What has happened in Nepal has been truly horrific. Over 6,500 people have either lost their lives or are missing. The damage is estimated at well over $ 2.5 billion dollars. This is the latest in the series of disasters being caused with increasing frequency by global warming. Science has been predicting such outcomes for decades. We are now seeing them. The future would keep getting worse as carbon emissions keep rising. The goal of restricting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius in the Paris agreement is no longer attainable. In the next century global warming could well be over 4 degrees. This should be a wake-up call for humankind to jointly act on a war footing to get to net-zero.
The tragedy is that President Trump says that the climate crisis is a hoax. He set the tone of his administration with “Drill baby, Drill.” The US has the largest economy in the world. Its per capita emissions are the highest. They are about one-and-a-half times more than the EU’s and ten times that of Nepal. Hence what the US does or does not do is decisive. This will determine whether humankind survives in the next century or not. The US has enormous influence on public opinion in the West. The consequence: The Right-wing parties in Europe mirror Trump in denying the science of the climate crisis. There is a weakening, rather than strengthening, in the resolve of the ruling parties in Europe to act vigorously on the climate crisis. This is notwithstanding the record-breaking temperatures this summer and forest fires scorching 370 million acres of land across 80 countries.
There are misleading narratives that have been spread. What is the point of the US reducing its carbon emissions if China and India would increase theirs to offset it. The Chinese total emissions are now higher than that of the US as it has become a developed economy and the factory of the world. The emissions embedded in what it exports is legitimately part of the emissions from the consumption in the importing country. With this criterion the per capita emissions of the US would be substantially higher. Both the US and China have to reduce their per capita emissions, including embedded emissions in what they consume.
{{/usCountry}}There are misleading narratives that have been spread. What is the point of the US reducing its carbon emissions if China and India would increase theirs to offset it. The Chinese total emissions are now higher than that of the US as it has become a developed economy and the factory of the world. The emissions embedded in what it exports is legitimately part of the emissions from the consumption in the importing country. With this criterion the per capita emissions of the US would be substantially higher. Both the US and China have to reduce their per capita emissions, including embedded emissions in what they consume.
{{/usCountry}}The Chinese, acting strategically, have become leaders in the green technologies of renewable energy and electric vehicles. With scale of production and deployment they have the lowest costs. They now dominate global markets in solar panels, electric vehicles and batteries. The Chinese are probably the best placed to achieve net zero at the earliest and at the least cost and should do it. The US has unnecessarily lost out. But it has the technological depth and resources to catch up. It only needs to decide to do so. This would certainly contribute to Trump’s vision of making America great again. But for this they need to think with greater clarity and move beyond a policy of kneejerk climate change denial.
Another argument is that the transition involves higher costs which would have to be borne by the taxpayer and the consumer. This was a legitimate concern 30 years back. But it is no longer so. The world has changed. Solar power has become the cheapest source of energy in the world. Windpower is also cheaper than thermal power. Storage of electricity is becoming cheaper. The cost to the consumer of using an electric vehicle in India is now lower. India is moving away from fossil fuels ahead of its Paris commitments with its own resources, acting strategically, and it needs to accelerate the move to a non-fossil fuel economy.
To put cost in perspective, the West led by the US has made available about $ 195 billion directly and indirectly to aid Ukraine to fight an unwinnable and avoidable war against Russia, instead of accepting Ukrainian neutrality. The sanctions against Russia boomeranged, energy prices rose manifold and the consumer had no choice but to pay. The pointless US attack on Iran has cost over $ 100 billion according to different estimates. Europe is raising its defence budget and preparing for open ended confrontation rather than seeking a modus vivendi with Russia. The will to act on the climate crisis has been weakening as the cost of higher energy prices and defence spending hurts European economies. The cost of decisive action on climate change is, in comparison, affordable.
For humankind time is running out. It is imperative for civil society across the world to mobilise public opinion to drive their political parties and governments to see what is happening, accept science and act now with greater urgency. It would be critical that such mobilisation persuades Trump, the Republicans and the Right-wing in Europe to shift their views, independent of their ideological positions on other issues such as immigration and lowering taxes. This is an issue which should unite Gen Z across national, regional, class, ethnic or ideological divides. Gen Z from South Asia and the Global South could take the lead with the demand to not take away their children’s great grandchildren’s right to live!
(The views expressed are personal)
This article is authored by Ajay Shankar, Distinguished Fellow, The Energy and Resources Institute.