[U of T submitted assignments]
So What Now: Climate Finance
Now that we’ve established that developed countries should bear more responsibilities, the question of how they act on those responsibilities still remains. First off, I propose a mechanism or an agreement among nations to establish a “fund” in order to ensure that those countries in dire need that have been heavily hit by the effects of climate change are at least compensated. In order to better illustrate how this mechanism works, let us look at the case of Typhoon Haiyan in 2013. Typhoon Haiyan was a Category-5 cyclone that hit parts of the Central Philippines back in 2013. It caused around US$13.6 billion in economic damages and has led to the death of more than 6,000 people. It was one of the most devastating typhoons in history that it had international coverage, coverage that eventually led to debates as to whether this typhoon was an effect of climate change, and if it was a symptom of an ever-warming world (Bankoff & Borrinaga, 2016). The analysis of the data collected during Haiyan’s formation showed that in a matter of 6 days, it underwent a period of rapid intensification (Bankoff & Borrinaga, 2016) as it passed by the unusually warm (high temperatures of around 31°C) Pacific Ocean (Bachmeier, 2013).
Although international assistance, particularly from developed nations, was immediately given after the ravaging of Haiyan, these developed countries were still reluctant to respond to calls for a better “loss and damage funding mechanism” under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (Yamada & Galat, 2014, p. 434). In 2013, the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage was established as a temporary project under the UNFCCC, but it was made permanent by the Paris Agreement in 2015 (Mogelgaard & McGray, 2015). However, the same Article in the Paris Agreement that made the Warsaw Mechanism permanent (Article 8) removed the concept of the liability of other countries for the damages caused on developing countries by climate change (Climate Focus, 2015). Despite this caveat, Article 8 opens up international discussions and debates on future “loss and damages” mechanisms, and hopefully, we will be able to ensure the creation of an appropriate mechanism in the future.
So What Now: Mitigation
Also, given that the majority of the total CO2 produced and emitted came from these developed countries (Yamada & Galat, 2014), it would be a responsibility for these countries to adopt climate change mitigation policies.
A study conducted by Bostrom et al. (2012) discovered that among economics and business students that they have surveyed, there is a strong consensus that climate change is a serious threat to mankind and its future. They also discovered that the most popular solutions are “low-risk” solutions such as funding research into increasing the efficiency and decreasing the cost of renewable energy sources and planting trees, among others. Also, there was feeble support for “high-risk” and drastic solutions such as limiting population growth. The problem with this, according to Bostrom et al. (2012), is that it has been recognized that population growth is one of the most effective drivers of increasing GHG emissions.
Another drastic solution that was barely supported was an imposition of higher taxes on carbon emissions. This result is also reflected in Carter, Fraser, & Zalik’s article “Environmental Policy Convergence in Canada’s Fossil Fuel Provinces? Regulatory Streamlining, Impediments, and Drift” (2017), which state that Canadian provinces tend to formulate environmental policies in order to meet economy progress and goals, up to such a point that these provinces use softer environmental policies in order to protect their main revenue stream from fossil fuels. Granted that, as of the end of 2016, there are an estimated 171.5 thousand million barrels of crude oil reserves, and 6582 million tonnes of coal reserves remaining in Canada (British Petroleumm, 2017), and the oil, gas, and mining industry in Canada is around US$164.8 billion. This price is perhaps enough to see why certain Canadian provinces are reluctant to adopt stricter environmental policies; however, Bostrom et al. (2012) also recognize that a tax on carbon is essential in order to put a cap on emission rates. They claim that without an appropriate carbon tax, prospects of lowering emissions and countering climate change is bleak (Bostrom et al., 2012).
My counter to this argument is that it should be noted that the oil, gas, and mining industry in Canada is worth around only 8% of the national GDP, and economists estimate that the collapse of this industry could happen within the next decade. Yes, this will be financially devastating for provinces reliant on the fossil fuel industry like Alberta, but these economists claim that oil is a small enough blip in the Canadian GDP that we would barely feel it overall (Dembicki, 2017). In fact, the prospect of the fossil fuel industry collapse should jolt us to further diversify our GDP in order to help Alberta alleviate any future economic losses and transition off of oil.
Related Links:
Part 1: On Climate Change: An Insight into Climate Justice [UofT docs 2018]
Part 3: On Climate Change: An Insight into Climate Justice [UofT docs 2018]