The climate crisis and the 2008 financial crisis are two sides of the same coin. Both were born of the same toxic feature of the world’s prevailing economic model: the practice of discounting the future.
Protecting humanity from both environmental and financial ruin requires an entirely new approach to growth — one that does not sacrifice tomorrow at the altar of today.
In a sense, both crises can be traced back to the same event: the creation of a new international order after World War II. The Bretton Woods institutions that underpinned the order — the World Bank and the IMF — encouraged rapid globalization, characterized by a sharp increase in resource exports from the Global South to the Global North.
The revival of neoliberal economic policies — including the removal of trade barriers, wide-ranging deregulation and the elimination of capital-account controls — in the late 1970s accelerated this process.
While this system spurred unprecedented economic growth and development, it had serious downsides. Financial innovations outpaced — or simply escaped — regulation, enabling the finance industry to expand its influence over the economy, assuming massive amounts of risk and reaping huge rewards.
That eventually led to the 2008 crisis, which brought the global financial system to the brink of collapse. With the system having undergone little meaningful reform, acute systemic risks persist to this day.
On the environmental front, unbridled resource extraction destroyed developing-country ecosystems, while encouraging rapidly rising consumption — most fundamentally, of energy — in the developed world.
Today, despite accounting for only about 18 percent of the global population, the advanced economies consume about 70 percent of the world’s energy, the vast majority of which (87 percent) comes from fossil fuels.
The North-South divide is thus inextricably linked to carbon dioxide emissions. And it has reared its head in every UN climate negotiation, with the countries that have contributed the most to climate change — beginning with the US — often standing in the way of effective action.
Resistance usually comes down to a single consideration: current economic prosperity. Thus, the only realistic solution to the climate crisis is to replace fossil-fuel-based energy with renewables quickly and cost-effectively enough to keep the engines of growth running.
Fortunately, we already know that this is possible. The key is a global carbon market.
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol attempted to use a system of tradable quotas to establish a price on carbon dioxide emissions. While several countries ultimately refused to join the protocol — the US signed, but did not ratify it — the carbon market that it created (designed by Chichilnisky) helped to make clean energy more profitable and dirty energy less so.
Although the Kyoto Protocol collapsed, the world has built upon this work and some of its largest economies — China, the EU, and several US states, including California — are now using emissions-trading schemes. The value of traded global markets for carbon dioxide allowances surged by 250 percent last year, and now exceeds US$178 billion annually.
A revived global carbon market would help cut the Gordian knot of economic growth and environmental degradation. Moreover, it would cost virtually nothing to create and operate.
A scheme offering market-based efficiency would appeal to developed economies, while developing countries would support it because mandatory emissions limits would apply only to high and middle-income economies, as was the case in the Kyoto Protocol.
The potential of a global carbon market continues to grow. Last year, the US National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported that “negative emissions technologies” that remove and sequester carbon dioxide from the air could be safely scaled up to capture and store a significant share of total emissions.
This process would be so cost-effective that the captured carbon dioxide could profitably be sold in the carbon market.
Of course, carbon dioxide emissions are far from the only contributor to the climate crisis. However, other types of green markets can also be created.
Even before the Kyoto Protocol, the Chicago Board of Trade launched a private market for rights to emit sulfur dioxide.
The UN is now considering using similar markets to protect biodiversity and watersheds.
By enabling actors to buy and sell rights to use the global commons, such green markets naturally combine efficiency and equity. Yet the enduring North-South divide — and especially the rift between the US and China — is hampering our ability to seize their potential.
We have the tools to arrest, and even reverse, climate change. It is time to come together and use them.
Graciela Chichilnisky, a professor of economics and mathematical statistics at Columbia University, is director of the Columbia Consortium for Risk Management, and cofounder and chief executive of Global Thermostat. Peter Bal is a businessman and founder of the Millemont Institute.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Since COVID-19 broke out in Taiwan, there has been a fair amount of news regarding discrimination and “witch hunts” against medical personnel, people under self-quarantine and other targets, such as the students of a school where an infection was discovered. Quarantine breakers are almost certainly on the loose and it is only natural for people to be vigilant. One in Chiayi was found by accident at a traffic stop because his helmet was not fastened. However, those who follow the rules by quarantining themselves should be encouraged to keep up the good work in a difficult situation, instead of being
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator-at-large Wu Sz-huai (吳斯懷) has said that there is a huge difference between Chinese military aircraft circling Taiwan along the edges of its airspace and invading Taiwan’s airspace. He also said that whether it is US or Chinese aircraft flying along or encircling Taiwan’s airspace, there is no legal basis to say that such actions imply a clear provocation of Taiwan, and asked the Ministry of National Defense not to mislead the public. People who hear this might think that it is not a very Taiwanese thing to say. US military activity in the vicinity of Taiwan
As the nation welcomes home Taiwanese who had been stranded in China’s Hubei Province — arguably one of the most dangerous places on Earth since the novel coronavirus outbreak began in its capital, Wuhan, late last year — problems surrounding the “quasi-charter flights” that brought them back have been largely overlooked. The media used the term to describe the two flights dispatched by Taiwan’s state-run China Airlines because they do not count as charter flights. Taiwanese wanting to board those flights had to travel — most likely by train — more than 1,000km from Hubei to Shanghai Pudong International Airport
As the COVID-19 pandemic spins out of control, many parts of the world are experiencing shortages of medical masks and other protective equipment. I am studying in Washington state, which at the time of writing is the US state that has suffered the largest number of deaths from the novel coronavirus. The week before last, UW Medicine — an organization that includes the University of Washington School of Medicine and associated medical centers and clinics — sent its volunteers an e-mail asking the public to make masks and donate them to hospitals. Attached to the message was a mask donation