GP Columnists
Climate Change: Hope in the Future
There are many skeptics on the climate change issue. Some argue that scientists manipulate their data to prove the globe is getting warm. And some hold the view that a little warming does not represent a long-term trend. These suspicions reached a peak in November 2009, right before the Copenhagen Conference, when leaked emails and other documents revealed misconduct within the climate science community. True or not, exaggerated or not, the episode had a negative impact on efforts to reach a compulsory agreement in Copenhagen.
In some ways, though, the truth is not what matters any more. For one thing, being wary of environmental problems and protecting our planet are always right; for another, emission reduction and the development of new energy sources represent the future of the global economy.
After the machine age, the electronic age, and the internet age, what will be the next engine to drive our economy? US president Obama gave a clear answer: "I am convinced that whoever builds a clean energy economy, whoever is at the forefront of that, is going to own the 21st century global economy." I agree with Mr. Obama’s forward-looking judgment. Fossil fuel do great harm to our environment, and will run out sooner or later. Only the development of alternative sources of energy is a sustainable approach for our economy and the health of our planet. In the areas of solar, thermal, bioenergy, wind power, nuclear energy, etc, we have only stepped forward a little, leaving much in these potential areas for us to explore. Now, with many countries still stuck in the financial crisis, they need to find a way to grow the real economy, and the new energy is a sound choice.
Then let’s come back to the international institutions of climate change. From 1992, when the UNFCCC framework was founded, the quest for an agreement has never been a plain sailing. The greatest achievement made thus far has been the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. But even this achievement was demoted by the withdrawal of Bush administration. Many years later we are still sitting around a table to discuss a new agreement, but the emission reduction goals that Western industrialized countries announced seems to be backsliding.
The real reason behind this is not the divide between the developed and developing countries, nor the comparison between the developed, but the emission reduction goals’ constraining effect on their economy. In other words, those countries that made promises cannot benefit economically from these emission reduction goals. We cannot only count on their good wishes to provide the momentum needed. The international system is anarchic, and those countries’ governments face domestic pressures from interest groups concerned about the growth of GDP. If alternative sources of energy are not more competitive to fossil fuels, and the emission reduction approaches still cost too much, international institutions for climate change will continue to move one step forward and another backwards.
Today the goal of developing new energy is put on the agenda in many countries. My suggestion is to be patient with R&D in new energy, and to embrace this future form of economy. The future international institutions of climate change will depend on it.
Wang Jin is a GG2020 Fellow.
Post new comment