Efforts to combat climate change have had mixed results in 2022, which are best described by the saying “one step forward, two steps back"”. While governments are still slow in taking decisive action, the effects of climate change are already being felt. To diminish their impact and magnitude, there is an urgent need for the United States and China to agree in 2023 to combat them.
“Where are the snows of yesteryear?”
Twenty years ago, when I was working in Great Britain, I learned about one of the most popular bets the British used to make: whether or not it would snow in London at Christmas. It didn't even cross my mind that in a few years, the same bet could be made in Bucharest. Because at that time there was no winter in which it did not snow in the capital of Romania, which was sometimes even buried under mountains of snow, typical of the Baragan region. Now, however, the people of Bucharest haven't had a “White Christmas”, as the British called the ones with snow, for three years. I don't know if this phenomenon is directly related to the climate change we have been witnessing for some time. But certainly, it happens simultaneously with another phenomenon attested by exact measurements. The average global temperature has increased by 1.2 degrees Celsius compared to the level of the pre-industrial era.
COP27, too timid a start given the urgency of the situation
Until now, climate change policies have been linked to avoiding reaching a 1.5-degree Celsius warming threshold. According to that, targets were set for reducing pollution and carbon dioxide emissions. Now, however, with this 1.2 on the table, it is obvious that the 1.5 threshold will be reached and exceeded. It is time for a reform of the climate change strategy, because the data on the ground has changed and the efforts so far to detoxify the planet have failed.
This is what the participants in COP27, the international climate conference held in Egypt in November, also admitted. In the old tradition of solemn promises, they pledged - half-heartedly and with resounding exceptions - to eliminate fossil fuel as a source of energy production. But at the same time, they stipulated, also in vague terms, that rich countries should compensate the poor ones for the “loss and damage” caused by climate change.
Why is this phrase a turning point for the future strategy? On the one hand, it officially acknowledges that there is “loss and damage” caused by climate change. The floods in Pakistan, the hurricane in Florida, the most devastating since 1935, and the heat wave in Western Europe, were too clear examples of the connection between the climate and the growing pollution on the planet to be denied or ignored. And in Egypt, they had a coherent and persistent interpreter in the Pakistani minister of the environment, who imposed that point of view. So, the level of 1.2 degrees Celsius exists and produces effects; because of it, some countries suffer; it was reached as a result of historical pollution, originating from the industrial activity of developed countries; and for this reason, developed countries must compensate the poor, who do not have the necessary resources to overcome the felt effects on their own.
The stage we have reached is one where the devil is in the details. First, the amount. COP27 determined that the debt of the rich countries to the poor countries is in this case 260 million dollars. Why 260 and not 300, is not clear; but it is also not clear why 260 million and not 260 billion. The calculations are still in the beginning and there are no specialists to do them at the moment. Amounts that have previously gone into the humanitarian aid account to fight famine or disease could, at least in some cases, go into this climate debit account, since many of the areas where famine and disease occur are now climate calamities, not political or simply geographical. The same with refugees: there is a new category of climate refugees, a category recognized at the level of the United Nations.
But the definition of climate donor or recipient state is also unclear. China is, after the United States, the world's biggest polluter. For example, it uses almost half of the world's concrete production for the construction of highways, dams and airports, and the concrete industry is one of the most polluting; if concrete were a country, it would be third in the world, after China and the USA, in terms of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. But despite all this, China is not among the developed states, and for this reason, at least at the moment, it is on the list of countries that would potentially receive climate compensation funds. And it won't willingly come off the list, or at least not without making some trade-offs in other sensitive areas of the Sino-US negotiations, such as the friction over Taiwan or the US restrictions on technology trade. It is in this context that President Xi Jinping's statement in November should be read: Beijing will resume dialogue with the United States on climate change, a dialogue suspended since the summer of this year. The interpretation was reinforced by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who had used metaphorical terms from the field to describe the climate dialogue between the two countries. This dialogue, he said, cannot be like an oasis in a desert of Sino-US talks, because if we keep it at this status, sooner or later, “the desert will swallow the oasis” .
Priorities: money for green energy and adapting to the new climate realities
The cautious say that the pressure on governments will decrease once it is admitted that the threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius is no longer relevant. On the other hand, the realists show that the promises have been systematically broken, with all the pressure exerted and with all the warnings issued. It's time, they say, to see what can be done when the damage - or at least some of it - has already been done.
First, much more money is needed to reduce emissions. At the moment, global investment in green energy production is about a trillion dollars a year. However, the required amount would be three times higher, and the bulk of it should go to underdeveloped countries, where most emissions are currently produced. Are donors and Western governments in a position to cover this amount? Currently, no. But even its mere mention creates the framework for a negotiation that will go in the desired direction, a negotiation which private investors will be able to join later. And the fact that this year, the US Congress approved the “largest plan” of climate investments in the history of the United States - worth 369 billion dollars - is only an indication of the amounts that could be discussed from now on.
Secondly, the same pragmatic approach must include the acceptance that the use of fossil fuels will continue for some time. Replacing gas in energy production is an unrealistic undertaking for the time being, at least until investments in green energy can make themselves felt. The confusion of the European states when Russian gas was no longer available speaks for itself. The Europeans could only replace the nationality of the gas, not the gas itself. They had to invest in gas storages and other capacities to import this fossil fuel, which the EU has temporarily put on the list of sources compatible with “clean” energy production.
Thirdly, it is time to adjust things to the changes that have occurred. The question “Where are the snows of yesteryear?” it's no longer rhetorical, we'd better adapt. The cautious say that this attitude is exactly what is expected of those looking for excuses not to fight decisively with the challenges brought by pollution, but that does not take away what I was saying earlier, that + 1.2 degrees Celsius is already here. But even in this case, it is about money. Farmers in developing countries should be helped to adapt their crops to the new conditions. Residents in areas exposed to periods of severe heat should be supported to make their homes more suitable. And all this help should come from those who can afford to give it, and that would also be for their own benefit. Because by helping those affected by desertification or extreme weather phenomena to stay in their geographical areas, you reduce the political pressure of refugees that is felt in many developed countries, especially in European ones.
Fourthly - and also as a consequence of admitting that the 1.5-degree Celsius target is no longer realistic - we should think more seriously about and invest in technologies to “cool” the planet. There are still insufficiently researched and promoted methods of extracting carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or stimulating the reflection of sunlight, the so-called “solar geoengineering”, also rejected by climate activists as “dangerous”. But, as The Economist writes, managing an overheated Earth is just as dangerous.
A China-US deal for the sake of money would also be useful for combating climate change
An agreement between Washington and Beijing on climate would clarify many relationships, especially the financial ones. But Beijing is reluctant to admit that China's catastrophic floods or devastating droughts are due to the effects of climate change. The Chinese mostly play the geopolitical card, using Western climate scruples, insofar as they exist, to improve their position on other common files.
However, there is one element that has not been considered long enough to outline the trajectory of Chinese policy in the field, namely the economic criterion. China has had a lot to gain from exporting photovoltaic cells (as America has from selling electric cars). A more environmentally friendly position could also be an economically advantageous one. The US and China tend to dominate the market for green energy production technologies, just as the US and the USSR once dominated the market for nuclear power and solar panels during the Cold War. An understanding between the two powers regarding the new economic opportunities brought about by the issue of climate change could be mutually beneficial. A “thaw” in this regard could be seen at the climate conference held this past autumn in Egypt. The participants then welcomed Beijing's openness. COP27 highlighted that also in the climate field, discussions between the “the big guys” can open doors that are otherwise difficult to access. It remains to be seen what 2023 will bring in this area described so far, quite accurately, by the old saying “one step forward and two steps back”.
