Climate Crisis Heating Up
The climate is warming. Thanks to the shared interest of all global actors in preventing the catastrophic effects of this, the situation presents a unique global opportunity.
Transnational collaboration at a grand scale is necessitated to mitigate warming’s detrimental impacts. With the Treaty of Lisbon articulating that combating climate change is a key goal of the EU’s environmental policy, European countries share this commitment to slow global warming. However, as countries continue to fall short of goals that even if achieved will not produce desired effects, Europe must expand its vision to the world stage in order to effectively combat climate change. Supranational collaboration with the main carbon emitters is a prerequisite of any meaningful global progress.
European plans are rolled out steadily: the Kyoto Protocol, Cancun Agreements, and new “Fit for 55” green transition plan all exemplify the continued EU effort to curb carbon emissions. President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen has stated their goal to become the first carbon neutral continent by 2050. To attain this milestone, stepping stones such as banning the sale of combustion engine vehicles by 2035, slashing greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030, and adding hefty taxes to carbon emitting activities are on the road to implementation. Clearly, these are ambitious goals.
Yet, the costs of transitioning to green energy are exemplified by the yellow-vest protests in France, which saw citizens react harshly to carbon taxes. Stanford economist Melissa de Witte argues that the yellow vest movement has even “morphed far beyond a carbon tax protest,” coming to represent “high unemployment and an economy that has stagnated, despite a decade of global expansion in other European countries.” Forcing an all-too-fast transition to expensive forms of energy warns of a destabilizing phenomenon that could very well reach any country which takes too aggressive action against climate change. The expedient transition to green energy has potential to become a new class conflict in Europe.
Yet simultaneously, the EU is failing to enact aggressive enough legislation to reach its goals. The EU is seeking to find new rules for the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) after seeing no meaningful decrease in agricultural emissions since 2010 despite over 100 billion euros having gone towards the cause. The Institute of Applied Ecology in Germany has researched what steps are necessary to make the articulated Paris Agreement goal feasible. President von der Leyen’s new “Fit for 55” plan is an attempt. Regardless, experts have ascertained that Europe will still fall short of the goals set by the Paris Agreement. In fact, even if the current emission goals of the Paris Agreement are met, further reductions will be required in order to limit warming to this 2 degrees celsius cap.
All the while, case-in-point examples like Germany trying to phase out nuclear as a cheaper green intermediary alternatives represents a pushing away from what could very well be the next best option until we innovate more economically efficient renewable energy sources. Despite the problems which exist with nuclear, opting for more expensive and less efficient solar and wind energy strains energy supply and empties wallets. Natural gas is another example of this intermediary semi-green power which can hold over cheap energy while clean energy is further developed, something which Germany does take advantage of.
Simply put, Europe must broaden its scope and look beyond its borders to make an impact on climate change. The EU cannot go it alone and will likely face repercussions from constituents should they try to progress rapidly to costlier renewable energy. So, we are left with progressive goals, potential cultural backlash, and still falling short of desired emission standards. While setting goals for the EU is great, the first-ever universal climate change agreement, the Paris Agreement, really represents a step in the right direction.
Whilst some EU nations like Sweden and Ireland tax 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, non-member countries like Norway and Ukraine more effectively tax 62 and 71 percent of emissions respectively. And yet, we see staggering reports of countries like China maintaining emissions that exceed all developed nations combined. The United States, India, and Russia continue to be leading carbon emitters as well. Clearly, immense variation in emissions exists.
Countries like China and India refuse to commit to the same CO2 reductions as developed nations. Russia also resists new carbon emission goals. These complications to a global front against climate change elucidate that not all actors will behave in a way which represents the general interest of humanity; some will prefer to value GDP and profit motives over clean energy. Furthermore, we have established that current EU goals are so aggressive that meeting them has potential to incite unrest amongst constituents. Green intermediaries like nuclear and natural gas are a viable alternative here.
Additionally, concerns exist over whether making aggressive global targets will raise tensions between countries. Such a large scale collective action problem gives a short-term incentive for countries to defect from climate agreements. If a different nation bears the cost of limiting carbon emissions and ultimately develops more efficient green energy, everyone will reap the rewards of this innovation while only that one country will bore the burden necessary for it to emerge.
However, this is failing to see the massive potential for global collaboration in regards to the climate crisis. Having established that the EU is struggling to meet lofty goals by itself and other main contributors fail to dedicate sufficient resources to the battle, a solution is evident. Collective yet less drastic climate action is better than extreme but geographically limited action. More collaboration with top emitters such as China, India, Russia, and the US would actually improve relations between countries. Seldom is there an example of a global problem which requires all actors to undertake action; we must not let the impetus for coordination be understated. So long as we do not impose overly restrictive goals and maintain economic incentives, collaboration is a greater possibility.
Furthermore, nuclear and natural gas ought to be embraced, not disregarded. While more environmentally progressive countries can continue work on maximizing the efficiency of renewable energy like wind and solar, developing nations must utilize less costly alternatives. With nuclear and gas still emitting less CO2 than fossil fuels, we should encourage their use on the global stage whilst working to improve the future of renewable energy. A balance where consumers retain access to cheap energy while we work towards a green new world must be found.
To ensure the feasibility of this goal, broader international collaboration like the Paris Agreement is a prerequisite. Sanctions on countries who are above a certain per capita GDP and still refuse to curb emissions should be enacted to show that the international community will not tolerate inaction. The share of renewable energies has almost doubled since 2005. Renewable energies have and continue to become more efficient and thus cheaper. Countries continue to dedicate themselves to a better and greener future. Together, we can find this balance and move towards a world where we live in harmony with our planet.
