The scale of the problem has been known for years
Climate change is just one branch of a field of environmental science that has mushroomed in the past 50 years. The science behind climate change has been known since the nineteenth century but it was not until the early 20th century that the first attempts were made to assess the impact of man-made activity. Efforts in the 1930s to calculate the future effect of rising CO2 emissions on global temperatures turned out to be hopelessly optimistic because they underestimated the impact of economic growth[1]. However, in the 1950s, the physicist Gilbert Plass estimated that CO2 concentrations would rise by 30% over the 20th century and warned that temperatures would increase by 1.1oC[2]. Although his calculations did not take into account some of the factors which we know today, his estimate that a doubling of CO2 emissions would raise global temperatures by 3.8oC is not far off today’s consensus estimate of 3oC. Rather more disconcertingly he pointed out that if all known (at the time) fossil fuel reserves were burned, this would raise global temperatures by 7oC.
Much of the early work remained within the narrow confines of the scientific community but the political agenda began to take note in the 1960s and 1970s, triggered initially by resource concerns. The environmental lobby was radicalised by the publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson in 1962 in which she highlighted the effects of agrochemicals on the environment. In 1968, the ecologist Garrett Hardin published his famous article in Science titled The Tragedy of the Commons, in which he argued that individuals acting in their own self-interest would result in sub-optimal social use of natural resources. It was around this time that modern environmental economics started off as a fringe discipline but by the mid-1970s it was rising very rapidly up the agenda.
It is not the intention here to go into any detail on the history of environmental economics. Instead, interested readers are referred to the literature review by David Stern and his co-authors, published in 2014. It is, however, worth highlighting the work of William Nordhaus and Nicholas Stern (no relation to David). Climate issues were first subject to economic analysis in the 1970s and by the 1980s Nordhaus[3] was producing scenario analysis and projections for future CO2 emissions. Nordhaus can lay claim to being the most preeminent economist working on climate issues and he was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2018 for his work in the field.
One of the most important early policy works was the 2006 Stern Review. Although it met with a mixed reception from economists, it was highly influential and argued that climate change represented a major market failure. One of the basic recommendations was that the benefits of strong, early action far outweigh the costs of not acting and it proposed a number of economic solutions, including the application of environmental taxes, to correct for some of the failures.
Why has it taken so long?
In light of all this the fact that we find ourselves at “one minute to midnight on that doomsday clock”, to quote Boris Johnson at the opening of the COP26 summit in Glasgow, represents a potentially catastrophic policy failure. The summit is being touted as “humanity’s last and best chance to secure a liveable future amid dramatic climate change” and “as one of the important diplomatic meetings in history.” It comes six years after the Paris Agreement when 196 countries signed a legally binding treaty pledging to hold global temperatures no higher than 2oC above pre-industrial levels, with an aspiration to limit the rise to 1.5oC. However, Earth’s temperature has risen by 0.08°C per decade since 1880, and the rate of warming over the past 40 years is more than twice that: 0.18°C per decade since 1981 (chart below). Simply put we are running out of time to limit the temperature rise, if we have not done so already.
Although the Paris Agreement imposes binding constraints on countries’ carbon emissions, just three countries account for more than 50% of global emissions (China: 30%; US: 14% and India: 7%). For the record Europe accounts for 11%. However, whilst global CO2 emissions rose by 59% between 1990 and 2019, European emissions fell by 25% (largely thanks to Ukraine); US emissions were broadly flat whilst those in the Asia Pacific region rose by a whopping 220% and the region as a whole has accounted for 92% of the increase in global emissions since 1990 (chart below).
Whilst the likes of Greta Thunberg rail at politicians in Europe and the US for not doing enough, it is China and India which have done so much to change the carbon balance. This is not to say that the industrialised world should not do much more – after all, a significant portion of Chinese emissions can be attributed to production for western consumers – but it is clear that so long as the rapidly industrialising economies in Asia continue to rely on fossil fuels, the prospect of limiting global carbon emissions appears remote. With Chinese leader Xi Jinping not expected to attend the Glasgow summit, the likelihood that COP26 will result in a global climate deal is next to zero.
The scientific consensus suggests that greenhouse gas emissions need to fall by anywhere between 25% and 50% over the next decade in order to have any chance of limiting the global temperature rise to 2oC. This is arguably impossible in the absence of a carbon tax. According to the IMF around 80% of carbon emissions are unpriced and the global average emissions price is only $3 per ton. However it reckons that a three-tier price floor involving just six participants (Canada, China, EU, India, UK and US) with prices of $75, $50, and $25 for advanced, high, and low-income emerging markets, respectively could help achieve a 23% reduction in global emissions below baseline by 2030.
What is likely to happen?
Rather than such a grandiose plan COP26 is likely instead to result in a series of smaller resolutions, all of which mount up to something positive. The US commitment to supporting the Paris Agreement runs counter to the ill-judged actions of Donald Trump. There has also been a commitment to halt global deforestation over the next decade. Even India has pledged to cut carbon emissions to net zero by 2070. Whilst this is the first time India has made such a commitment, it is not ambitious enough and it was hoped that COP26 would agree a global carbon neutral pledge by 2050. Here lies the nub of the problem as outlined by Garrett Hardin over 50 years ago: Nations acting in their own interest make the global problems worse. Whilst India does have a point that the industrialised nations need to do more because they have contributed far more to emissions over time, India also has a moral duty to its future generations to adopt the new technologies at a faster rate than currently planned – even China is aiming for net zero by 2060 (though China needs to do a whole lot more as well).
The simple truth is that politicians around the globe – and by extension, we the people – have been slow to recognise the need for change and are unwilling to pay the economic price for the action required. I hope I am wrong in my assessment that in 10 years’ time we will still be having the same debate. But with many countries having failed to turn the tanker around in time (the EU plus UK to some extent excepted), I fear that climate issues will get a lot worse before they get better. Still, I blame the dinosaurs. If they hadn’t got themselves fossilised, maybe none of this would have happened.
[1] Callendar, G. S. (1938) ‘The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature’, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 64: 223-240
[3] Nordhaus, W. D. and G. W. Yohe (1983) ‘Future paths of energy and carbon dioxide emissions’, in T. F. Malone (ed.) Changing Climate: Report of the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee, National Academy Press, Washington DC. Chapter 2.1: 87-152
