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 at about US$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. However, nobody predicts a rebound strong enough to prompt the radical transformation that will be required if countries are to meet their emissions reduction goals.
An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OPEC) report from last year shows how far behind countries are on their emissions targets — never mind their commitment to limit the global temperature rise to well below 2°C. Meanwhile, oil majors are keen to remind us that we will need to burn fossil fuels for many more years as we gradually shift to a new energy economy.
So what are governments to do? There is near-universal agreement that no one will benefit from a dangerously warmer planet. However, different countries have very different interests, depending on whether they are oil exporters or importers and how developed their economies are.
Oil-producing developing countries should consider whether their resources have an economic future, given diminishing scope for emissions. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran — where oil is plentiful and cheap to extract — are likely to stay in business for some time. Even if the world rapidly decarbonizes, oil consumption will remain high enough for their resources to be worth extracting.
However, countries with less generous oil endowments need to implement economic reforms and eliminate subsidies. Saudi Arabia has made clear that it is no longer prepared to sacrifice market share to prop up more costly producers. Its decision to maintain output at current levels — effectively neutering the OPEC cartel — has already had a dampening effect on competing supplies; nearly US$400 billion of fossil fuel investments have been shelved.
Many governments have been forced to act.
Russia announced a 10 percent cut in public spending as oil prices continued to slide this year, and Indonesia should save almost US$14 billion by scrapping gasoline subsidies and capping support for diesel fuel.
On the other side of the spectrum, oil-importing developed countries are most likely efficient users of fossil fuels already. Their economies, having proven they can cope with oil at US$100 a barrel or more, clearly do not need an infusion of cheap energy to thrive. It is therefore a good time to introduce carbon taxes, so that the oil windfall is not simply gobbled up at the gas station. These countries should shelve any delusions of finding “black gold,” enjoy the short-run benefits of cheap oil, and take action now to align infrastructure investments to changing technology.
Meanwhile, oil producing developed countries should bank the remaining rents to enable capital substitution and ensure life after oil. This is what Norway has done, to significant national advantage, over the past 25 years.
Finally, it is governments of oil-importing developing countries that are likely to have the most urgent need for energy — and also the widest array of possibilities to meet that need. They will be looking to the global community for support and will need to take a hard look at whether the energy solutions on offer are modern or sustainable. The burden of proof must be on fossil fuel-based solutions — particularly coal — to demonstrate their competitiveness after accounting for the full environmental, health and social costs.
It can sometimes seem like there is never a right time to take climate action. When growth is strong, people urge governments not to derail the gravy train. (Never mind that there is little evidence to suggest that a well-signaled, progressive implementation of a carbon tax would weigh on growth.) When growth is weak, people ask incredulously how climate policy advocates could consider making things worse.
There is never likely to be a perfect moment for introducing new climate policies. Long-run problems require policies that send long-run signals, and these policies cannot be constantly fine-tuned to the volatility of the moment. Attempting to do so only fuels further volatility (which is what really hurts growth). Now is always as good a time as any to take action.
It should be done under no illusion that the transformative outcome that is needed it to be a smooth, incremental process. Technological changes whip up gales of creative destruction. There will be — must be — many losers. However, there will also be winners, as new technologies create new business opportunities. Governments that try to protect the “status quo” will not only fail on climate change; they will ultimately impose higher social costs, even as they fail to capitalize on the economic opportunities created by reform.
Climate change policies must be steady and consistent. Action must lubricate change, not repeatedly stop it in its tracks. Once investors see that the fossil fuel game is over, governments must let the effects of the resulting capital reallocation play out. It will be bumpy, but there is no other choice. Trying to fine-tune an economic and technical adjustment path would be as futile as trying to control the price of crude oil.
Simon Upton is environment director at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris, France.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past