Comments 1

The Right Time for Climate Action

Apr 25, 2016 Simon Upton

There is never likely to be a perfect moment for introducing new climate policies, but long-term problems require policies that send long-term signals. That is why now is always as good a time as any to take action.

PARIS – During most of the roughly three decades since climate change became a global concern, governments optimistically assumed that a green transition would happen naturally over time, as rising fossil-fuel prices nudged consumers toward low-carbon alternatives. The impediment, it was believed, was on the production side, as gushing returns on oilfield investments spurred ever more ambitious exploration.

Today, the tables have turned. With oil prices languishing around $40 a barrel, fossil-fuel companies do not need governments to tell them to stop investing. The challenge has moved to the consumer side of the equation. With fuel prices so low, what can be done to change consumption patterns?

To be sure, there are some signs that cheaper energy could generate enough growth to drive oil prices back up. But nobody predicts a rebound strong enough to prompt the radical transformation that will be required if countries are to meet their emissions-reduction goals.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 2 in all 2 Comments on this article

Steve Hurst Apr 25, 2016

Simon, do you consider that emerging economies - many of whom that at this stage do not even have effective drinking water and sanitation infrastructure - are going to be able to deal promptly with the transformation needed to tackle climate change. A problem alongside dramatic population growth which will double some populations in a matter of decades. The developed economies are having problems with the need for climate change reorientation, an example is the problems Germany is having with its development of windpower, let alone the emerging ones. Addressing climate change has to be technology based and that technology by and large is not held by emerging economies
- Simon Upton May 13, 2016
  
  @Steve, The type and scale of actions required to implement the COP21 Paris Agreement differ across developed and developing countries, but it is clear that all major economies will have to mobilise to meet the Paris Agreement’s goals.
  As you rightly recognise, the transition implies fundamental changes that will be challenging for even the most developed economies. The Paris Agreement recognises that developing countries require tailored support. Much of the detail is still to be worked out, but its “enhanced transparency framework” is intended to help track progress on financial, technology and capacity building support for developing countries, as well as on mitigation and adaptation action. Developed countries extend their current commitment to mobilise US$100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020 through to 2025, with a new collective quantified goal is to be set before 2025. The Agreement establishes a “technology framework” to help promote and facilitate enhanced action on technology development and transfer, with a focus on RD&D in addition to the development and enhancement of endogenous capacities and technologies. It establishes a Paris Committee on Capacity-building and envisages a work plan to 2020 to address gaps and needs.
  The fact that many developing countries are still in the process of building infrastructure, as you point out, presents an opportunity. While developing economies will inevitably increase their emissions, there is no iron-clad rule that requires development in the 21st century to be as fossil-intensive as the last. Viable alternatives are already commercially available and the hidden costs of our fossil-economies are becoming more and more apparent. That’s where sound policy comes into play. There is no reason that coal-fired power should continue to be the default power option for expanding energy access, for example. Unabated coal-fired plants should only be built if other options are not competitive after accounting for the full environmental, health and financial costs of coal – a test that is likely to be increasingly challenging to meet given the rapidly decline in the cost of clean technologies.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.