The final topic at COP26 in Glasgow — to the extent that any discussion on decarbonisation can be final — is how we “work together to deliver”.
This could, and does, mean many things.
But the framing by conference organisers is pretty instructive. As they put it, we need to “finalise the ‘Paris rulebook’”, which means we must:
- Find a solution on carbon markets by creating a robust system of carbon credits that supports the move to net zero
- Resolve the issues of transparency by putting in place a universal system that encourages all countries to keep to their commitments
- Broker an agreement that drives ambition from governments over the coming years to keep 1.5 degrees alive.
For the cynics who think events like COP26 are a vacuous talkfest, these criteria provide a concrete way to measure success. Taken together the three components would mean a market-based solution to internalise the externalities caused by emissions, in a way that provides appropriate incentives for all countries to drive emissions reductions, and do so in a way that is not too late to stop irreversible warming of the planet.
Whether or not the world community can come together, let alone work together, remains to be seen. A lot will rest on what the United States and China do. The world’s indispensable superpower and its emerging rival will need to find a way to hold each other to account while maintaining stewardship of the planet.
It won’t be easy. It will no doubt require deft diplomacy. But since I am an economist not a diplomat, it would be remiss of me not to point out that it’s the economics of climate that are at the core of the world coming together.
Good intentions aren’t enough
If China can free-ride on other countries reducing emissions while it uses cheap but dirty energy, it will. And let’s not romanticise the US, either. The Biden administration has good intentions, and Biden has assembled a brilliant cabinet. But what the administration can get done is limited — to a very real degree — by folks like Democratic Senator Joe Manchin. Manchin is a shrewd negotiator and a shill for (sorry “representative of”) West Virginian mining interests. He’s already nuked Biden’s signature clean energy plan.
Rather than rely on good intentions we should instead hope for good old-fashioned competition. The US and China are locked in a race to become the preeminent green-energy superpower. This is the race that America needs to win. It is dominance in green energy that makes dominance in everything else possible.
Picture a US with abundant clean energy. That would largely resolve its fiscal and budgetary woes, much of its internal politics (both within the Democratic Party and between Democrats and Republicans), and lay the groundwork for a generation of technological innovation. That fountain of innovation is in no small part why the US won the Cold War with the former Soviet Union.
Winning the green-energy race would, if one can imagine it, be an even bigger deal for China. There’s the obvious issue of prestige and economic power. But there’s a political dimension too. We don’t see it reported much here, but the discontent over air and water pollution in China is palpable. Hundreds of millions of people who have become middle class over the past three decades are not thrilled that their kids can’t safely go out much of the time, on most days, in major cities like Beijing. It’s just not sustainable for the Chinese Communist Party not to clean up its environmental act — and sooner rather than later. But it can’t do so by cutting off economic development. Green energy is the only way to cut that Gordian knot.
Working together at home
There’s some cooperation a little closer to home that is less consequential than a generational race between China and the US — but important nonetheless. And that is ending the climate wars in Australia.
I’ve read a lot about News Corp’s version of the “switch in time that saved nine”, apparently called “mission zero”. So far it has been a lot more “zero” than “mission”. And I’m not the only one to notice not everyone in the News Corp stable is on board. Chris Kenny got one thing right amid a barrage of Flintstonian observations this weekend. Or at least some subeditor did, giving his column the title “Climate policy is tearing us apart”.
I’d put it slightly differently. Climate politics has been tearing us apart as a nation since Kevin Rudd became prime minister. We’ve had more than a decade of crappy policies, political instability, and politicians — aided and abetted by certain members of the fourth estate — using climate change to divide us, to pit one group of Australians against another.
That’s got to stop, and it’s got to stop now. If Scott Morrison gets a deal to embrace net zero by 2050, plus meaningful increases in 2030 targets — whatever pile of pork Barnaby Joyce and Bridget McKenzie manage to extract — then we should all support it. The government’s success on climate is our success on climate. The Greens and Labor should get on board. And the conservative commentariat should learn how to lose gracefully.
“If Scott Morrison gets a deal to embrace net zero by 2050, plus meaningful increases in 2030 targets — whatever pile of pork Barnaby Joyce and Bridget McKenzie manage to extract — then we should all support it”
No we shouldn’t.
Morrison will not legislate targets because he doesn’t have the numbers and would be subject to continuing demands for more pork..
We should give the LNP a resounding kick at the next election and consign them to at least a decade of opposition. Then the rest of us can get on with developing a climate policy without need of a pile of pork.
Chance of the world acting together? None and Buckley’s! Just look at our dismal lot (yes, you too labor). We’re already going to get to 2 degrees warming, at this point I’m not even sure we can stave off 3 degrees. Our grandkids will indeed inherit the whirlwind, just not the way our scriptures envisaged it… Do the A-holes in charge give a damn? Not a bit!
Interestingly, Scummo last week was reported to be big on Hosea so perhaps he could ponder verse 8 line 7 “…they that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind“.
Or tropical hurricane, cyclone or tornado – all are inevitable and coming further south each season.
Enjoy.
You’re right! Maybe it’s exactly as the scriptures foretold. No wonder Scomo and ilk don’t want to get in the way…
As usual, my intention here is not to be optimistic or pessimistic but realistic.
The sad fact of the matter, I think is, that the world is not going to come together to solve this climate crisis any more that it came together to solve the COVID crisis. Looking at this from a global perspective I see that there will be no real success here simply because the human race is too divided along cultural, ethnic, and nationalist lines. Even the National Party and the Liberal Party here in Australia cannot come to an agreement. (Do not worry about the ALP, they will just go whichever way the wind is blowing.)
Furthermore, the real underlying cause of the existential crises with climate and the environment in general, is human overpopulation. That is the ‘elephant in the room’. Overpopulation is a ‘no-go’ area simply because it upsets the religious, cultural and social proclivities of too many uneducated, ignorant and superstitious people.
And our NSW premier has now announced a SEVENTH child on the way…
I know beth I was just hearing this report on the evening news only a few minutes ago. Apparently Dominic Perrottet was one of about 12 children. It simply takes your breath away.
One hopes his siblings are not so irresponsible.
Perhaps he will copy his role model, the british MP Jacob Rees-Moggs – aka the Member for the 18thC – and name the burgeoning sprog Septus?
Disagree ‘real underlying cause of the existential crises with climate and the environment in general, is human overpopulation‘; climate is real but human overpopulation not same threat* i.e. simply an existential threat aka ‘great replacement’, unemployment, house prices etc. (focused upon the old ‘global south’ invading the first world).
However, fossil fuel/auto forces aka ZPG have presented this old eugenics based trope since the late ’70s, to avert attention from global warming due to fossil fuel carbon emissions, potential environment constraints and renewable energy sources.
It’s ‘too easy’ to promote lazy political PR or eugenics based tropes in ‘clubby’ Australian media vs. relying upon global peer reviewed research from which there is no correlation let alone causation between ‘population’ and environmental degradation.
Outside of Australian ‘demographers’ i.e. credible global research has shown declining fertility rates (now even faster), dependency ratios rising, China has probably peaked, with global peak mid century (not the UNPD’s unexplained/challenged high end of century forecasts), followed by precipitous decline (Bricker & Ibbitson) or more slowly and moderate which will also help the environment (science journalist Fred Pearce); but does not fit Australian media narratives promoting xenophobia, dog whistles and real estate market support.
You cannot be serious writing this nonsense – population doesn’t matter??
It is the alpha & omega of the mess we find on our plates.
If the evidence of population being the source of multiple problems is so apparent, where is the peer reviewed academic research evidence?
There isn’t any…. it’s simply negative agitprop, masquerading as science aka ‘limits to growth’ to split the ageing centre right through left vote, especially on environment and (Nats/think tanks) need to delay any action on fossil fuel carbon emissions etc……
In other words, outside of Australian right wing news media, Koch linked think tanks, conservative commentators/grifters and ‘Australia’s best demographer’ (according to Dick Smith and Bob Carr) the outlook is far more neutral and based on agreed science process for analysis.
OK, I get it – you just write the same drivel, from a prepared cheat sheet.
No thought involved.
Drew, we do not need articles from peer-reviewed journals to tell us that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning (rain, hail or shine).
Speaking of ‘peer-reviewed journals Drew, from which one did you find this gem?
“However, fossil fuel/auto forces aka ZPG have presented this old eugenics based trope since the late ’70s, to avert attention from global warming due to fossil fuel carbon emissions, potential environment constraints and renewable energy sources.”
Something published on Planet Zircon?
If you do not understand academic integrity and/or science that’s fine, but that precludes being informed but includes being misled; maybe good media presentation based on facts is better.
From the Washington Post at the time of ZPG supported by Rockefeller Bros. (Standard Oil/Exxon), Ford and Carnegie Foundations:
‘Anti-Immigration Campaign Begun – The Washington Post (1977/05/08)
May 8, 1977 — The Zero Population Growth foundation is launching a nationwide campaign to generate public support for sharp cuts on both legal and illegal immigration …’
To this day influence of both Paul ‘Population bomb’ Ehrlich and deceased collaborator white nationalist/admirer of white Oz policy John ‘passive eugenics’ Tanton:
‘Eugenics is trending. That’s a problem. – The Washington Post (2020/02/17)
Feb 17, 2020 — Biologist and Zero Population Growth (ZPG) founder Paul Ehrlich attempted to educate Americans about the importance of having smaller families … Beginning in the late 1960s, ZPG expanded its activism, arguing that overpopulation contributed to virtually all of the world’s modern ills: traffic, pollution, overcrowding and poverty, among others. …… ‘
Locally from Green Agenda:
‘Green Anti-Immigration Arguments Are A Cover For Right Wing Populism – Tony Goodfellow – 22nd February, 2019
‘..The environmental rhetoric of the population debate might be alluring to progressives. Who would argue against clean air and clean water? Who wouldn’t agree that the current paradigm of growth is unsustainable? The problem is that an analysis based solely in population is superficial, creating solutions that end up marrying with the worst parts of Australian politics – far-right populism….’
Drew, when people like you question my ‘academic integrity’ and my ‘understanding of science’, I simply shake my head in disbelief. I feel like I have been physically attacked by a 90-year old paraplegic wielding a damp lettuce leaf.
In reality Drew, your comments are deserving more of pity than condemnation. While I may not be an Einstein or a Bohr, I think that I have at least a basic background in the area of science. May I be so bold Drew,m as to inquire just what your background in science is? Did you perhaps read a Popular Science magazine 30 years ago?
Paul Ehrlich is to be thoroughly congratulated for sounding the alarm even as long ago as he did, on the dangers of overpopulation. Clearly though, in some respects, he was ‘casting pearls amongst swine’.
Your reference to Tony Goodfellows’ recent comments is nothing but yet another example of someone who attempts to denigrate a view with which he disagrees as “Right Wing Populism”.
Drew, I must tell you that if you think for a moment that I am going to shrivel up and skulk away simply because you imply that I am a “far-right populist”, then you very much have another thing coming. During my life, I have been described variously as a ‘fascist’, ‘xenophobe’. ‘Islamophobe’ (a label to which I will readily acknowledge is correct – I do fear that religion), a ‘hate speech’ writer. And they are only the labels that I can recall off the top of my head. It seems though, that thanks to you, I can now add “far-right populist” to the list. What a CV, I’ve got!! Can I also put you down as a referee?
Sorry Drew, I am just treating your post with all the seriousness it deserves.
“We’ve had more than a decade of crappy policies”
We did start the last decade with a carbon price that reduced emissions for 3 years thanks to the Green’s balance of power over Julia Gillard. Murdoch + Abbott ruined that progress and fraudster Taylor continues to peddle the false dichotomy of ‘technology not taxes’ knowing full well that it’s the latter that will drive the former. Bring back the carbon tax!
Credit where due – the Greens helped pass the carbon price in the Senate but in the Reps it was Windsor, Oakeshott & Wilkie who enabled it to reach the Other Place.
No honest observer could deny that the 2010-13 government was one of the best this country has seen this century and that was due to the number of Independents in the Reps.
More Independents means more accountability because they are generally known to their electors and thus responsible for the behaviour – unlike the podpeople bred in vats who make up the, currently, major parties.