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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers