If the global financial meltdown has taught us nothing else, it has at least demonstrated that when action is seen to be vital, even the lethargic big-name brands like the USA and UK can make things happen quickly. 'Bushwhacked' George and 'Brownie Points' Gordon have shown it can be done when there's political will. So: while 2007 was the year many governments began to take seriously the notion that something needed to be done about climate change (and 2008 was the year of gathering momentum), the climate crisis clearly has not yet garnered the sense of urgency attributed to its financial cousin.
There are still people who believe that one year is not enough to get from this week's Poznan conference to next December's Copenhagen conference. The Climate Network wrote in Eco on Friday:
Delegates may have heard the recent speculation that getting a strong climate deal in Copenhagen is not possible. Excuses include: the US won’t be ready with cap and trade legislation before then, because the 2009 work program is too ambitious and because the horoscopes in this weekends paper are rumoured to say “Jupiter crossing Saturn makes preventing dangerous climate change a bit difficult in 2009”.
The pessimists may be right, but we can at least hope that Barack Obama really does see the benefit of a strategy that addresses the finance / environment / energy triumvirate in one fell swoop. He's at least in with a chance at getting his new New Deal in place quickly, but it's down to the political battles that need to be won.
I also find it interesting that while economists debate whether it makes 'financial sense' to fight climate change, the financial crisis has instantly wiped out far more equity than the cost attributed to climate change strategies. Sir Nicholas Stern pegged the cost of fighting climate change at 1% of global GDP, and Australian leader Kevin Rudd last month put the cost of the current financial crisis at 3% of global GDP. On top of that, the financial crisis has spurred governments to spend several trillions of dollars on panic bailouts, with zero preplanning and minimal consultation. So much for fiscal discipline.
But it's not just about headline financial indicators.
The pre-Bali agreement that the developed world should facilitate technology transfer to developing countries is still being hammered out in UN negotiations, and the final agreement on this may be key to how poorer countries manage adaptation to climate change. Again from Eco:
The Copenhagen agreement should contain an overall Technology Development Objective that serves the ultimate objective of the Convention, with a goal of achieving true global cooperation on technology, and a focus on increasing overall levels of innovation and access, not just narrow technology transfer. A first step would be to provide financial and technical support to developing countries in order to strengthen their innovative and absorptive capacity to successfully use and adapt new technologies... It needs to be recognized that where intellectual property rights issues are a barrier to technology access, a clear framework should be established that balances the need to protect the rights of innovators with the urgent need to share technology fairly in order to solve the climate problem.
In developing countries in Africa and elsewhere, poverty is what makes the populace more vulnerable to climate change. It's also what gives countries like Japan the arrogance to dismiss developing countries for treating the first world as an ATM. Dependence on handouts is not to be encouraged, but if the US can consider rescuing the automotive behemoths in Detroit from their own foolishness, the objections to begging have grown a little thin. And let's not forget that the developed world has gotten where it is by avoiding true environmental costs, and we are now paying an overdue account. Less charitable observers might call this theft, plain and simple.
In coming years we will see growth in mechanisms to monitor resource consumption and emissions, and smart networks to improve efficiencies. Not just in smart electric grids, where companies like IBM are operating, but also in roads, pipelines and just about any type of network. What we need to go along with the new generation of infrastructure - to address adaptation and poverty issues - is a stronger emphasis on targets that address broader sustainability concerns. There are already noises being made suggesting that the next generation of green building rating systems should move in this direction, but considerable work needs to be done to ensure that the idea is applied in a wide range of sectors.
Comments