Global warming policy is failing the world
Les Coleman finds the UN-led framework to tackle global warming has failed dismally, and calls for a practical, devolved approach.
The next climate change Conference will be held in Dubai, UAE in December this year. Delegates will avoid two important questions. First, why are we here? The meeting involves signatories to the United Nations climate change convention, whose goal is to control atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. Policy’s principal objective is to reduce fossil fuel consumption, but UAE is the world’s eighth largest producer of oil and ranks fourth in nations’ per capita CO2 emissions. It promotes the antithesis of good climate policy, and the meeting panders to a pariah state.
The second question is why - after decades of hand wringing and solemn promises - the world remains addicted to carbon based fuels. During 2000-2021, global energy demand grew by half, but the proportion from renewable sources (wind, geothermal, solar, biomass and waste) crept up from one percent to just seven percent. It is little surprise that atmospheric concentration of CO2 rose by 12 percent, and global temperature ratchetted up 0.50C.
These points nail the weaknesses in global warming policy: it is aimed at diplomatic niceties that have no practical effect and so the world has moved steadily off track to meet climate goals. Everybody knows this as shown by a Pew Research Center poll which found that 52 percent of adults across developed economies doubt that actions by the international community will reduce global warming.
How did we get here? As risks of global warming became clear in the 1980s, responsibility for solutions gravitated to the United Nations which established its Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. Parties to the Convention held 27 conferences, and in the 2015 Paris Climate Accord agreed to keep “the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.” In the last decade alone, $5 trillion has been spent on research and initiatives to contain warming; and 166 out of 194 parties to the Paris agreement have announced reduction in greenhouse emissions to meet their international commitments.
This all sounds impressive, but the ugly truth is that the United Nations over-reached. Its latest Emissions Gap Report estimates that implementation of all commitments will still see emissions in 2030 which are 25-35 percent above the level required to keep warming under 20C. Because commitments are ambitious and non-binding, the globe seems locked into minimum warming of at least 30C this century.
Global warming demonstrates the brutal paradox of greenwashing. On one hand, it is the best documented sustainability problem, and is widely termed an existential threat. It also offers a clear solution through increasing energy efficiency and decarbonisation which shifts energy sources away from fossil fuels. The paradox is that - despite all the concern and activity – the situation continues to worsen.
Four factors explain failure to make a dent in global warming. The key weakness is that there has never been a convincing business case for tangible action. This has been the responsibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the UN set up in 1988 to provide governments with scientific advice on climate policy.
The IPCC won the Nobel peace prize in 2007 but has done a pitiful job. Its main output has been six Assessment Reports, the most recent of which was published in 2021-2022 and runs to almost 8,000 pages, which is physically intimidating for the most interested readers. Even its Summary for Policymakers runs to a still formidable 36 single-spaced pages, and is user-unfriendly as foreshadowed by its first paragraph:
Global surface temperature was 1.09°C [0.95°C–1.20°C] higher in 2011–2020 than 1850–1900, with larger increases over land (1.59°C [1.34°C–1.83°C]) than over the ocean (0.88°C [0.68°C–1.01°C]). Global surface temperature in the first two decades of the 21st century (2001-2020) was 0.99 [0.84 to 1.10]°C higher than 1850-1900. Global surface temperature has increased faster since 1970 than in any other 50-year period over at least the last 2000 years (high confidence). (sic!)
Scientists’ practice of communicating through indigestible prose feeds into the broader credibility gap faced by experts and so makes little impact.
A complementary weakness is the lack of realistic solutions to warming and the absence of credible champions for action. Many groups – especially NGOs such as Extinction Rebellion and WWF - have developed good outlines of the problem, and a conga-line of leaders have proclaimed it the great moral challenge of our generation, or similar. But they have proved to be talkers and critics without the nous or experience to comprehend how solutions might be rolled out. Practical action has been negligible.
The third weakness in climate change policies is a refusal to address root causes of the problem. Since the late 19th century, global population has increased exponentially by a factor of 5.5 and global GDP per capita by a factor of 9.8, while there has not been any decline in greenhouse gas intensity (which largely involves agriculture and carbon combustion). Thus, charts show that greenhouse gas emissions rise in lockstep with population and wealth. Like many other problems of unsustainability, global warming is sourced in the fifty-fold surge in economic activity since industrialisation began.
The fourth policy failing is that progress is not measured against the key cause of warming which is global emissions of greenhouse gases. The latter bounced back from a Covid-related slump and are now higher than ever. If climate policy were serious, billboards would be flashing the truth of unchecked emissions. But they don’t because nobody is even motivated to collect the data.
This simple analysis explains why there has been no progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, nor reversing global warming. In short, scientists offer turgid descriptions of the problem, leadership is limited to half-hearted exhortations, and critical evaluations of policy needs and progress are avoided.
Climate policy requires reduction in energy consumption and population growth, restructuring social and economic norms, and raising the cost of emitting greenhouse gases from near zero to that of their damage. But such harsh action requires solid justification, and without it no government has the stomach to face down the expected tough political and economic resistance.
How can policy be turned around?
The first step is to get warming into perspective. Although a global problem, greenhouse emissions are highly concentrated, with over 70 percent from just ten countries: China, United States, India, Russia, Japan, Iran, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and South Korea. Even worse, their emissions grew by 7.6 percent during 2016-2021, with only Germany and Japan making meaningful cuts.
A second issue involves the way forward. There is no doubt that the world has warmed, but its actual causes are less certain, and the science needs to be unequivocally established before appropriate policy can be developed. The last will almost certainly require major reconfigurations of contemporary industry and urban models to be more sustainable, which requires a suite of solutions.
Caution is needed because every time we trust experts to fix a mess it has been a disaster: look at how banks guided us during the GFC; and the climate policy fiasco. An appropriate steering committee would comprise of people who come from the largest emitting economies, have experience in developing and implementing industry strategy, accept the reality of warming and are open minded on its causes, and seek optimum, practical solutions.
Getting global warming policy right is critical because it is just one of many pressing problems where overloading of natural and artificial systems causes unwanted externalities. These include a 7-10 year cycle of financial crisis followed by recession; epidemics of obesity, mental ill health, and nervous system disease; clogged roads and overtaxed infrastructure; dependence on fragile computer systems trolled by hackers; and increasing negligence and scandals in corporates and not-for-profit institutions. Unsustainability is now so normalised that one industry is legal even though its (tobacco-based) products kill half their users, or eight million people annually.
Nature cannot meet exponential growth in demand on her bounty; sustainability problems are too complex and long term to be resolved by conventional government and institutions; and bumper stickering and protesting will not work because solutions are not easy to implement.
UN-led diplomacy has proven itself ineffective against complex technological problems that hamper sustainable growth. The only realistic solutions involve coalitions of nations that enforce sustainable products through tough domestic policies, trade sanctions, and ESG-driven finance. To break away from an unsustainable future requires a Yalta-heft pact where leaders promote policies that restructure the way people live, work and play.
Les Coleman is an honorary fellow at the University of Melbourne. He worked for 28 years with resources, distribution and finance companies in Australia, Fiji, USA and Zambia, and spent 19 years as a finance academic. His latest book is Research in Crisis (Routledge, London, 2021).
Photo by ArtHouse Studio
