World leaders gathered at the United Nations (UN) this week for a summit meeting on climate change. With the December Copenhagen Summit fast approaching, the UN was anxious to build a sense of urgency about the need for a new, global climate change treaty. But with world leaders pre-occupied with domestic economies, the summit produced little more than words.
It does seem that global warming is one of those 'post-materialist' issues to which people turn their minds when their larders are stocked and their savings accounts swelling. But the dilemma of sustainable development is that it is not when economies are growing that serious action actually occurs. London's Financial Times reported this week that a recent study conducted by the International Energy Agency will reveal that the global economic recession has led to substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
This remains the core issue that nobody likes to address. In recent years, a climate-change industry has emerged in financial capitals like New York and London. Driving it is a small number of wealthy individuals, like Virgin Atlantic's Richard Branson. They believe that renewable energy will be the next great business opportunity.
Joining them in this battle cry are retired politicians like Bill Clinton, who sell the environment as a business opportunity. However, so far, none of these market players has found a way to generate the kind returns of traditional, dirty industries do. We may be on the verge of the a dramatic wave of technological innovation in energy. But for the time being, the old rule applies: If you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, you have to reduce the overall rate of economic growth.
That dilemma continues to structure the conversation at international summits like this one. Developing countries obviously have no intention of keeping their people poor in order to green the planet. They will grow, and call for rich countries to bear the expense of the investment in the renewable energy that will save the planet from global warming.
SNAKE OIL
But not surprisingly, politicians in rich countries don't win elections by promising to induce recessions or give money to poor countries. As good as recessions may be for the planet, they are lousy for political careers. Their lot has not been made any easier by the evangelising of the world's Bill Clintons, who keep selling the snake oil that faster growth can lead to a greener planet. Maybe, it will some day. But the evidence to date consistently shows that if we are to create a more sustainable world economy, painful adjustments will need to be made.
On a more positive note, little by little, a consensus does seem to be emerging on climate change. The election of Barack Obama in the United States (US) has been a significant step forward, given his administration's own commitment to the issue. And China, which is overtaking the US as the world's heaviest polluter, is warming to the idea of making its own growth model more sustainable.
No climate change treaty
However, the risk is that politics will get in the way. No climate change treaty will succeed if the US doesn't sign up. While the administration can negotiate a treaty, the Senate must approve it. And with Barack Obama having invested so much of his political capital in health care and his government's management of the economy, he may not have much left to spend on climate change.
One can hope that come December, President Obama will have won the health care battle in the midst of an economic upswing, all while the Chinese make significant concessions. Then, maybe there's a chance for a climate deal.
But that's an awful lot to hope for.
John Rapley is president of the Caribbean Policy Research Institute, an independent research think tank affiliated with the University of the West Indies, Mona. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.