I agree with you. Actually, there are two sides to this coin, as you’ve both mentioned. On the one hand, failure to come up with an agreement in Paris would have been disastrous. That’s what happened earlier, at the 2009 summit, where a new agreement was expected but then negotiations collapsed. That failure was quite disheartening, as much for the climate movement as for the doubts it raised about the capacity of countries to unite around a common purpose. So, there was a great deal of concern by the time Paris came around, as in, “Will it happen again, will we fail again?” In view of that concern, just to come up with an agreement was heartening – and as you say, with such large participation, too. I believe that over 180 countries submitted their national climate plans in addition to signing the agreement; that indicates a much stronger buy-in.
HP
FA
Those countries make and present an action plan, right?
HP
Yes, as in “We will reduce our emissions by this much and do X by year Y.” As far as I know, this constitutes the broadest commitment in a climate regime. So, all this is quite important, especially identifying 2° C as the limit in this agreement and even talking about 1.5°. That last one was an unexpected development. Paris created positive momentum. We’ve seen its effects here, on a local scale. Take the refinery at Aliağa, for example. Everyone now says, “Look at the Paris Agreement; 193 countries signed it, so something’s finally going to change here.” Thanks to the agreement, people can now say that the climate issue matters. But there was a price to pay for the high level of participation, and that was the weakness of the common denominator. In order to attract the highest number of participants, the agreement basically made it possible for every country to do what it wanted. And that leads us to the lack of sanctions and the voluntary nature of nationally determined contributions. Because it’s a little different from Kyoto. In that agreement, certain common goals were identified, and they were binding. The current mechanism is much more bottom up, where every country determines its own reduction. And it’s precisely the looseness of this mechanism that insured such wide participation.
On the other hand, this flexibility had a price, which was the lack of sanctions for failure to meet targets, as we’ve just discussed. Moreover, later studies found that even if every country fulfills its commitments, the sum of these commitments would correspond to a rise of over 2° C. In that sense, therefore, they’re insufficient. But these goals will be reviewed; that’s part of the agreement. Countries have to review their commitments every five years and set new ones that exceed their previous commitments. It’s possible, then, that things can change, although under the existing environment governance system there aren’t any penalties for countries that don’t comply with their commitments. The system is based entirely on goodwill and voluntary compliance. And so, just like America choosing to implement totally different policies, you could easily see other countries following the same route.
BE
A dangerous situation. All right, could China fill the void left by America? Immediately after Paris it announced the planned closure of a higher number of power plants – some 100 or so I recall – and seems to be leading the way in environmental matters. Does this offer hope? Germany, as the leader of the EU, obviously could also be a candidate. Perhaps we should start by asking if there’s a need for a driving force of some kind. Perhaps one of the defining aspects of the Paris Agreement was that, by exerting an authority of its own, it removed the need for a power that could impose its views on everyone else. Perhaps that was even one of the strongest points of the process, but now, with America’s attitude, could these countries fill the gap?
FA
Allow me to approach it from a different angle: Maybe we should be asking a much more generalized question, as in, “Where is world governance?” You’ve got countries with daggers drawn, and you want them to discuss this matter of climate? That’s not easy to do. Especially when you consider recent developments: regions of growing tension or conflict, countries growing more insular, rising economic and political nationalism. All of these developments have grave repercussions for international cooperation. I actually regard the climate issue as a subheading of international cooperation. Possibly one of the most important subheads, but think a little and you can easily come up with several other very serious issues. If the world were to adopt a much more positive approach, a more cooperative attitude on all these issues, solutions would be achievable in some areas. China’s attitude is important, of course, as are Germany’s environmental initiatives of the past ten years, but the general trend is for countries to draw into their own shells. Take Europe: The latest development there is Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, followed by similar demands from other countries. All this turns the focus back on the nation state, and that usually makes cooperation more difficult.
It seems to me that only if cooperation is resumed and reinforced can important steps be taken in this respect. For instance, virtually all of Switzerland’s air pollution originates from other European countries. So, without cooperation, you can’t do anything on your own. There are many disheartening developments, but let’s not lose hope in the possibility of more realistic, longer-term cooperation on the issues. I’ve seen some important and positive steps in China, Germany, and several Latin America countries, too. But where governance is concerned, I’d like to see some assurance that countries agree at least on the principle of peaceful coexistence. I mean, if we’re going to wage war in the near future, if this is an increasingly growing threat, it hardly makes sense to hold talks on how much you and I should reduce our emissions. There’s a worldwide trend towards greater conflict, and it’s a little scary. I hope we move in another direction soon.
HP
Yes, that really is the trend in the world. Powerful right-wing populist winds also cause anxiety because populism feeds on divisions. Populism gains strength and followers from the “us and them” differentiation, and it’s all naturally reflected in politics. Consequently, as Professor Adaman says, it makes global cooperation more difficult. I’d like to say a couple of things about China, however, that offer hope. We’re all focusing on China because it’s the world’s greatest polluter. For many years, America was in that position, but a few years ago, China overtook it and then adopted a surprisingly resolute stance with regard to lowering carbon emissions. Not only did it support the Paris Agreement, it also reduced its investments in coal. The drop in China’s coal investments is one of the main reasons why worldwide investments in coal have declined. China is also taking significant steps in renewables. Here’s a figure I’ve come across: In January 2017, China announced it would invest US$360 billion in renewable energy over the next three years. That’s expected to create 13 million new jobs, which is a huge number.
