by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne
I am one young girl standing before you today, but I am not alone…
So said Getrude Clement, 16-year-old radio reporter from Tanzania and UNICEF youth representative and climate advocate, at the opening segment of the Signing Ceremony for Paris Agreement on Climate Change, 22 April 2016.
Two years later, Greta Thunberg, school student at the UN Climate Change Summit, 2018 said: “For 25 years countless people have come to the UN climate conferences begging our world leaders to stop emissions and clearly that has not worked as emissions are continuing to rise. So, I will not beg the world leaders to care for our future…I will instead let them know change is coming whether they like it or not.”
Greta went on to say: “[S]ince our leaders are behaving like children, we will have to take the responsibility they should have taken long ago”. There is a sense of urgency in the statements these youngsters make and a serious concern that the present generation may not be keeping to their own definition of sustainable development: that it is development that meets the needs of the present generation without jeopardizing the needs of the future generations.
The Economist, in an article in its issue of 23 February 2019 entitled After the Deluge talks of a business practice prevalent in the world today called “climate nonchalance”. This is a voluntary ignoring of risks businesses would face and possible damage they would incur as a result of property damage caused by disasters related to climate change. This kind of indirect “cooking the books” is calculated to prevent loss of value of businesses. The Economist goes on to say: “Last August analysts at Schroders, an asset manager, looked at 11,000 listed global companies and estimated that properly accounting for physical climate risk could on average shave 2-3% off their value. Some sectors would take a bigger hit: utilities and oil and gas stand to lose 4-4.5% (see chart). Some firms face potential losses of up to 20%. Most have no idea of their exposure, suspects Andrew Howard of Schroders”.
The concern of the world is that there will be serious adverse effects on the world if the global temperature goes above 1.5 c of pre-industrial levels during this century. Scientists have opined that if this target is achieved the climate change problem will at least be alleviated. However, the problem with the climate change solutions offered so far is that, although the aim of the Paris Agreement of 2015 - which was entered into by States under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and which entered into force on 4 November 2016, is to achieve not more than 2 c above pre industrial levels this century and most desirably bring it down to 1.5 c - nothing much has been done to implement a concrete global plan to achieve this target. This makes the characteristics of the Agreement – which are that is universal and legally binding, fair and differentiated, and sustainable and dynamic – open to question.
Despite the lofty statements of cooperation at the Paris discussions, there just seems to be no cohesive political will on a global scale. CNN reports that “current government policies will lead to a global temperature increase of 3.4C in 2100 - well above the committed target of 2C, and certainly enough to cause catastrophic impacts that could threaten the entire future of human civilization…where public pressure to enforce reductions in carbon emissions shows any sign of succeeding, fossil fuels companies pour millions into efforts to squash it. For example, BP pumped around $12 million into the successful effort to block a moderate carbon tax in Washington state. Overall, fossil fuels companies outspend environmental groups by a margin of 10 to one.” Raz Godelnik, in a comment quoting an initiative called the Carbon Initiative Trackers Assessment states, referring to the assessment: “It shows only two small countries’ efforts are consistent with the Paris Agreement 1.5°C limit (Morocco, The Gambia) and 4 countries (Bhutan, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Philippines, and India) are in the range of the 2°C goal. The rest of the world’s performance is somewhere between insufficient (<3 a="" act="" adopting="" agreement="" all="" and="" are:="" be="" carbon="" companies="" compel="" countries="" critically="" enforceable="" focus="" for="" from="" goals="" godelnik="" have="" he="" implement="" in="" innovate="" insufficient="" it="" legally="" makes="" manner="" measures="" meet="" nbsp="" of="" p="" paris="" reason="" recommendations="" reduction="" regime="" rigorously="" science-based="" scientific="" shift="" should="" simple="" some="" suggests="" targets.="" techniques.="" that="" the="" there="" those="" timely="" to="" using="" will="" world="" would="">
It is hard to disagree with Godelnik’ s recommendations. One of the considerations in handling the problem would be, as the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change - released for the Government of the United Kingdom on 30 October 2006 by economist Nicholas Stern – stated, to use comparisons of the current level and future trajectories of the ‘social cost of carbon’ (the cost of impacts associated with an additional unit of greenhouse gas emissions) with the marginal abatement cost (the costs associated with incremental reductions in units of emissions – and go on the basis that the benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs. Stern called for one percent of the World’s GDP to be allocated to tackle the problem of climate change.
Meanwhile, “what about us”? our youngsters cry. The Convention on the Rights of the Child , adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989 states that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity; and that State Parties should take, to the maximum extent of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international co-operation, legal and administrative measures to ensure that economic, social and cultural rights of the child are preserved. At the Apex of the Treaty lies Article 6 which emphasizes that States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life and that they will ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.
The author is a former official in the United Nations System.
Post a Comment