* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.
By Sam Nota
If not now, when will we find a way to really address climate change?
Everyone from the average consumer to the enlightened environmentalist is asking this question. Governments around the globe have set lofty environmental goals, but have we reached a point of administrative stagnation when it comes to global climate change?
Twenty-six of the world’s leading environmental economists believe that since governments have done so little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it’s time to start to think outside the box to attack climate change – perhaps by investing in research and development of large-scale geo-engineering projects, and the governance needed to use them.
In their new book “Climate Change and Common Sense”, published by Oxford University Press, Alistair Ulph and Robert Hahn of the University of Manchester’s Sustainable Consumption Institute (SCI) argue it’s time for policy makers to rethink their approach to climate change. This book was built around a 2010 University of Manchester conference honouring Nobel Prize winning economist Tom Schelling.
There are obvious obstacles in the current path to trying to stabilize the climate, the authors argue, not least the need for so many countries to work together.
“Emissions from one country may be a small part of the global emissions that drive climate change, which means there is an incentive for such countries not to act to cut emissions unless others do so,” said Ulph, who directs the Sustain Consumption Institute. In particular, leaders of nations that produce small amounts of emissions often feel that can’t rationalise the costs of lowering their already negligible emissions when other industrialised nations are emitting much more.
GAME THEORY
Game theory, which analyzes the reasoning and consequences of social decisions, describes this scenario as the “Prisoner’s Dilemma.” Game theorists, including Schelling, are pessimistic about international cooperation and feel that, in the current economic model, incentives to cooperate are simply nonexistent.
“The impact of global warming and the costs of reducing emissions vary across regions and time periods, so a divergence of interests pits country against country and generation against generation,” Ulph said.
Research and development into CO2 reduction techniques is essential, as achieving climate stabilisation will require a “technical revolution” in energy technologies, the authors argue. But “policies should also ensure innovative efforts are socially productive,” they said.
Improving research and development into ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere is an exercise in forethought, as “these technologies may not be deployed for decades,” Ulph said.
One big question is at what scale the work should be carried out. He thinks one option could be a blend of small-scale and larger-scale experiments by major nations that are not too expensive but that would offer insights into what technologies might work and what government structures could support them.
There are reasons to act, on geo-engineering and on other means of curbing climate change. Consumers, firms, and governments, rich and poor, all will suffer the costs of failing to stem climate degradation, though the poorest will suffer the most and need the most help.
CARBON TAXES OR CAPS
Putting in place taxes or caps on greenhouse gas emissions may be one way to address those problems, and help provide funds to support the world’s poorest as they deal with climate change.
“Putting a price on greenhouse emissions by taxing them or using emissions caps would be desirable because consumers, firms, and governments would be held financially and socially responsible for their behaviour,” the authors say.
Current attempts at global climate change governance are lacklustre, they say.
“The Kyoto Protocol (which mandates emissions cuts among developed nations who have signed on to it) was too ambitious,” Ulph said. “Smaller agreements are needed,” along the lines of the Montreal Protocol, which successfully curbed the use of ozone-depleting gases, he said.
Another problem is lack of enforcement of the Kyoto Protocol, they said, noting that “anyone can write statements when there’s no enforcement mechanism.”
We are at a crucial point in history, the authors argue, and it will take courage to make decisions for the long run on issues like climate change. But it is imperative that greenhouse gas emissions are better regulated, because if not, “then the damage could be catastrophic,” they say.
A new innovative strategy must be researched and pursued in order for us to live within our means. If not now, when?
Sam Nota is an intern at AlertNet Climate.
