Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. The more it changes, the more it remains the same. Earlier this month, the world celebrated as the Paris Agreement on Climate Change came into force. It symbolised global collective action, with each country offering its own climate plan, while creating new platforms for cooperation on technology and finance. The outcome of the US elections raises doubts over these initiatives. It remains to be seen what President Trump actually does as opposed to what candidate Donald Trump said on climate change. The latest round of negotiations ended with a Marrakesh Action Proclamation, claiming that the “momentum on climate change” was “irreversible”. But, many worry that the world might go back to the pre-Paris days of negotiating hard lines against a record of soft action.
Things remain the same in other ways too, namely, rising climate risks. Many vulnerable countries continue to face non-linear risks: Increasing water stress, intensive flooding, massive increase in drought-prone croplands, coastal flooding and risks to urban infrastructure, and heat stress combined with increase in vector-borne diseases impacting public health at large. The year 2016 is on track to being the warmest year on record. A Trump election or stalled international negotiations should not veer attention away from these chronic risks.
The challenge, then, is of a different nature. We want action but we seldom listen. We push solutions but have not created the conditions that demand action. If we are serious, any domestic or international plan has to bridge at least one (if not all) of three acute gaps: Between prosperity and the planet, policy and practice, and process and people. For that, we must pay heed to relevant stakeholders.
Can developing countries aspire to growth while also reducing carbon emissions? How could we discover the potential symbiotic relationship between prosperity and the planet? No low-income country has shifted to middle- or high-income status without a commensurate increase in per capita energy use. For more sustainable growth in future, energy access, efficiency and security can be three primary drivers for a shift to lower-carbon energy sources. Scientists and analysts have repeatedly argued that low-carbon pathways are indeed possible. But, a wider global audience is needed. Politicians will only believe other political leaders who have demonstrated that making bold decisions need not backfire at the ballot. Business leaders will trust other entrepreneurs who have been able to create new markets for clean technologies or made net positive returns on upgrading existing industrial infrastructure. In short, listen to the doers.
The second gap is the frustrating delay between policy and practice. Despite inspirational policy announcements (the latest involves 47 developing countries promising 100 per cent renewable energy), projects struggle to attract funds. It is unlikely that the new US administration will contribute significantly to international climate finance. Developed countries had not contributed much earlier, so it reaffirms fears among developing countries that little public finance is likely to flow. What of private finance? Large institutional investors remain wary of risks in developing countries, which makes the cost of finance for climate-friendly projects prohibitively high. The International Solar Alliance envisions $1 trillion of investment by 2030. This will not happen automatically unless the biggest investors and the countries with solar technologies and manufacturing capacity are brought into the fold. A change in mindsets is of essence across international funds (including the Green Climate Fund): From project financing to de-risking investments. Instruments such as partial credit guarantees and foreign exchange hedging facilities are sorely needed. Philanthropic funding initiatives for clean energy, decentralised energy and energy efficiency could have greater impact if strategic philanthropy were targeted at reducing the cost of finance. For any of this to happen, listen to the innovators, developers and investors.
Thirdly, the gap between process and people remains a significant political barrier to action. This gap relates directly to energy or water access, or improved public health. It also manifests through second-order effects, such as variability in incomes, job insecurity and a disconnect from technological solutions. Much attention is devoted to how negotiations progressed, as opposed to how they responded to insecurities relating to basic needs and broader life chances. Process is important but people wish to see outcomes as well.
More From This Section
Many collaborative platforms now exist for climate action. But, if these processes do not connect with the needs of communities, there is a risk of further backlash against a perceived loss of jobs and incomes. Connecting climate technologies to energy access, rural development and poverty reduction is the best kind of co-benefit — and could spur cross-border trade and investment. But, rising trade disputes over clean energy suggest that these opportunities have not been conveyed or translated into demonstrable benefits for those whose livelihoods are threatened by regulatory changes or shifts in energy markets. In short, listen to vulnerable communities, whether the vulnerabilities are economic, climatic or both.
For too many, climate change is still an additional area of policymaking, competing for political attention. That it is a threat multiplier for existing development priorities — health, agriculture, manufacturing, infrastructure and urbanisation — is neither well communicated nor understood. We cannot get genuine climate action by making it an extra line item in national budgets or international aid programmes. The task has become tougher. If we fail to listen, things will remain the same.
The writer is chief executive, Council on Energy, Environment and Water (https://bsmedia.business-standard.comceew.in)
Twitter: @GhoshArunabh