This is the holy grail of “absolute decoupling.” But so far, any decoupling has either been largely relative — in the sense of merely achieving higher rates of economic growth than gains in emissions — or achieved by shifting dirty production from one national territory to another. And that is why, for now, global emissions are still rising.
WHO BEARS THE BRUNT OF TRANSITION?
The idea of “Just Transition” has been espoused by bodies such as the European Union to acknowledge that the transition to net zero should happen in a fair way — for example by ensuring low-income groups are not made worse-off. At a global scale, the rich countries which since their industrial revolutions have generated the bulk of emissions have promised to help developing countries transition via US$100 billion of annual transfers — a promise so far not fulfilled.
COULD THIS SPARK A FINANCIAL CRISIS?
The global financial system needs to be insulated against both the physical risks of climate change itself and the upheavals likely to happen during a transition to net zero. Central banks and national treasuries are calling on banks and other financial players to come clean about the exposure of their books to such risks. The ECB and other regulators have made it clear there is a long way to go on this.
The depressing numbers continue to pile up, like casualty lists after a lost battle. This week, after the government announced the 19th straight month of population decline, the Ministry of the Interior said that Taiwan is expected to lose 6.67 million workers in two waves of retirement over the next 15 years. According to the Ministry of Labor (MOL), Taiwan has a workforce of 11.6 million (as of July). The over-15 population was 20.244 million last year. EARLY RETIREMENT Early retirement is going to make these waves a tsunami. According to the Directorate General of Budget Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS), the
Last week the story of the giant illegal crater dug in Kaohsiung’s Meinong District (美濃) emerged into the public consciousness. The site was used for sand and gravel extraction, and then filled with construction waste. Locals referred to it sardonically as the “Meinong Grand Canyon,” according to media reports, because it was 2 hectares in length and 10 meters deep. The land involved included both state-owned and local farm land. Local media said that the site had generated NT$300 million in profits, against fines of a few million and the loss of some excavators. OFFICIAL CORRUPTION? The site had been seized
Next week, candidates will officially register to run for chair of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). By the end of Friday, we will know who has registered for the Oct. 18 election. The number of declared candidates has been fluctuating daily. Some candidates registering may be disqualified, so the final list may be in flux for weeks. The list of likely candidates ranges from deep blue to deeper blue to deepest blue, bordering on red (pro-Chinese Communist Party, CCP). Unless current Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) can be convinced to run for re-election, the party looks likely to shift towards more hardline
Sept. 15 to Sept. 21 A Bhutanese princess caught at Taoyuan Airport with 22 rhino horns — worth about NT$31 million today — might have been just another curious front-page story. But the Sept. 17, 1993 incident came at a sensitive moment. Taiwan, dubbed “Die-wan” by the British conservationist group Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), was under international fire for being a major hub for rhino horn. Just 10 days earlier, US secretary of the interior Bruce Babbitt had recommended sanctions against Taiwan for its “failure to end its participation in rhinoceros horn trade.” Even though Taiwan had restricted imports since 1985 and enacted