Momentum seems to be building for a global deal at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris in December. With this sense of optimism comes a keen awareness that the use of fossil fuels must be phased out globally as rapidly as possible. Indeed, the idea that greenhouse-gas emissions should be reduced to nothing by 2050 is gaining wider acceptance.
Early movers are already shaking things up. Universities, pension funds, churches, banks and even the heirs to the Rockefeller oil fortune are pulling their money out of fossil-fuel assets or are considering the possibility of divestment — an option made increasingly attractive by the swiftly falling cost of generating energy from renewable sources.
In the face of this progress, though, one sector stands apart. The coal industry seems determined to fight for profits at the expense of the environment. Perversely, it is furiously attempting to capture the moral high ground by claiming that coal is essential to ending energy poverty.
Coal companies and their allies say that limiting coal production would keep the lights off in rural communities by preventing poor countries from building big, cheap power plants.
“Let’s have no demonization of coal,” as one ally, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, put it. “Coal is good for humanity.”
Speaking at an event hosted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank that is skeptical of climate change, former British secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs Owen Paterson accused climate-change activists of having “African blood” on their hands.
Setting aside the deeply offensive character of such efforts to silence its critics, the coal industry is posing a false choice: end the use of coal or end poverty. However, while energy is indeed central to efforts to end poverty, one must be clear: At this point in history, coal is not good for anyone.
For all of the attention the Ebola virus has received in recent months, coal is a far deadlier killer. Toxic fly ash kills about 800,000 people per year and sickens millions more. Beijing’s ongoing battle with smog — a problem that has become known as the “airpocalypse” — provides a potent reminder of coal’s impact on air quality.
However, China’s capital is hardly unique in that respect. Many Indian cities have air pollution that is just as bad — and in some cases far worse.
Coal is also said to be the single largest contributor to climate change, which threatens to put 400 million people in the poorest countries at risk of severe food and water shortages by 2050.
The coal industry is seeking to burden developing countries with the same unsustainable growth model that has brought the Earth to the brink of climate disaster. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has repeatedly warned — and as the experience of countries like the Marshall Islands increasingly demonstrates — climate change is no longer a distant threat. The terrible consequences of burning fossil fuels are already upon us and those suffering the most are the world’s poor people.
Most people understand that coal is a dirty business, one that countries like Australia should abandon for their own economic wellbeing, as well as for the sake of the global climate. That is why we are witnessing such resistance from the industry. Coal’s day is over, but it is trying desperately to hang on.
The world needs a rapid and fair transition away from dirty energy sources. That means cleaning up developed economies and working to prevent the massive expansion of industries that damage our collective health and future. It also means working with developing countries to help them develop modern, clean energy sources that provide cheap, locally produced power and do not oblige them to buy fossil fuels.
Above all, it means that we must stop telling the poor people in developing countries what they should do and start listening to what they want.
What they want — unfortunately for the coal industry — is clean, affordable energy that powers their present, without costing them their future.
Raja Jayaraman is vice chair of the Hindu Council of Australia. Jonathan Keren-Black is a rabbi at the Leo Baeck Center for Progressive Judaism and founder of the Jewish Ecological Coalition. Thea Ormerod is president of the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change. Stephen Pickard is executive director of the Australian Center for Christianity and Culture at Charles Sturt University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations