• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Facing Down Armageddon: Our Environment at aCrossroads
World Policy Journal,Summer, 2009byMaurice Strong  BEIJING -- The modern era has seen the creation of enormous wealth and the broadadvance of human development. Put simply, the majority of the world's people are nowenjoying unprecedented levels of prosperity and opportunity. But the unexpected speed andseverity of the global financial crisis and collapse of some of the most powerful financialinstitutions have also precipitated a steep decline of the world economy-making this one of the worst of times. It has shaken the foundations of our civilization, the wealthiest ever, andgiven the lie to its promise of even greater wealth ahead.Still, the accelerating damage to the Earth's natural capital will have even more devastatingconsequences for the human future than the current financial and economic crises. Theeconomic and human costs of climate change to the global economy already amount to anestimated $125 billion per year and the loss of 300,000 lives, according to a recent study bythe Global Humanitarian Forum headed by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. And,as noted in a recent report by the World Resources Institute, we face the increasedextinction of species, the waning of fish stocks, the ominous decline in the quality andavailability of water for human consumption, the continued degradation of forests andbiological resources, the loss of productive soil, worsening air pollution, and a severelycontaminated food chain--all threatening the very nature and sustainability of life on Earth.Together, they represent the single greatest threat to human security. Some, however, stillcontend we can only deal with the risks of climate change and repair damage fromenvironmental degradation after we fix the global economy. This is the height of folly.Waiting would only intensify the imminent threats to our civilization.Climate change is rooted in the same basic condition that has produced the global financialand economic crises--the unsustainable nature of our existing economic system. The rapidand unexpected meltdown across the planet demonstrates dramatically the vulnerability of asystem that cannot continue on the pathway that led to its collapse. This dictates that wemust manage these crises of multiple origins on a systemic, integrated basis, rather than asseparate and often competing issues. Only thus can we transform crisis into opportunity,and rebuild our civilization in a manner that will ensure the survival and sustainability of lifeon our planet. The United Nations has played a leading role in the development of awareness of environmental degradation and the international response to it. The principlesagreed to at the Stockholm Conference in 1972, and at the Earth Summit in 1992, haveproduced international agreements the United Nations has negotiated and serviced, whichhave laid the foundations of today's global environmental initiatives.
The Global Effort
When the Stockholm Conference cited the risks of climate change, they were seen only asdistant problems. But as environmental research began better to understand and quantifythe accelerating risks of global warming, the continuing efforts of the United Nations playeda significant role in bringing climate change to the top of the global agenda. The Conventionon Climate Change that emerged from the Earth Summit in 1992 was followed by the 1997Kyoto Protocol, which set targets for more developed countries to reduce their emissions.
 
Leading scientists, operating through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) established by the United Nations and under the leadership of the eminent Dr. R. K.Pachauri, as well as the persuasive influence of former U.S. Vice President Al Gore,supported this work. All these efforts have built a foundation for much more concertedaction on the part Of governments and much greater public awareness and support.Thankfully, the United States under the Obama administration is now coming into line withthe global consensus, after the Bush administration repudiated Kyoto and refused to accepttargets for reduction of its emissions.Despite these measures, however, greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase,and the scientific evidence of the consequences of accelerating risks are now beyond doubt.This underscores the immense importance of the negotiations now underway in preparationfor December's UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, which is designed to extendand amend the Kyoto Protocol beyond its expiration in 2012. It is imperative thatCopenhagen produce a new and far more rigorous agreement--a commitment by allcountries to ensure reduction of global emissions to levels which can promise climatesecurity.This is one of the most important and difficult international agreements ever attempted.Initial negotiations demonstrate the deep differences which divide the signatories,particularly over emissions reduction targets that the more industrialized countries hadaccepted under the Kyoto Protocol. (Developing countries, though parties to the Protocol,were not required to accept targets).Since Kyoto, the situation has changed more rapidly than expected, driven by the highlevels of economic growth in leading developing countries, notably China and India. Thesecountries are now the main source of increases in global emissions and will be under heavypressure to accept specific targets. Yet they are unlikely to accept commitments requiringdisproportionate reductions in their emissions (which would hobble their economies),without corresponding actions by more developed countries.China, India, and other emerging nations will insist on greater reductions by the West,which has been primarily responsible for the accumulated emissions that have brought theworld's climate to today's dangerous threshold. This, they contend, must be accompaniedby commitments to provide financing and make available necessary technologies andexpertise that would enable developing nations to reduce their emissions without impairingtheir continuing economic growth.Developing countries could possibly agree to major changes which include commitments tolimiting the rate of growth of emissions provided more developed countries pledge majorreductions on their part. The actual extent of these commitments and the time period overwhich reductions will be required can be expected to give rise to intense and divisivenegotiations which may not be completed in Copenhagen.[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]Of fundamental importance is agreement on the level at which greenhouse gasconcentration in the atmosphere must be capped. The positions of the main parties stilldiffer a great deal. They range from a planet-wide level of 450 parts per million (PPM) towell below 350 PPM. The IPCC reports that the global atmospheric concentration of carbondioxide has reached 379 PPM in 2005, exceeding by far the natural range of the last 650
 
years (180-300 PPM). The IPCC states that the warming trend over the last 50 years isnearly twice that of the previous century. Thus we are already at or near the thresholdlevels of risk. This means that the more developed countries must collectively reduce theiremissions by more than 85 percent from 1990 levels by 2050, clearly a daunting challenge.The path to achieve the long-term goal of global emissions reductions would require thatemissions peak by 2020, at the latest, and decrease thereafter. More developed countries,as a group, would need to reduce their emissions by at least 45 percent from 1990 levelsand up to 95 percent by 2050.The optimistic scenario would include an agreement on a climate security program, or, atleast the main elements thereof, combined with establishment of a "climate security fund"to finance implementation of the program. More developed countries would commitresources to this fund on a formula proportional to their emissions and their gross domesticproduct (GDP). The scale of such a fund--initially on the order of at least $1 trillion--is farbeyond anything that more developed countries are contemplating and will likely be viewedas unrealistic, particularly in light of the global financial and economic crisis. Still, this pricetag is less than the cost to the United States of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.Such a level of funding, particularly under current circumstances, will require new andinnovative means. These could include fees for the use of the global commons (the oceans,the atmosphere, and outer space that are not under national jurisdiction), taxes on fossilfuels and other sources of emissions, and penalties for those who fall behind in meetingtargets. After all, most countries have long accepted high taxes on substances and practicesthey consider harmful such as alcohol and smoking.Any climate security program, however, will require that governments transform theirapproach to financing their response to climate change--according it the overriding prioritythey have given to other and, in the long run, lesser threats to their security. Simply, it istime for national considerations to be put aside. The catastrophic impact of growing carbonemissions will affect the entire globe, no matter where the emissions originate. As such,large-scale assistance to developing countries (which can reduce emissions at a lower costthan more developed countries) offers the most cost-effective investment in climatesecurity. Their participation in such a global program is essential to its success.The investments we make to achieve climate security will generate new opportunities bothfor businesses and individuals that will make major contributions to the establishment of thenew economy. Thus, both in their origins and solutions, the environmental and economiccrises are inextricably linked.China and the United States combined produce some 40 percent of global greenhouse gasemissions. While all countries must cooperate in meeting the climate change challenge, theUnited States and China will be particularly important, indeed decisive. Fortunately, theCopenhagen meeting comes at a time when a new administration in Washington appearscommitted to high-priority action on climate change. With the current state of the economy,however, it may be difficult to obtain congressional approval for all the measures theObama administration favors. Yet there is no other option--the United States must take thelead in dealing with this issue.
Whither China?
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...