Readers » USA

« back to Conference reader: USA

Climate Change: Challenge, Opportunity and Justice
Chandrashekhar Dasgupta

The threat of climate change cannot be met without a truly revolutionary transformation of the energy sector. Ever since the 18th century, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, human beings have been burning increasing quantities of hydrocarbon fuels, particularly coal and petroleum. The progressive accumulation in the atmosphere of the carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the use of these fuels is the main cause of global warming. Thus, tackling climate change requires a massive shift of tectonic proportions from hydrocarbons to renewable energy (solar, wind, tidal, etc) and nuclear energy. Currently available technologies permit only limited applications of renewable energy. Major technological breakthroughs are needed for the transformational shift to renewable energy that is now imperative.

Energy security considerations powerfully reinforce the case for a shift from oil to renewable energy. Unlike coal, global petroleum reserves are heavily concentrated in politically unstable, volatile or conflict-prone countries. Oil prices have been subject to sharp fluctuations. Most industrialised countries tend to be net importers of oil. Energy security calls for reduced dependence on a commodity whose price and assured availability is subject to significant uncertainty.

In fact, long before climate change appeared on the international agenda, energy security concerns led the United States to perceive the importance of renewable energy. "Oil dependence is a problem we can solve. We have the political consensus and the technological opportunity. This is a moment to seize", declared President Nixon in January 1974, after the embargo imposed by the Arab states in the previous year drove up oil prices from three to eleven dollars per barrel. To perceive the national interest is one thing; to act upon it is another. For the past quarter century, despite periodic reaffirmations, the United States has failed to translate this vision of energy security into reality. Vested interests in the oil industry have triumphed over the declared national interest of the United States.  In recent years, concerns about climate change have added to existing anxieties about energy security and now is the time for a massive shift to renewable energy.

At the global level, this shift will touch on questions of equity and justice, which lie at the heart of every environmental issue. The basic environmental principle is that the costs of remedial actions should be borne by those responsible for causing the damage. The "polluter pays" principle, in one form or another, applies both to domestic and international environmental protection regimes. Thus, the universally accepted UN Framework Convention on Climate Change rests on the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities". The industrialised countries account for less than one- fifth of the global population but are responsible for the major part of accumulated greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Hence, while all countries have certain common commitments under the convention, additional commitments related to emission reductions and provision of financial resources are laid down for developed countries alone, reflecting their differentiated responsibilities. The convention provides the framework for international governance in the climate change area. It is interesting to note that purely economic considerations also call for similar differentiation between the respective roles of industrialised and developing countries. Climate change poses asymmetrical challenges for developed and developing countries. These asymmetries require differentiated responses from developed and developing countries.

A great opportunity for advanced economies
The economic opportunities presented by the technological research and breakthroughs required to make renewable energy more affordable and accessible will be available mostly to advanced industrialised countries. For example, solar energy, in particular, has immense potential but storage and transmission costs are excessively high and there would be immense economic opportunities should a breakthrough in solar technology occur.  The new technologies that are needed will emerge mainly from the developed countries that possess the requisite knowledge, skills and capital resources. The United States, European Union and Japan are likely to be the major competitors in the new technological race and the companies that succeed will reap enormous rewards. Developing countries such as Brazil, China, India and South Africa may also make a contribution but the lion's share of the market for emerging renewable energy technologies will certainly be captured by advanced industrialised countries.

Climate change thus opens up vast economic opportunities to developed countries. The challenge for these countries is to stimulate technology development through a system of incentives and disincentives. In order to provide an adequate impetus for major breakthroughs in low-carbon technologies, developed countries need to commit themselves to implementing deep reductions in their carbon emissions. The transformational shift to renewable energy will not be possible in the absence of this impetus. The short-term costs of implementing emission reduction commitments should be viewed as investments that will yield rich dividends in the medium or long-term. A leading economic power that fails to make this investment will be left behind in the race to develop new climate friendly technologies and, as a result, will forfeit its leadership position. If climate change mitigation imposes significant short-term costs for developed countries, it also offers corresponding opportunities for long-term gains.

