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
With its passing of Hong Kong’s new National Security Law, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to tighten its noose on Hong Kong. Gone is the broken 1997 promise that Hong Kong would have free, democratic elections by 2017. Gone also is any semblance that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) plays the long game. All the CCP had to do was hold the fort until 2047, when the “one country, two systems” framework would end and Hong Kong would rejoin the “motherland.” It would be a “demonstration-free” event. Instead, with the seemingly benevolent velvet glove off, the CCP has revealed its true iron
At the end of last month, Paraguayan Ambassador to Taiwan Marcial Bobadilla Guillen told a group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators that his president had decided to maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan, despite pressure from the Chinese government and local businesses who would like to see a switch to Beijing. This followed the Paraguayan Senate earlier this year voting against a proposal to establish ties with China in exchange for medical supplies. This constituted a double rebuke of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) diplomatic agenda in a six-month span from Taiwan’s only diplomatic ally in South America. Last year, Tuvalu rejected an
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose
US President Donald Trump’s administration on Friday last week announced it would impose sanctions on the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a vast paramilitary organization that is directly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and has been linked to human rights violations against Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. The sanctions follow US travel bans against other Xinjiang officials and the passage of the US Hong Kong Autonomy Act, which authorizes targeted sanctions against mainland Chinese and Hong Kong officials, in response to Beijing’s imposition of national security legislation on the territory. The sanctions against the corps would be implemented