Reducing Global Carbon Emissions: Competition vs. Cooperation

Reducing Global  Carbon Emissions: 

Competition vs. Cooperation

 

As extreme weather events are making abundantly clear, we are not anticipating a climate crisis; we are in the midst of one. Although there are still a few outliers that deny climate change altogether, for the most part there is a general consensus that the status quo is unsustainable and something must be done. Yet most carbon emission reduction targets are set, not for this year, but for some future date –2030, 2050 or the turn of the century. In the interim –that period of time during which the crisis can only worsen—fossil fuel extraction, exploration, and consumption continues to rise. The decision-makers seem to be caught in a catch twenty-two; a damned if we do and a damned if we don't conundrum. Why? Because no country seems to be willing to take action that will place them at an economic disadvantage in the global market place.

For fossil fuel producers this means an unwillingness to strand fossil fuel assets or forfeit jobs without iron-clad assurances that every other producer will do the same. Similarly, countries reliant on fossil fuels to maintain their productivity and increase their competitiveness in the global marketplace will not willingly abandon fossil fuels until there is a cheaper alternative source of energy to replace it. In other words, countries in which economic growth in the global marketplace is contingent on their ability to compete with other countries are unlikely to embrace or endorse a course of action that will reduce their competitiveness. Therefore the dichotomy between competition and cooperation between countries precludes international cooperation on climate action. The predominant global economic development model—considered to be the highest rung on some imagined  ladder of Darwinism social evolution—requires both constant expansion and competition. In a finite world, with finite resources, and a finite ability for the climate and environment to survive further expansion, only a willingness to abandon this economic development model in favour of something more sustainable can save us. How are we to resolve this dilemma and move toward global cooperation?

One of the primary barriers to global cooperation is the blame game. There are many metrics being put forward to assign blame and responsibility for this crisis. The metric favoured by one country is often rejected by others. While some blame producers –fossil fuel extractive industries—for continuing to make fossil fuels available, others blame countries who burn dirtier fuels –coal and such—for the crisis. Some focus on countries' consumption of fossil fuels in their production process for the problem, while others blame those who create a market for such products by purchasing them. Some blame consumers who don't want to spend the extra dollars to buy greener products. Some take a longer view, and absolve themselves of responsibility by putting the onus to take action on countries which have a long history of pumping C02 into the atmosphere ever since the industrial revolution and the invention of internal combustion engines. Still others point to the total emissions of countries, while others look at per-capita emissions. To placate increasingly alarmed citizens without jeopardizing their standing in the global economy many countries are committing to half-measures, future targets and alternative energy sources; a bid to convince citizens that things are under control and they can both have their cake –a robust and growing competitive economy—and eat it too—continue the high levels of consumption to which they are accustomed and to which they feel entitled. Even many of the most vociferous climate advocates seem convinced that by switching to green renewable energy we can continue to enjoy the benefits of economic growth and the commodification of resources indefinitely. They are, of course, deluding themselves and others.

What no one seems ready to admit is that without a consensus the global cooperation necessary to eliminate C02 emissions is simply not going to happen. Some embrace this lack of cooperation as an excuse for doing nothing themselves. Very few have seriously contemplated how to enhance global cooperation in addressing this existential threat. Of all the metrics above, perhaps the most hopeful—the most just, and therefore achievable—is a focus on per-capita emissions. By this metric it is both unjust and unreasonable for Canadians, spewing on average18.5 tons of C02 per person into the atmosphere, to expect Chinese emitting on average 7.38 tons of C02, to further reduce their emissions before Canadians have reduced theirs to at least the same 7.38 tons emitted by the average Chinese person. When and if Canada and other high per-capita emission countries have achieved lowering their emission levels top those of the Chinese we can begin to talk about further reducing the C02 emissions in China and other countries. Once we have all reduced our emissions to the levels of countries like Mali and Greenland --0.09 tons per-capita and 0.03 tons per-capita respectively--the barriers to international cooperation will have been largely removed. If, and only if this has is achieved in a timely manner, cooperation among all steak-holders, will it become possible to avert a total climate apocalypse.

To the contrary–if the same circle-the-wagons our-nation-first approach of wealthy nations in the global COVID vaccine roll-out persists—we are doomed. There is a strong correlation between levels of consumption and levels of C02 emissions. Over-privileged over-consumers cannot realistically expect the underprivileged and destitute to reduce emissions beyond levels to which wealthy nations and individuals are themselves unwilling to reduce their own emissions. Using a stick instead of a carrot to force collaboration—the use of military coercion or sanctions—will only further increase already unsustainable levels of emissions. The only way in which we can have our cake is for the insatiable gluttonous minority to stop eating it. The continued use of an economic development model based on constant expansion and resource extraction/depletion enjoyed by the few is incompatible with sustaining life on this planet. 

 

Can we get there from here? Can we make the necessary global cooperation possible? Theoretically it is entirely possible. Practically it seems unlikely. It seems that the house of cards, the foundation on which the privilege of the over-privileged decision-makers is built, must be torn down. I may be missing something, but I don't see how this is going to happen without first removing decision-making power from the over-privileged. It is my faint hope that exposing the cracks in the foundation will shed some light on the problem. Despite claims to the contrary, allowing market forces to determine the allocation of resources is not a viable option. An alternative more sustainable option must be found and implemented without delay. An alternative economy in which the objective is not growth, but in which we can all thrive, such as that proposed by Kate Raworth. Any suggestions as to how this can best be accomplished?

--Stewart Vriesinga