Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

The choice is clear: Fair climate policy or no climate policy

Posted on 9 April 2021 by Guest Author

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Richard Richels, Henry Jacoby, Ben Santer, and Gary Yohe

President Biden has expressed a commitment to making equity a guiding principle in domestic policy formation. When applied to climate policy, it may help eliminate major obstacles to getting our own house in order. But equity concerns may be a greater barrier when it comes to international negotiations: Poorer countries are demanding that it be an overarching consideration in evaluating policies not only within but across national boundaries.

Equity graphic

The first image gets to the nub of the problem. Equality should not be confused with equity. Equality means that we all have access to the same tools and opportunities (ladders of equal height). This approach would be fine if all parties were to have the same access to the same underlying foundations: healthcare, education, jobs, shelter, and the other trappings of wellbeing. The higher ladder corrects for inequality. It gives the disadvantaged a step up, in effect leveling the playing field.

Domestically, one need look no further than the plight of coal miners or autoworkers for examples of what the President has in mind. Moving away from coal and oil will eliminate traditional jobs in these and related industries. The communities where workers live will also be adversely affected. Does America not owe some debt to those who helped power the post-World War II economic boom?

Facing up to past recalcitrance

Then there are the negative impacts from rising energy prices on disposable income. These impacts will be particularly hard-felt by those who are but one paycheck away from poverty. Through no fault of their own, they will bear a disproportionate burden from our past political recalcitrance.

The issue is how to cushion the blow. Policymakers have a number of tools at their disposal, ranging from market-based instruments to so-called command-and-control approaches. These can be used not only to discourage fossil fuel use, but also to address ensuing issues of equity. For example, with market-based instruments (e.g., carbon taxes, and cap and trade), the resulting revenue can be recycled back into the economy in a manner that compensates those most disadvantaged.

A command-and-control approach is more prescriptive. In this case, redress would lie in the hands of government agencies to fashion programs to retrain affected workers, compensate impacted communities, and help those most harmed by higher prices at the gas pump and in their monthly utility bills.

Most likely a combination of the two approaches will be needed. Addressing issues of equity will not be easy, however, and there are many political “third-rails.” Matching the supply and demand for jobs will entail careful coordination between the private and public sectors. The effects on surrounding communities will be complex. And even a small redistribution of income will likely be met with fierce resistance. Bipartisan leadership, sorely missing in recent years, will be required. But the alternative is unacceptable – inaction on the climate change problem, a “lose-lose” situation for all.

Global needs raise complex challenges

The meaning of fairness is further complicated at the international level. The first wave of the industrial revolution was powered by cheap and abundantly available fossil fuels, with planetary warming an unintended by-product. Now those aspiring to a standard of living similar to their wealthier neighbors are being asked to abandon fossil fuels in favor of cleaner but perhaps more expensive alternatives.

Again, the issue is how to cushion the blow. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has called upon wealthier countries to help their poorer neighbors in the transition to a carbon-free future. This action would require transfers of capital (financial and technological) to other countries. Unless agreement can be found on what constitutes equitable burden-sharing, international negotiations may grind to a halt.

For those who say we will just wait them out, bear in mind that climate change may not be as high on some countries’ lists of priorities. Particularly, the poorest who understandably are likely to be concerned with more pressing worries such as immediate survival.

Then there is also the issue of our access to adaptation possibilities.

Moreover, there is sufficient warming baked into the climate system to cause considerable harm. In adapting to these inevitable changes, how should the pain from past procrastination be distributed? Many countries lack access to adaptive capacity that the wealthier can muster. For example, they cannot build multi-billion-dollar sea walls to safeguard against rising oceans in order to protect life, property, and valuable ecosystems. Nor do they have the resources to ensure widespread deployment of vaccines and needed therapeutics to guard against climate-sensitive diseases such as malaria, yellow fever, and dengue and Zika viruses.

Furthermore, many people live in countries where the political leadership is struggling to maintain civil order. Only limited resources are available to meet the most basic needs of the population of a failing state. Climate change can significantly exacerbate such existing political instability, potentially leading to the development of regional conflicts and hundreds of millions of environmental refugees. In these circumstances, controlling greenhouse emissions falls even lower on national priorities.

So, whether it is reducing global warming or ameliorating the harm inflicted by past intransigence, we face daunting challenges. Equity must be a primary concern not only in domestic, but also in international policy formation. The expression “helping thy neighbor” is usually reserved for our fellow citizens, but if developed countries fail to help poorer countries, the global effort to control warming will falter. Close attention to this issue by the administration and the Congress is essential. Equitable climate policies are not only the right thing to do – they are also in our own national self-interest.


Richard Richels served as lead author for multiple chapters of the IPCC in the areas of mitigation, impacts and adaptation from 1992 through 2014. He also served on the National Assessment Synthesis Team for the first US National Climate Assessment.

Henry D. Jacoby is the William F. Pounds Professor of Management, Emeritus in the M.I.T. Sloan School of Management and former Co-Director of the M.I.T. Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, which is focused on the integration of the natural and social sciences and policy analysis in application to the threat of global climate change.

Benjamin Santer is an atmospheric scientist who has worked on all five previous Scientific Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Gary Yohe is the Huffington Foundation Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies at Wesleyan University in Connecticut. He served as convening lead author for multiple chapters and the Synthesis Report for the IPCC from 1990 through 2014 and was Vice-Chair of the Third US National Climate Assessment.

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Comments 1 to 6:

  1. This article puts words to my thoughts. An example here in the Upper Hunter Valley,with my local NSW state govt here in Aust unwilling to unshackel from its fossil fuel donations and an election in under 6 mths. The local populace are very pro mines, so a losing stratergy for any politic party if anti coal. People want action on climate change but not if it is too disruptive, ha . https://reneweconomy.com.au/surge-in-new-coal-mine-proposals-in-nsw-triggers-fresh-calls-for-coal-moratorium/   Sometimes I think we get the leaders we deserve- not the leaders we need..

    0 0
  2. It seems to me that this article does an excellent job of describing the complexities of what true equity is and where the inequalities exist in the regional, national and international spheres. Alas, these well described complexities could also be used to argue precisely the opposite conclusion: that the inertia that arises from built in reinforcements for the advantaged that are inherent in those inequalities is the primary reason things have not changed in a timely fashion so far. So if we want to be able to change things, we must work within the framework of inequality in order to make it worthwhile for those who have concentrated power and resources to adopt the low carbon economy required to reduce carbon emissions.

    I'm not trying to defend the inequalities that have been created through the fossil fuel economy; indeed these inequities make it even more difficult not to see the transition to a low carbon economy as yet another way for those with power to retain it. But I believe we are in an "all hands on deck" time if we are to avoid an even more dire future, meaning that we need to enlist those who benefit from inequity alongside those on the short end. The "haves" have unfortunately but predictably been reluctant to redistribute the concentrated wealth that comes hand in hand with a fossil fuel economy but it will be easier to attain the common good of a low carbon economy if they can be allies instead of barriers. The 'haves' have already shown a willingness to create a 'gated community' version of the future where the 'haves' increase inequality in order to maintain their power, leading sometimes to violence and more/new forms of inequity. Some countries have used governments to reinforce the concentration of economic power in the form of totalitarian/fascist repression, while other countries have used their governments to spread the wealth more equitably. But this has been difficult to maintain considering that all governments are responsive to their own sources of their power and find concentrated power irresistable.

    As we look at the technological and cultural challenges of transforming to a low carbon future through such endeavors as Project Drawdown, I think we need to devote similar attention to the barriers that are caused by the concentration of political and economic power that goes with it. Change does not occur unless the barriers to change are removed, no matter how attractive the alternatives are. The barriers to a low carbon future are intertwined with the barriers to equity and I daresay that even if we can remove enough barriers to create a low carbon future, we will find the barriers to equity even more resistant.

    0 0
  3. 'This' may invalidate the 'choice'? 'We' have ten years? “ . . . our best estimate is that the net energy
    33:33 per barrel available for the global
    33:36 economy was about eight percent
    33:38 and that in over the next few years it
    33:42 will go down to zero percent
    33:44 uh best estimate at the moment is that
    33:46 actually the
    33:47 per average barrel of sweet crude
    33:51 uh we had the zero percent around 2022
    33:56 but there are ways and means of
    33:58 extending that so to be on the safe side\
    34:00 here on our diagram\
    34:02 we say that zero percent is definitely\
    34:05 around 2030 . . .\
    we\
    34:43 need net energy from oil and [if] it goes\
    34:46 down to zero
    34:48 uh well we have collapsed not just
    34:50 collapse of the oil industry
    34:52 we have collapsed globally of the global
    34:54 industrial civilization this is what we
    34:56 are looking at at the moment . . . “
    Louis Arnoux. www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxinAu8ORxM

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] You have been warned before about posting comments that consist of little more than quoted material. You are skating on thin ice, approaching violation of the comments policy.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

     

  4. Equity is just a nice word for discriminating against people to achieve equality of outcome.  

    0 0
  5. Eggsasperated @4 ,

     Should we discriminate against  certain people, such as criminals?

    Is "discrimination"  automatically a bad thing?   Are you discriminating against discrimination?   ;-)

    Equity - like probity  or disinterested  - is one of those underused words.  And critical thinking is aided by usage of precise words, in the handling of concepts.   In a sloppy way, words are too often used as slogans.  Phrases, too, can suffer that fate ~ "The Climate Is Always Changing"  is an example of a slogan used to short-circuit real meaning.

    Yes, the word equality  also is too often used as an unthinking slogan.   Equity  is a rather legalistic word ~ but it deserves prominence when we consider the world's problems.

    0 0
  6. Eggsasperated: You are incorrect. Please learn the difference in Meaning of those two words.

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2021 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us