Building capacity in the developing world
The prospects for developing countries are very different. These countries will be the major victims of climate change because they lack any significant capacity to cope with its impacts. The world's poor will suffer the most because they do not possess the financial, technological and human resources required to adapt to climate change. Because of their flimsy infrastructure, they are unable to cope even with relatively modest seasonal variations, leave alone the potentially devastating effects of global warming. Every year, a billion Indians pray for a good monsoon. Yet, when their prayers are answered, many thousands are rendered homeless as strong winds blow away thatched roofs and floods breach embankments, inundating low-lying villages. Resources are lacking for construction of sturdy infrastructure capable of withstanding the extreme weather events that are among the expected results of climate change. Traditional farmers in developing countries are highly vulnerable to variations in temperature and rainfall patterns. Adaptation requires an ability to shift to drought resistant crops or seed varieties, drip irrigation and other water conservation measures, improved watershed management, etc. Traditional farmers have neither the financial resources nor the technical skills needed to adopt these measures.

For developing countries, top priority must be accorded to building up adaptive or coping capacity. In order to achieve this, they must overcome the barriers posed by lack of financial, technological and human resources. In other words, rapid and sustained economic and social development and poverty eradication must be an essential part of the climate change policy of a developing country. In the absence of rapid development, future generations in poorer countries will remain exposed to the devastating impacts of climate change, without any meaningful coping capacity. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change rightly recognises that "economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties".

Of course, developing countries must also contribute to the global mitigation effort. They should implement measures to moderate their greenhouse gas emissions wherever this is possible without diverting resources from overriding development priorities. There is ample scope for initiatives that simultaneously promote development and climate change goals. Above all, cost-effective energy efficiency and energy conservation measures must be systematically identified and implemented for achieving both development and climate change objectives. There are vast untapped possibilities for these measures in sectors such as power generation and transmission, industry, transportation, and buildings. Social development objectives related to public health and ambient air quality may likewise call for measures that also have co-benefits in terms of climate change mitigation. For example, the decision to replace diesel by compressed natural gas in the public transportation systems of some major Indian cities was primarily intended as a measure to reduce air pollution but it also proved advantageous in terms of moderating carbon emissions. In many developing countries, energy security requirements for sustained development are driving investments in renewable energy. This appears to explain the importance accorded to renewable energy by countries such as India and China. However, it would be counterproductive for developing countries to implement mitigation measures involving substantial incremental costs since this would slow down development and impair adaptive capacity. The climate change convention requires developing countries to implement these measures only where the incremental costs are covered by affluent developed countries.

A just global response
Climate change and energy security considerations require a massive shift from oil to renewable and nuclear energy. Since the new technologies will emerge mainly in the industrialised countries, the economic interests of these countries will be served by deep emission reduction commitments, which will provide the incentives for developing new technologies. Thus, independently of any ethical consideration, purely economic calculations call for differentiated responses to climate change on the part of the industrialised and the developing countries. The long-term economic interests of advanced industrialised countries are sufficient to justify ambitious commitments to achieve deep cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions. For developing countries, mitigation actions are appropriate only where these do not involve significant incremental costs - unless these costs are met by affluent developed countries under arrangements laid down in the convention. Poorer countries must accord topmost priority to building up their adaptive capacity through rapid and sustained development.

Though economics and ethics point to broadly similar conclusions, a global response to climate change based solely on economic calculations will fail to meet the test of adequacy. A comprehensive global response must address more fully the adaptation concerns of the most vulnerable poorer countries - in particular, the hundreds of millions living in low-lying coastal regions or islands who face an existential threat from climate change. A comprehensive approach will also require financial transfers from more affluent industrialised countries to meet the incremental costs of mitigation actions in developing countries.

International regulations and global governance structures must recognise the fact that the atmosphere is a common resource of humankind to be shared on an equitable basis. Developing countries will reject any proposal that restricts their share of the atmospheric resource to a level below that of industrialise countries. In a world where hydrocarbon fuels are still the main sources of energy, there is a broad (though not exact) correlation between per capita levels of carbon emissions, energy consumption, and income. Developed countries have much higher per capita emissions, per capita energy consumption and, of course, per capita incomes compared to developing countries. Poorer countries cannot be expected to accept any global climate change regime that would require them to indefinitely restrict their per capita emissions (and, therefore, energy consumption levels) below that of industrialised countries. Developed countries should sharply reduce their per capita emissions. Per capita emissions of developing countries are currently very low and will inevitably increase as a result of economic growth. These countries should take cost-effective energy efficiency and conservation measures to moderate their rising emissions to the extent possible. Per capita emissions of all countries, as well as their per capita utilisation of the global atmospheric resource, should converge over a period of time.

Every human being has an equal right to the global atmospheric resource and developing countries will not accept a denial of this right.  A global climate change regime must be based on the principle of equity and will only meet the test of adequacy if it rests on environmental justice.

Chandrashekhar Dasgupta is distinguished fellow at The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi