Centuries from today, our descendants will probably look back on this decade in which the loss of irreversible climate damage has been reduced. E.g. US President Joe Biden has announced the summit of virtual leaders Regarding climate last month, “this decade we must make decisions that can avoid the worst consequences of a climate crisis.” If we can be reasonably confident that global average temperature rise will not be limited to more than 1.5 degrees above the pre-industrial level, global emissions must be reduced now. We’ve been talking about doing it for decades, to no avail. Now, we must act.
The good news is that Biden’s election has changed the prospects for achieving some realities this decade. The bad news is that the transition from zero to just a moderate positive number. This dark perspective is not publicly shared: Jeffrey Shakes Columbia University, for example Much more optimistic, Arguing: “The summit presents a tipping point. The world’s largest economies – the United States, Canada, the European Union, China, Japan, Korea, India, the United Kingdom, Brazil – have finally embraced the goal of deep decarbonisation, which means shifting energy systems from fossil fuels (coal). , Oil and natural gas) to zero-carbon sources (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass and nuclear) “”
I hope Shakes is okay. However, it is important not to be complacent: if the trend of emigration is determined to be rejected, time is limited, when the political and economic challenges take on enormous proportions.
Of course, the recent relocation of the U.S. position was a necessary condition for global action. But it is far from enough. Everyone knows that U.S. policy could be reversed again, as Republicans remain fiercely opposed to decisive action. Moreover, As I noticed this weekDiarbonizing production in one country is not the same as global decarbonizing, as emissions can only be transferred abroad. After all, even the US, even important, does not make its own decisions. As the second largest emitter, it generates only 15 percent of global emissions of carbon dioxide.
In fact, by 2020, high-income countries together generated only 32 percent of global emissions. China alone produced 30 per cent and China Plus India 36 per cent. Even more important, what IMF According to a “regular business” route, China will generate 40 percent of emissions growth between 2020 and 2052, India 15 percent and other developing countries (excluding Russia) 35 percent. In the long run, these will be the decision-making countries. (See chart.)
If its decision is to be an acceptable change at the Climate Change Summit (COP26) in Glasgow in November 2021, there are three things that need to be agreed upon. First, high-income countries need to identify themselves as credible leaders by committing a huge reduction in net emissions from their own output over the decades. Second, with significant progress by 2030, all parties must agree on the dorbanization of all relevant systems by 2050. Ultimately, they must agree to a package of incentives, sanctions and international assistance that will make it possible to achieve these ambitious goals.
We are still very far from this. When Confidence is growing It will depend on the minimum feasibility, operating costs, first class policy and the implementation of the policy across the planet. In fact, it is a heroic claim. So how can this be done?
First, motivation. Raghuram Rajan of the University of Chicago He proposed what he called “global carbon reduction incentives.” Each country that emits more than the estimated five tons per head per year will pay for an incentive fund. Payments will be calculated by multiplying the per capita by their population and agreed incentives. Those who urinate more will contribute and those who urinate less will get it. If they increase emissions per head, they will lose everything. So they will all face the same urge to cut emissions.
Second, detachment. Alternatively (or in addition), countries that are committed to imposing a price on domestic emissions will be allowed to impose a border tax on emissions-intensive imports from countries that are not. If this does not happen, their production may simply shift abroad, with limited effects on global emissions. Adjusting these national boundaries will undoubtedly be a rough and prepared process. It also causes global friction. But some of the commitments made by the big high-income economies could lead to compromises with more advanced policies, including pricing everywhere.
Finally, help. The IMF has argued that China, the EU, India, Japan and the United States alone could make most of the necessary changes to the emissions. However, in the long run, every country will have to move towards a low-carbon economy. This is especially true if one considers the role of natural systems in agriculture and forestry. Therefore, it will be essential to develop and expand effective technologies, practices and policies around the world. This will require assistance, including risking necessary investments in energy, transportation, construction, agriculture and other systems.
The next decade will mark a start. However, this program has to be launched for decades. It will then be the largest effort of cooperation between countries, the private and public sectors and across economies throughout history. It is necessary and possible, but extremely complex. Yeah Al that sounds pretty crap to me, Looks like BT aint for me either. But do not underestimate the challenge. We’ll find out soon enough that it has some commendable potential.