Climate justice and the Global South E-Book

Ulrich Brasche

• Herausgeber: Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 238

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Beschreibung

Climate will be decided in the global south Mankind is on a dangerous journey in the Anthropocene. The destination is not yet fixed. Arriving at a good life for all within planetary boundaries is still possible. But at present, the journey is more likely to lead to an overheating of the Earth. Health and life would then be massively endangered for many living beings - including humans. A positive development is still possible, but it requires a global transformation of economy and society. The prosperous states and companies are well advised, to respect the interests of the global south and future generations, and to use wisely use the considerable financial resources in a cooperation of equals. This book - highlights past carbon missions and their consequences, - reflects on the main drivers of future emissions, - discusses strategies like green growth, de-growth, - presents market-based instruments like carbon trading and carbon border adjustment and - emphasises the key role played by the emerging countries of the global south. It is not only a matter of justice but furthermore in the interest of the rich countries in the global north to contribute massively to financing a "green leapfrogging" of the global south into a carbon-free prosperity. Failing to achieve it will bring unspeakable losses and suffering to many people all over the planet.

Leseprobe

Preface

Humans are on a dangerous journey in the Anthropocene. The destination is not yet fixed. Arriving at a good life for all within planetary boundaries is still possible. But at present, the journey is more likely to lead to an overheating of the Earth. Health and life would then be massively endangered for many living beings - including humans.

The book addresses the questions:

How did we get into this situation?

How can we find a way out?

How can the obstacles be overcome?

Strategies are being assessed and some surprising allies are being identified. Cleverly designed markets can help to stop global warming; only in a more equal and just world could all people live well, but more modestly. The alternative would be an overheated, dangerous world.

Good development is still possible, but it requires a global transformation of the economy and society. The prosperous states are well advised, to respect the interests of the „global south“ and future generations, and to use wisely use the considerable financial resources in a cooperation of equals.

I would like to thank Rüdiger Eschenbach and Bettina BurgerMenzel for stimulating and fruitful discussions, and Hunter Schoefert for transferring DeepL’s text into proper English. All mistakes and shortcomings remain my responsibility.

Ulrich Brasche       Berlin, October 2023

Contents

Preface

1 The nightmare of abundance

1.1 The Anthropocene has planetary boundaries

1.1.1 An Unprecedented Rise

1.1.2 comes up against planetary boundaries

1.1.3 Why carbon is important.

1.2 Global inequality

1.2.1 More affluence - more climate damage

1.2.2 The „global north“ has (over)consumed

1.2.3 Importing and exporting climate damages

1.3 The next 80 years

1.3.1 The pressure is increasing

1.3.2 The planet will become uninhabitable

1.3.3 Unequal resilience

1.3.4 Global interdependencies

1.4 Taking stock

2 Ways out of the crisis

2.1 In search of a future path

2.1.1 What urgently needs to be done

2.1.2 Sustainability - a goal for everyone?.

2.1.3 Setting the goals correctly.

2.2 Pushing back against global warming

2.2.1 Population - Fewer people

2.2.2 De-Growth – less is more

2.2.3 Green Growth – more with less

2.3 Taking stock

3 Resistance along the way

3.1 All too human

3.1.1 The time horizon and the „preference for now“

3.1.2 I don’t want to be the dummy

3.1.3 „We and They“ - solidarity

3.1.4 Losses do hurt - risk aversion

3.2 Interests, Power, Politics

3.2.1 Breaking or accelerating

3.2.2 Harmful but persistent subsidies

3.2.3 Arbitration courts hinder climate policy

3.3 Taking stock

4 When capital goes South

4.1 „Polluter pays“ principle, fairness and self-interest

4.2 Climate investments can be profitable

4.3 Financing the transformation

4.3.1 Challenges in the „global south“

4.3.2 Stranded (fossil) assets

4.4 Financial flows

4.4.1 Capital flows – but too little

4.4.2 Opportunities in the „global south“

4.5 Taking stock

5 Allies on the road to Paris

5.1 The financial industry is changing course

5.1.1 Risks of climate change for the financial industry

5.1.2 „Green“ investments or „greenwashing“?

5.1.3 The financial industry is becoming green

5.1.4 Central banks enter „green“ new ground

5.2 Courts award damages

5.3 A market re-designed for climate protection

5.3.1 The market mechanism is failing

5.3.2 Putting a price on climate pollution

5.3.3 The limits of the CO2 price

5.3.4 Rationing and allocation instead of the market?

5.4 Taking stock

6 Outlook - with (a bit of) hope

7 Sources

1 The nightmare of abundance

Over the last 200 years, more and more people have been able to free themselves from need and misery. They have enough food, can protect themselves against dangers and enjoy life beyond their basic needs. The part of the world’s

population that has not yet reached this standard is also striving for a safe and pleasant life. Was this development only positive and can it continue in the future for the whole of humanity? What are the limits and dangers, and is a change of direction necessary?

Chapter 1 describes the rise of a part of humanity and points out the dangers and limits as well as possible developments. It becomes clear that the success story so far has been built on pronounced inequality and that the interconnections between humans, climate and the environment require global responses.

1.1 The Anthropocene has planetary boundaries

1.1.1 An Unprecedented Rise ...

A new stage in the evolutionary history of the species Homo Sapiens (Latin: „wise man“) has been reached: The „Age of Man“, called Anthropocene. This term was introduced by Paul Crutzen1, who used it to describe the epoch shaped by industrial society.

The development of „western“ societies (Europe, USA) and their interaction with each other and with nature took place in the following sequence:

Even before the introduction of steam engines and industrial production, people were transforming their environment, and at the same time, often overusing it. The dependence on wind, water and sun as energy sources has limited economic activity in space, time, and scope. Despite a significantly smaller number of people and a fraction of today’s per capita consumption, the environment at that time by no means corresponded to a romantic ideal of nature. Diseases and epidemics combined with poorly developed medical science, as well as famine and poor hygiene, led to a low life expectancy. The „good old days“ were predominantly arduous for many people.

With the invention of the steam engine and the development from manufactory to industry in the „First Industrial Revolution“, productivity was greatly increased, and social conditions were profoundly changed.2 This was accompanied by progress in science which, among other things, also enabled the widespread use of effective medicine. The development of natural and engineering sciences and their application in production led to new products, processes, and the reorganisation of production. In agriculture, new fertilisers and machines have significantly increased the production of food. The prerequisite and consequence for these upheavals was the intensive use of raw materials, some of which were obtained under the regime of colonial exploitation.

Production took place without considering „side effects“ such as the poisoning of air and water or the destruction of habitats. Although the living conditions of those employed in agriculture and industry were not comfortable, medical care, secure food sources and improved hygiene led to an overall increase in the size of population.

After the Second World War, a phase called the „Great Acceleration“3 in production and trade occurred, with economic exchange intensifying in a global division of labour. More people than ever before lived on the planet and a growing number had access to better material resources, which for many went well beyond the satisfaction of basic needs. The consumption of resources continued to rise and, thus the burden on the environment. Scientists have identified a precise calendar of this evolution in the sediments of a lake in Canada, where the different materials deposited provide information about the distribution of substances. They date the beginning of the Anthropocene to 1950.4

Today, humans are in a position not only to shape their immediate living space and to change the basis of life on the entire planet but also to change the Earth system. In the affluent societies of the „West“, there is a growing awareness of the threat to nature and the environment which has resulted in a demand for prosperity the preservation of the natural foundations of life. In the hitherto materially less well-off societies, the fulfilment of basic needs dominates and, beyond that, a „western lifestyle“ ("American way of life“) is usually the goal.

Some of the parameters that express this change since the beginning of industrialisation (from 1750) have been presented by Steffen et al. (2011)5:

Population and cities: Since 1850 but increasingly after the Second World War, the number of people has risen to 8 billion. Most of this increase has occurred in Asia and Africa. In addition, more and more people live in cities, which influences the way they are supplied with food as well as the needs in housing and infrastructure.

Economy: With a delay, value-added followed population growth from 1950 onwards. However, value-added increased much more than the number of people, so a much higher material endowment was produced per capita. This is an indicator of the overall increase in the standard of living, which is, however, unevenly distributed across the population.

The growing population, as well as industry and agriculture, need and use more and more fresh water. The growing prosperity of a part of the population is shown, among other things, by the increasing number of cars and tourist trips - this increases resource consumption and environmental pollution.

The prerequisite for growing prosperity was the exploitation of new sources of energy and raw materials. In the past, dependence on the sun, wind and water for energy limited economic activities. Wind-mills or water mills could only be operated at suitable locations and their output was determined by the fluctuating supply. Charcoal was the most important source of energy for smelting metals or glass and salt boiling.

However, the increasing demand for wood for energy and timber (buildings, ships, mines) led to the deforestation of entire regions and forced industries and villages either to relocate or to transport materials over long distances. Steam engines, as well, could not have been powered merely by wood. It was not until the mass extraction of coal, and later oil and natural gas, that an inexhaustible supply of energy became available, which was also independent of the „whims of nature“. Economic growth is still based on fossil fuels today.

1.1.2 ... comes up against planetary boundaries

One might be tempted to paint this development as a success story with minor flaws: many more people can live on the planet, many of them in a standard of living that was reserved for a small upper class in previous decades or centuries. All that remains to be done is to correct the undesirable side-effects such as environmental pollution, the decline in biodiversity and global warming, and then nothing would stand in the way of growing prosperity for more and more people.

However, this narrative of a good life for all through unlimited growth fails to recognise the limits of this development model: the growth of resource consumption on a finite planet is also finite. There are absolute limits to the expansion of human activities. This revives discussions that have already pointed to these limits from different perspectives:

T.R. Malthus’ warning in the 18th century of an absolute limit to population growth.

The discussion on „The Limits to Growth“ initiated by the Club of Rome in the 1970s.

Malthus

T.R. Malthus claimed that there was an absolute upper limit to the number of people who could live on earth. He saw the production of food as the limiting factor. He has so far been disproved by reality since food production has increased so much through the use of machines, the breeding of high-yielding varieties, the use of chemical fertilisers and the expansion of cultivated areas, so that the limits he feared have been pushed further and further.6 With respect to planetary boundaries, it is questionable whether the increase in the number of people on the planet from the current 8 billion to probably 10 to 11 billion in the year 2100 could also be supported by increased productivity. The debate on population growth must be intensified (Chapter 2.2.1).

Club of Rome

The guiding principle of capitalist societies is economic growth. Confidence in the ability of human beings to bring about ever greater material prosperity for ever more people through ingenuity, technology and organisation dominates the discourse. The first report of the Club of Rome on the „Limits to Growth“ abandoned this consensus in 1972. Meadows7 predicted a shortage of resources and food as well as growing environmental degradation for the year 2050 as the world population continued to grow. However, this sensational counterpoint to the previous growth optimism was quickly labelled as overly pessimistic and reference was made to the potential of research, innovation and productivity increases. Today, the controversy is being fought out under the catchwords „de-growth“ (Chapter 2.2.2) and „green growth“ (Chapter 2.2.3).

Planetary boundaries do exist

The prevailing narrative tells the message of ever-greater economic growth, which is at best supplemented by attributes such as „green“ or „sustainable“ to address the aspect of the finite nature of the planet’s resources. This contrasts with approaches that assume the existence of absolute limits to the Earth system that cannot be exceeded without serious consequences for humans. It can no longer be just a matter of making growth as effective as possible, and „green“ if possible. Instead, it must be recognised that the „planetary boundaries“ are fixed and cannot be extended through innovation. There are scientifically based concepts for describing these limits and it can also be measured whether and how far humanity is still from the limits.

„A safe space for humanity to act“ - this is how Rockström et al. (2009)8 describe an Earth system in which humanity can live without causing serious damage and suffering the consequences. To this end, they identify ten bio-physical earth processes, each of which must not exceed certain parameter limits. These include

Ozone depletion in the stratosphere

Acidification of the oceans

Bio-chemical cycles

Freshwater consumption

Land use change

Intactness of the biosphere

Genetic diversity

Climate change.

They claim that the Earth has remained in a stable state for the last 10,000 years (Holocene), which humans have changed to an unstable state in the Anthropocene through the massive use of fossil energy and fertilisers and other chemicals. The authors point out that three of the ten parameters have already exceeded the acceptable limit; these are climate change, nitrogen and phosphorus depletion and biodiversity loss. All ten Earth system processes are closely interconnected, so it is not sufficient to comply with selected processes only. In an extended concept the limits of the earth’s system were amended by the criterion of justice.9

The focus of this book is on climate change. Climate change is usually defined as a rise in the earth’s temperature. This is due to the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The consequences include dangerous weather phenomena such as floods, heat waves, storms and erosion. This can result in considerable suffering and death for many people in different regions of the world. The consequences of climate change will increase in the future as warming progresses, although deterioration does not always have to occur step by step. Rather, non-linear developments are also possible in the Earth system: when „tipping points“10 are reached, an accelerated, irreversible change can occur. If, for example, the considerable quantities of the climate-damaging gas methane bound in the permafrost were to be released, the Earth’s temperature would rise sharply, and the further thawing of the permafrost could therefore no longer be stopped.

As a consequence of the Anthropocene, the essential bases of life for large parts of humanity living today, as well as for the population that will continue to grow in the future, are not sufficiently available or their quality is endangered. These include:

Usable fresh water

Healthy and sufficient food

Clean air

Sufficient living space and decent housing

Temperatures at which people can survive.

The ecological footprint

A simple approach to determining the impact of human activity on the planet is to calculate the „ecological footprint“.11 Combining many indicators and measuring points provides information about the extent to which people in a country impact the environment with their lifestyle. The use of natural resources is measured in the area of forestry, crop cultivation, construction zones, forest products and pastureland, where the burden of consumption is compared with the regenerative capacity of the earth system. If the impact and the regenerative capacity are equal, the indicator „ecological footprint“ is assigned a value of one, indicating that the Earth just escapes being overloaded in the long term. If the value is greater than one, there is an overload. Until about 1970, global equilibrium still prevailed. At present, the entire biocapacity of the planet is overloaded by 160%, i.e. 1.6 planets are needed for the current consumption. Two current information campaigns are based on this indicator:

„Earth overshoot day“ describes the date in each year on which so many environmental resources have been consumed since the beginning of the year, that the annual regenerative capacity of the Earth system is exhausted. The remaining days of the year lead to an overuse of the environment. The day was reached on July 29, 2021, and on August 22, 2020. In 1970 it was still at the end of December.12

The indicator „number of Earths that would be needed for country X“ describes how the consumption of country X exceeds the Earth system’s capacity. At the upper end of the scale is the lifestyle in the USA: if all people wanted to live like this, five planets would be needed. The lifestyle in Germany would require three planets. Only if all people had the current consumption of an average inhabitant of the country India would the use of the earth remain below capacity. This clearly shows that lifestyles and associated material consumption of a large part of the developed countries are not compatible with the capacity of the planet.

The „footprint indicator“ is popular and on many websites one can calculate his or her footprint by entering essential parameters of his or her consumption (living space, meat consumption, flights, ...). This assigns an implicit „blame“ to the individual for his or her burden on the Earth system. Wambach13 points out that it was the petroleum company BP that created this indicator, shifting the responsibility to the individual and thus reducing the pressure on politicians and companies to act. As early as the 1950s – certainly in the 1970s – the fossil fuel corporations knew from their own research about the expected negative consequences of CO2 emissions, without drawing any conclusions.14

However, this individualisation of the cause of climate change is misleading. Even with a drastically reduced lifestyle, at most 50% of carbon could be avoided - but a reduction to zero by the middle of the century is necessary. This is only possible with a far-reaching transformation of mobility, construction, housing, agriculture and energy production (see also chapters 4 and 5). But even in a climate-friendly world, changes in current lifestyles, predominantely in the „global north“, must contribute to limiting global warming and thus climate change.

1.1.3 Why carbon is important

The planetary boundaries are described by ten bio-physical Earth processes and their measurands (Chapter 1.1.2). In the following chapters, global warming is singled out from with special attention to the greenhouse gas CO2 (carbon dioxide). To be more precise, CO2 is a CO2 equivalent, including greenhouse gases such as methane or water vapour.15 In the following text carbon will be used for CO2.

Why is carbon so important for global warming? It is a gas that occurs in the atmosphere at a certain concentration and is indispensable for the natural processes of the living world. In addition, as a so-called greenhouse gas, it „traps“ part of the heat generated by solar radiation on Earth in the atmosphere. Carbon thus stabilises the earth’s temperature in many regions at a level that is bearable for humans and other living creatures. Wherever this level is exceeded or falls short, humans and other species either can’t survive or only survive under difficult conditions.

Since the industrial revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has released more and more carbon into the atmosphere, where it remains for several hundred years. The result is a self-intensifying „greenhouse effect“16, where the temperature on earth continues to rise.

Because it takes a very long time for carbon to decompose in the atmosphere, only an early phase-out of fossil energy can prevent the carbon concentration from triggering a temperature increase that is harmful or even life-threatening for humans through this „greenhouse effect“.

The remaining cake: The remaining carbon budget

Climate research has found out how much additional carbon may be emitted into the atmosphere in the future.17 This amount is called the remaining carbon budget. It cannot be increased by technical solutions.

Edenhofer points out, that the limitation of the increase in the global mean temperature to 1.5 - 2 degrees Celsius agreed upon in Paris (2015) can be translated into a remaining carbon budget of about 700 to 800 Gigatons of carbon. This compares with an estimated 15,000 Gigatons of fossil fuels still stored in the ground.18

At the latest when this remaining carbon amount has been exhausted, a „net zero emission“19 must be respected throughout the globe. This means, firstly, that no more fossil fuels may be used and, secondly, that unavoidable additional carbon must be removed from the atmosphere. Unavoidable carbon is produced, for example, in industrial processes, in the production of cement and in agriculture. Natural „carbon sinks“, such as forests, bogs and the oceans, are able to remove carbon, and technologies are also being developed to remove carbon from the air. However, these technologies are not yet applicable on a larger scale, and they can at best only supplement a complete renouncement of carbon emissions.20 Moreover, these technologies in turn consume energy, most of which must come from carbon-free sources.

The scientifically established remaining carbon budget has so far been freely used by anyone using fossil fuels anywhere on the globe. If this should continue, the limit would soon be exceeded, and a warming of the climate would be expected which would have an existence-threatening impact on human life.

If the remaining carbon budget is to be met, the global community must find answers to the following questions and implement the appropriate solutions:21

Firstly, how can we ensure that this remaining carbon budget is not overspent?

The increasing use of fossil fuels in the future is in the interest of many actors. The producing countries and the companies in the fossil cycle do not want to give up their lucrative business model, and users have cheap energy, at least in the medium term. Those who invest into alternative energy sources have higher costs than those who simply continue to use fossil energy. Why should anyone be the first or even the only one to change course? Only agreements that are binding for all countries can lead out of this decision-making dilemma, with the international climate negotiations as an indispensable starting point.

Secondly, how can the remaining carbon budget be „fairly“ distributed among different users?

In negotiations on the phase-out of fossil fuels, poorer countries point out that the rich have more than exhausted their share in the past (Chapter 1.2.2). The poorer countries, on the other hand, still have a backlog of demand for cheap energy in order to provide their population with an acceptable standard of living. Economic and political interests play a decisive role in distribution, and interest groups with varying degrees of power intervene to keep the burden of adjustment as low as possible for their group. The global community has not been able to agree on a key for the „fair“ distribution of the remaining carbon budget. Instead, individual states have committed themselves to carbon savings – so called NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions).

In European climate policy, the remaining carbon budget is used as a control variable for future CO2 emissions (Chapter 5.3.2).

Climate neutrality - (not) a reasonable goal?

The goal of climate policy should be to shape the living conditions of all people in such a way that climate change does not cause suffering and death, with major economic damage should also be avoided. In this context, not only is the 1.5-degree Celsius target of the Paris Climate Agreement discussed, but the term „climate neutrality“ is also used. This is the case when individual companies or people do not burden the climate with additional CO2. If, for example, a steelworks only uses CO2-free energy, it calls itself „climate neutral“. However, this does not mean that the global CO2 emissions are within the remaining carbon budget. Climate neutrality on the part of individuals cannot therefore guarantee or replace compliance with the 1.5 – 2-degree target, which requires respecting the remaining carbon budget.

1.2 Global inequality

1.2.1 More affluence - more climate damage

Humanity lives in a marked inequality. In simplified terms, wealthy regions ("global north“) can be identified as well as regions of material poverty ("global south“).22 This inequality plays a key role in climate development, and there is a close connection between the (over)use of resources, the Earth system, and people’s lifestyles. The lifestyle in the affluent „global north“ is much more resource-intensive than that in the „global south“.

In the past, there was a strong correlation between economic performance and the emission of the greenhouse gas CO2: the more prosperous a country, the greater the CO2 emissions per capita.23 If this relationship were also to apply in the future, then the materially poorer countries would catch-up in the present structures of economy, energy supply and technology, leading to an increase in CO2 that would drive global warming beyond all tolerable limits.

1.2.2 The „global north“ has (over)consumed

The total amount of carbon for staying within the 1,5 degree Celsius is made up of the carbon already emitted in the past and the remaining carbon budget. It is debatable whether a country has to offset the carbon emissions of the past towards its remaining carbon budget. The table shows in the left column the carbon emissions of the past (1751 to 2020) for different world regions:

The countries of North America (USA; Canada, Mexico) account for 29% of global CO2 emissions.

The countries of the EU-28 account for 22%.

North America accounts for 29% of all emissions, almost as much as Asia (32%).

Within Asia, China accounts for about half of the CO2 emissions, while India has so far caused only 3%.

Only a very small contribution has so far been made by African (3%) and South American (3%) countries.

The wealthy in the rich countries, making up only a small part of the world’s population, have in the past consumed the most raw materials, produced the resulting waste and caused the most carbon emissions.24 Lessenich says that the „global north“ does not live beyond its means but beyond the means of others.25 This has a considerable impact, increasingly felt in the less prosperous regions, even though they have emitted little carbon in the past.

Carbon (CO2) emissions1) by regions

Region

1751–2020

2020

%

%

tons per capita

Africa

3

3

1

. South-Africa

1

1

8

Asia

32

40

4

. China

14

21

7

. India

3

5

2

North-America

29

11

10

South-America

3

2

2

Europe

32

10

7

. EU-28

22

6

6

Ozeania

1

1

10

Total

100

100

1) Carbon is measured at the point of origin (production-based).

Author compilation based on Ritchie, H., Roser, M. and Rosarot, P. (2020) - „CO2 and Greenhouse Gas Emissions”. online at OurWorldInData.org; https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions’ [16.10.2022]

Table 1 Legacy carbon emissions by regions

In the present and also in the future, the focal points of emissions are likely to change considerably, as the data for the year 2020 in table 1 suggest. Various regions of the world, previously poor, have developed strongly economically in recent decades so they emit considerably more CO2. In Asia, China and India stand out in particular, which now account for 26% of global emissions, more than Europe and North America combined (21%). However, the data also reflect the strong export from China, since the CO2 emissions are recorded at the place of production, not at the consumer (Chapter 1.2.3).

Moreover, the economic catch-up is not yet complete, as the data on per capita emissions in the right-hand column of the table show: in 2020, the countries of the „global north“ had per-capita carbon emissions that were far above those of the „global south“ (Africa, Latin America, Asia). If the economic rise of the „global south“ were to be predominantly based on fossil fuels and approach the per capita emissions of the „global north“, it would be impossible to limit global warming.

In regions that produce fossil fuels, emissions per capita are high (South Africa, Oceania).also because in the statistics, carbon is recorded during production and not during consumption. For example, coal produced in Australia and then exported increases the carbon balance in Australia - not in the receiving country.