It is not the redistribution of resources from rich to poor countries that will help overcome the consequences of climate change, but the natural course of economic development, says political scientist Vladislav Inozemtsev
The speech of the young environmental activist Greta Thunberg at the UN once again drew attention to one of the most ideological modern discussions – about global warming and the fight against it. Just on the eve of the speech, our country ratified the Paris climate agreement, although President Vladimir Putin said that Thunberg did not share the general enthusiasm for his activities.
In my opinion, the problem lies in a slightly different dimension. No one doubts that there are a large number of pressing environmental problems in the world – and the growth of CO2 emissions, and the difficulties with the disposal of radioactive waste, and the pollution of oceans and rivers, not to mention deforestation and the extermination of rare species of animals and birds. All these questions are periodically raised by the international community. The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer of 1985 and the Montreal Protocol of 1987 can be considered an example of successful collective action that effectively stopped the thinning of the ozone layer in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Sore spot
The fight against global warming, however, looks like a topic of a different order. Unlike all the noted trends, clearly caused by human activity, climate change has been observed for thousands and millions of years. Not all experts consider the connection between human activity and the current increase in the temperature of the earth’s surface to be proven. And most importantly, it is not entirely clear to what extent the increase in taxes on emissions and the redistribution of emerging resources in favor of developing countries, envisaged by the Paris Agreement, will modernize their economies – here we can recall, for example, the lack of the expected effect from debt cancellation or international assistance to a number of lagging countries.
However, as we can see, the topic does not leave the front pages and does not disappear from the international agenda, for which there is an understandable explanation.
People are concerned about the deteriorating environmental situation, and against such a background, any environmental efforts or efforts disguised as them arouse sympathy and support. Large-scale crises associated with atmospheric pollution are obvious: almost every year in Paris, emergency measures are introduced to restrict traffic due to smog; in Beijing and Shanghai, the mortality rate from respiratory diseases exceeds that of Tibet by more than 50 times. In our country, environmental problems, often catastrophic, cover a large part of the territory – from Krasnoyarsk to Vladivostok, from Norilsk to Cherepovets.
Realize the problem
But the most important and clearly underestimated fact, I think, is the fact that in most countries over the past century people have found ways to successfully and effectively solve environmental problems. One can recall the international program to clean up the Rhine from industrial discharges and the tightening of environmental regulations in the UK after the great London smog of 1952. The environmental agenda created new economic sectors and seriously modernized existing ones: we can recall the emergence of alternative energy, as a result of which the share of solar, wind and tidal energy in European energy consumption rose from 1,1% in 1980 to 5,2% in 1999 and 17% in 2016 (in Sweden, the figure has already exceeded 50%), as well as the rapid increase in the efficiency of traditional technologies. Over the past 30 years, the fuel consumption of an average new European car per 100 kilometers has been reduced by a third, while the consumption of oil and coal in the EU has fallen from 1990 to 2018 by 9,2 and 48,4%, respectively, with an increase in the total GDP of the participating countries by more than 2,7 times. In China, although the country remains the largest consumer of coal in the world, solar generation is rapidly developing, providing about 2% of energy consumption now and capable of providing up to 10% by 2050. Finally, quite banal are the numerous examples of how natural resources that seemed almost exhausted were either effectively replaced by new ones, access to which was practically unlimited, or began to be extracted in the required quantities thanks to new technologies. In other words, practice shows that for humanity, almost any problem created by itself and realized in time is a problem solved.
It is known that in 1979, in the face of a sharp jump in energy prices due to OPEC policies, President Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the roof of the White House, dismantled by order of his successor Ronald Reagan in 1981. At that time, the average cost of solar panels was $76/W ($293 at current prices), today in the US it does not exceed ¢26/W. The efficiency of these devices has grown from 14% in 1960 to 44,5% in 2018. In addition, in most developed countries tightening of energy regulations, environmental standards and higher taxes on energy companies and automakers is going even faster than the Paris Agreement suggests. As technology advances, prices for energy from alternative sources may collapse, and the problem of using fossil fuels will cease to be ideological and become purely financial. To the same extent that members of the Club of Rome turned out to be wrong when they loudly announced the coming shortage of resources, those who predict today the end of humanity from the greenhouse effect will most likely be put to shame.
natural solution
The mechanism of adaptation to new challenges, which was formed after the Second World War, looks relatively understandable, and it is launched not because of the beautiful speeches of Al Gore or Greta Thunberg, but primarily because of the concern of local communities and national authorities. It is impossible to convince the same China to stop developing for the sake of fighting phantoms, but the Chinese themselves are quite capable of understanding the damage that non-compliance with modern environmental standards is fraught with for them. And our country’s accession to the Paris Treaty will in no way affect the catastrophic situation with garbage disposal, coal overloading or atmospheric pollution with toxic waste. People are ready to unite for the sake of survival, and technological and economic opportunities today provide everything necessary to counter dangerous trends.
There are two poles in the modern environmental agenda: the first focuses on problems that do not look obvious and the means of the proposed solution to which are formed by the natural course of economic development; on the other, problems clearly generated by human activity, but not yet giving rise to an adequate resonance. The problem of climate change falls into the first category: if the recipe for its solution is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it’s safe to say that Greta’s calls are redundant simply because progress in the use of renewable energy sources exceeds the wildest expectations. At the same time, there are problems of the second type, which have not yet been solved: one can, for example, recall the giant islands of plastic turned into garbage drifting in the Pacific Ocean. Unlike global warming, this problem is undoubtedly man-made, and there is nothing more profitable than plastic packaging, and it is extremely difficult to abandon it (even in Europe, where quite radical steps are being taken towards this, its use has grown 4,5 times over the past 30 years , and the recycling of plastic waste on a global scale does not even reach 10%).
Greta Thunberg’s choice should be treated with the same respect as any other. But the fight to reduce CO2 emissions, against the backdrop of current economic trends, looks a lot like a fight for the sun to rise every day, with complete disregard for what kind of world that sun will illuminate the next morning.
The original column was published in the “Opinions” section. The point of view of the authors whose articles are published in this section may not coincide with the opinion of the editors.