In a March 2017 speech to the United Nations, China’s permanent representative highlighted the importance of the Paris Agreement and reiterated China’s commitment to creating a carbon-free future. Needless to say, this was a very important development, especially since Trump had just taken office and had started pursuing completely different policies. It was as if China were suggesting that it might fill the void left by America. And there was no mention that it would sacrifice economic growth in order to this. Instead, it said that it was possible to continue growth and create jobs by investing in renewable energy and using environmentally friendly technologies, and that it maintained its support of the Paris Agreement. In the meantime, China has continued to reduce its investments in coal. The country’s coal consumption probably peaked a couple of years ago, something that was not expected to happen until much later. This represents a major turning point in terms of carbon emissions. All these developments are perhaps hopeful indications that, even if nationally determined contributions are insufficient, initiatives by major players like China can make a difference.
BE
How much of an effect could America’s change in policy have? Could it affect the trend?
FA
If American policies change, the effect will be considerable, but how much can the policies actually change? Trump holds forth on other things as well, but on the whole, I don’t think he can have much effect on the general trend.
If you have coal, it’s quite cheap to generate power. But it would be out of the question for America to be ignorant of the environmental cost. If Trump forces the issue, if he insists on coal, he could easily face resistance. At any rate, the moment he announced that he was withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, cities and states made commitments to comply with the agreement’s limits anyway. For American politics, this could be a highly interesting test of the power of local government.
That’s the first point. The second is that America is actually one of the leaders in renewable energy. America and Germany are head-to-head here, and both have made major advances in the past few years in renewable generation, especially solar power. In the case of windmills, there really isn’t much further you can go, but there is in solar. It’s possible to make solar panels much more efficient and to reduce the cost of generation. There are major opportunities here. For example, you can now cover the entire exterior of a building with solar panels, not just the roof. Can you imagine? That would generate an incredible amount of power. Take transport, too: City buses are now electric. In short, I believe America and Germany will continue to lead the way in technological development. These advances are an important parameter, because if there’s a relative drop in costs, you might think, “Why should I burn coal? The market will adjust itself anyway!” But one thing to keep in mind is that the American lifestyle is based on high consumption: very large houses, big cars, enormous portions of food. When you consider all these factors, no matter how much environmental awareness you raise, there is an unavoidable ecological footprint. Let’s remember that Earth is finite; if we carry on consuming at this rate, we’ll need a world that's 1.6 times larger, and this factor is increasing steadily.
In summary, one way of reducing our footprint is to move into green technologies and another is to question how we live and consume. America seems to be the nation state with the greatest need to ask these questions. That’s what you conclude when you take into account their population and ecological footprint. Europe comes next. On the other hand, the greatest footprint is made by oil rich countries, despite their relatively low populations. The populations of China and India are very high, but their current ecological footprints per person are very low. They’re rising though. China did a quick about face here, and, frankly, no one was expecting it. It’s a very positive development, of course.
BE
What you’ve said brings us to a fundamental point, in my view. The world’s resources may fail to support a universal rise in consumption, which could lead to some very grave outcomes. There are two totally opposing views here in my opinion: The first is, “We can’t sacrifice growth, but it’s possible to grow with green technologies in a green economy.” New technologies and products offer amazing opportunities to companies, which could create new opportunities and drive growth. As Professor Paker said just now, China seems to have no intention of compromising its growth and has therefore decided to support environmentally-friendly technologies and adjust its investments accordingly. But as you’ve mentioned, Professor Adaman, another view seems to support the need for a paradigm shift, one that says we need to look at growth differently. Should growth be the principal goal for countries? Some studies focus on different aspects of growth. A number of recent studies attempt to measure increases in living standards as well as in production, and some even attempt to measure happiness. Hence, a “different view” would acknowledge that we won’t be able to solve these issues unless we change our approach to growth, and that might well be the real paradigm shift. This isn’t the same as saying, “We’ll grow using green technologies.” The decision that needs to be made is something along the lines of redefining growth and adopting a new point of view. Except there’s a problem here: The approach, and the ethics driving it, would have to be adopted universally. As long as the race to grow continues, individual countries won’t be able to solve the problem on their own. It seems to me to be a different and possibly much more difficult route.
FA
I completely agree. There are two distinct paradigms here, and they appear to me to emanate from two extremes at the moment. It’s possible to blend the two in a way. First of all, you have to be able to meet your basic needs – hard as they are to define. Basic needs are shelter, food, education, healthcare, and whatever else you want to include. We then ask this question: Has extra wealth made people happier? Whether you agree with the concept or criticize it, there’s something called a “happiness index,” according to which the level of happiness in Europe has largely remained stable since the 1950s. Once the wounds of the Second World War were dressed and people rebounded, the level of happiness in Europe changed very little despite multiple increases in incomes, bigger homes larger cars, and so on. What does that mean? If excessive consumption has caused great ecological stress without increasing happiness much, don’t we have to just stop there for a moment?
This paradigm doesn’t necessarily require that our economies contract at gunpoint. What it says is that we shouldn’t fixate on growth at any cost or anchor our measure of success in that single figure. Left-wing, right-wing, religious or not, everyone seems to agree on the importance of growth. This approach truly requires consideration; leaving aside more radical arguments, it’s clear to me that at the very least we should be addressing unaccounted costs. Why don’t we, for example, look at the level of education, how engaged people are culturally? What about their health, the proportion of green land in cities, whether people cycle to work, and other indicators of sustainability? Are they depressed, or are they healthy both physically and psychologically; why don’t we review such matters? How many newborns die or survive, and what is their average level of education? The status quo is we ignore all that and assess our performance on the basis of a single figure.