Brasche Climate justice and the Global South

The road to solving climate change
1. Auflage 2023
ISBN: 978-3-7583-9816-2
Verlag: BoD - Books on Demand
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, 172 Seiten

Climate will be decided in the global south Mankind is on a dangerous journey in the Anthropocene. The destination is not yet fixed. Arriving at a good life for all within planetary boundaries is still possible. But at present, the journey is more likely to lead to an overheating of the Earth. Health and life would then be massively endangered for many living beings - including humans. A positive development is still possible, but it requires a global transformation of economy and society. The prosperous states and companies are well advised, to respect the interests of the global south and future generations, and to use wisely use the considerable financial resources in a cooperation of equals. This book - highlights past carbon missions and their consequences, - reflects on the main drivers of future emissions, - discusses strategies like green growth, de-growth, - presents market-based instruments like carbon trading and carbon border adjustment and - emphasises the key role played by the emerging countries of the global south. It is not only a matter of justice but furthermore in the interest of the rich countries in the global north to contribute massively to financing a "green leapfrogging" of the global south into a carbon-free prosperity. Failing to achieve it will bring unspeakable losses and suffering to many people all over the planet.

Prof. Dr. Ulrich Brasche is an economist with focus on international aspects of economy, society and politics. He is interested in the impact of economic tools like carbon trading on global warming.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Brasche, Ulrich

Leseproben

2 Ways out of the crisis
Climate change exists, but how to deal with it? Everyone fights over the „right“ way – whether there exists one is not certain. The popular goal of „sustainability“ may not be the right one, given the necessary changes. Wouldn’t it be better, if not more and more people were living on the planet in the future, or could known and not-yet-known technologies continue to make our current lifestyle feasible in the future? Or will/must the path lead people away from high consumption and thus from constant economic growth – and would that be (only) negative? 2.1 In search of a future path
The existence of man-made climate change is only denied by a minority, which is partly financed, often covertly, by influential interest groups.67 In the meantime, the natural sciences have been able to trace rising earth temperatures indisputably back to the use of fossil energy; the publications of the globally acknowledged Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) exemplify this.68 However, there are intense discussions about the right way to deal with climate change and the right way out of the climate crisis. Ultimately, it comes down to setting the right target. 2.1.1 What urgently needs to be done Given the short time span left to limit global warming, two activities must be vigorously pursued: mitigation to address the causes of climate change in order to dampen and ultimately stop it altogether. adaptation to climate changes that have already occurred, in order to better adapt to the threats to people and their environment. Mitigation The negative impact of humans on the climate must be mitigated to completely end within the next decades.69 In particular, carbon emissions into the atmosphere must be reduced to zero by 2050. To achieve this, the burning of fossil materials must be stopped, the „natural carbon sinks“ (forests, moors) must be increased and carbon must be kept away from the atmosphere or removed from it ("carbon capture“). Mitigation is an active fight against the causes of climate change, which primarily means the reduction of carbon emissions. Reducing carbon emissions requires, among other things: the transformation of energy supply and energy use in all sectors of the economy and society, the political enforcement of measures, and the financing of large-scale investments These factors can be different for each country; accordingly, both the likelihood of achieving the target and the required financing vary. The desired standard of living and the planned pace of the required changes also influence implementation. Adaptation Adaptation70 means taking measures to adapt to expected effects. This approach is appropriate where the negative effects of climate change can no longer be prevented, even through rapid reduction of greenhouse gases, so that only the protection of people and materials from future threats can be attempted. This should increase the resilience of individuals, regions and socially relevant systems: examples are the relocation of cities away from endangered coastal areas, the elevation of dikes, the upgrading of buildings through passive and active sun protection, or the installation of alarm systems in order to be able to warn of dangers at an early stage. Adaptation can lead to maladaptation, as the examples show: If dikes are raised even though resettlement of people is unavoidable in the longer term, the corresponding coastal areas should be abandoned at an early stage. The effort for adaptation can be higher than the resources that would be required for climate change mitigation. However, the costs of mitigation are incurred now, and may be concentrated in some countries, while the benefits will accrue later and across the planet. The amount of money needed for adaptation also depends on the impact of the mitigation previous measures: the more successful these are, the lower the need for adaptation in the future.71 Focusing on adaptation can take up scarce resources that are then no longer available for mitigation. It is neither possible nor sensible to neglect the necessary mitigation measures in the hope of being able to protect oneself through massive adaptation measures. Ultimately, the costs for mitigation, together with the expenses saved from damage repair, are lower than the adaptation measures that would be necessary in extreme cases: a restructuring of the energy system and of mobility is cheaper and more promising than the construction of ever higher dikes. Neither mitigation nor adaptation alone can be the solution; they must be used simultaneously. What is to be done, when, and under which circumstances will be determined case-by-case by technical and financial aspects, and by socio-political enforceability. 2.1.2 Sustainability - a goal for everyone? It is often claimed that sustainability can avert the feared climate change. States, companies and individuals point out that their actions are sustainable. To be able to assess the concept of sustainability, it is necessary to clarify first what this means, and to whom this concept could be applicable. What is sustainability? Various definitions of sustainability exist72: three of them will be examined here for their suitability as a goal. Forestry in the 18th-century faced overexploitation, which led to the disappearance of forests in many regions. Consequently, it was suggested to remove only as much as could grow back. This was based on the idea of a balance between „harvesting“ and the regenerative capacity of the forests. The Brundtland Report defines: „The present generation shall meet its needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In other words: „Children and grandchildren should have the chance to live as well as their parents“. The philosopher Hans Jonas demands that today’s technological civilisation acts in such a way that .human action are compatible with the permanence of real human life on earth.73 The definition used by the forestry as well as that of the Brundtland Commission do not acknowledge an explicit upper limit of the Earth system’s resilience, while Jonas implicitly assumes that human action could make human existence insecure. The first two definitions refer rather to the continued usability of nature for humans, while Vogt and Weber understand „sustainability“ as something normative that should be guaranteed, independent of considerations of utility.74 The idea of an inter-generational balance leaves open whether the claim can apply to all people, and for all their needs. For a child of the rich „global north“, a life in the standard of their parents may be desirable; this is different for people in the „global south“ who must live in miserable conditions. They want a fundamental improvement of the living conditions for themselves and their descendants: a „balance between the parents and the children“ would only be a continuation of today’s misery. These definitions of sustainability are strongly oriented towards the situation of people in the rich „global north“. Furthermore, it is not always clear what should be preserved and passed on to future generations. From an „ethical-religious“ perspective, nature should be preserved in its diversity because it is the result of a higher plan – religions also speak of the preservation of divine creation. From an anthropocentric perspective, the biodiversity of nature is a resource whose usefulness for human use is to be maintained. Nature is thus to be protected insofar as it can be useful to humans today and in the future. In another view, the separation and juxtaposition of man and nature are rejected: rather, man is defined as an element of nature.75 Sustainable - for how long, for whom? The dimension of time also needs to be specified more precisely in the demand for sustainability. Mining can cause so-called „eternal burdens“ that have to be borne for centuries after the end of mining. Radioactive waste, for example, would have to be stored safely for many years. Considering the fundamental societal and technological upheavals of the last 200 years, and recognising that predicting these changes has been and will continue to be impossible, it seems presumptuous to plan for more than two generations in advance. The scope of the demand for sustainability also needs to be clarified. In particular, it must be made clear whether ALL people living on the planet today should be protected by sustainability. The claim to also protect the people born in the next 1000 years goes even further. If sustainability were not to be claimed for all, it would have to be justified which present or future humans should be excluded from the scope of sustainability. 2.1.3 Setting the goals correctly Overcoming environmental and climate problems requires the simultaneous pursuit of two goals in the coming decades: An acceptable standard of living for all people must be achieved, including those in the „global south“.76 The planetary boundaries, and thus the remaining carbon budget, must be respected. The two goals could...