The twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) and the eleventh session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) will take place from November 30 to December 11, 2015, in Paris, France. It is expected that countries will reach a global agreement on climate change in order to keep the global temperature below 2 C by the turn of the century in 2100. Will there be an agreement? - is still a million dollar question for us who are eagerly waiting to see a happy ending of this saga.
Climate change has, by now, become a familiar household term among many people in Bangladesh as well as in many countries of the world. Changes in temperature in different seasons, as well as changes in rainfall during monsoon months are now synonymous with climate change for many people around the world. Ahead of the meeting, global media are producing reports on consequences of climate change. According to a CNN report more than 11,000 forest fires erupted in Brazilian Amazon this year due to draught, about 47 per cent rise from last year. The report claimed that these are linked to global warming. New York Times reported the same in October of this year.
According to Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, "The Paris UN Climate Conference represents an historic opportunity to put the world on course to meet the climate change challenge. The world needs a new model of growth that is safe, durable and beneficial to all. COP21 seeks to deliver a clear pathway with short- and long-term milestones, and a system to help us measure and increase progress over time until we get the job done. The Paris Agreement is not only possible, it is necessary and urgent. We are counting on everyone's contribution".
In general, climate change phenomenon is linked to rising temperature of the earth's surface. This issue was first reported by scientists, mainly Physicists, in the 1980s. Since that time, many researchers developed climate models to understand the reasons behind it. By the end of the 80s, they identified a clear culprit. It was use of fossil fuel, which contributed to rise in the deposit of CO2 in the upper atmosphere causing a 'glass-like shell' around the earth. This acts as a shield and traps the radiated temperature from going out. Gradually it causes a rise in temperature. This result in changes in precipitation, melts the ices in the glaciers, and hence causes sea level rise, variation in global weather patterns and changes in the frequencies of extreme weather events. According to many scientists, it will cause flooding, prolonged inundation of flood plains, intrusion of saline water in coastal lands, and so on. It will disrupt the economic life of people and hence will shock the economy.
Scientists have unambiguously recommended reduction of CO2 or GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions before the situation gets out of hand and have suggested ensuring that the global temperature does not go above 2 C from its current historical level by 2100.
Thus far, this is pure climate science. The underlying question is: what can economists do in this global debate?
The process of reducing emissions is known as mitigation - implying taking actions to reduce emission of CO2 or other GHG emissions. This essentially means two things: a) reducing economic activities so that we use less energy or b) switching to cleaner energy to produce goods and services.
There is another process which is called adaptation. It is strongly advocated by activists who work with the poor people throughout the world in order to reduce poverty. They realise that it is the poor people who are mostly dependent on nature or who cannot take sufficient preventive measures to control the environment surrounding them. So the poor are affected by any abrupt changes in the climate. They become victims of a perpetual cycle of poverty. They, therefore, need additional support. This is known as adaptation.
To me, adaptation is for the present, whereas mitigation is for the future. The world cannot ignore either of them.
Through adaptation we insulate people against natural calamities and through mitigation we protect humanity against probable catastrophic consequences. The journal Nature Climate Change has recently reported that if we continue emitting GHGs the way we are doing now, day time temperature in the Gulf region will rise between 74 C and 77 C by 2100. For us humans, rise of temperature beyond 52 C will be physically unbearable.
Given this, what is there for us to bargain in the COP21? Fund for adaptation or towards mitigation or both? The answer is clearly: 'both'. Having said this, let us examine what mitigation entails. In layman's term, mitigation means reducing emission - this means becoming energy-efficient. Who are more inefficient in energy use at present? Developed nations or developing nations? Given the fact that many developed nations are already more energy-efficient, it means a de facto commitment from them to reduce output or GDP (gross domestic product). Is it politically feasible? I believe not. On the other hand, reducing production or changing the composition of production in developed nations, does not mean demand for such goods will be gone. In the world of free trade it actually means that these goods will then be produced in countries who did not commit to reduce emissions. Here is the choice dilemma and here economics has a crucial role to play in defining the optimal choices. Economists are trained to think between the lines to understand choices. Research should be done to find out how we can ensure a total reduction of GHG emission in a given global trading regime, the pace of economic development in developing countries, and the targets in SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals).
Dr. A.K. Enamul Haque is Professor of Economics at the United International University.
© 2024 - All Rights with The Financial Express
