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
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS