Published :
Updated :
For all latest news, follow The Financial Express Google News channel.
Climate crisis is now in the forefront of public debate to chart a future for humankind to live in a sustainable planet Earth. Despite last four decades of political discussions about the gravity and the urgency of climate crisis, progress so far remains very patchy not to speak of that there are still many climate sceptics. The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference was held in Paris. Nearly 200 countries joined together to strike a deal on climate change and agreed for the first time to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emission (CO2). This agreement known as the Paris Agreement will come into effect in 2020. The agreement requires all countries, not just industrialised developed countries, to deal with climate change. The goal is very modest, to stabilise global warming below two degrees above pre-industrial levels, if possible even less. Despite the Paris Agreement described as humankind's last chance to respond to climate crisis, the USA, the world's second largest emitter of CO2, has already decided to opt out of it.
The predominant climate crisis discourse at least in the developed world is centred around the issue that the crisis is fundamentally "anthropogenic''; therefore universalising the culpability to "human being''. So the rising global human population is marked as the principal cause of climate crisis. This is because they use energy by burning fossil fuels, deforest to clear land for crop and meat, even bio-fuel production. But the "anthropogenic'' argument is fundamentally flawed because it will apportion the responsibility in proportion to the size of global population. We now know that empirical evidence clearly indicates that is not definitely the case.
But where is the starting point in this debate? It is well recognised that it is industrial production that has caused a multitude of environmental problems over the last two and a half centuries in general and since the mid-nineteenth century in particular. This resulted in accumulating huge environmental problems which now manifest as a crisis. If not addressed immediately, this crisis can prove to be catastrophic for humankind.
Industrial production is inextricably linked to the idea of economic growth which has become a mantra for material progress for humankind for a considerable period of time. That in turn results in rising affluence (at least in industrialised developed countries) leading to increased demand for food, meat and other consumer items such as cars, domestic appliances, holidays, etc. All these make increasing demand on the nature to supply them including fossil fuels. Economic growth has also been seen as a way to alleviate poverty but we now know that one per cent largely benefitted from such growth.
What do these people do with such huge accumulated wealth? Conventional economic theory has little to say about this phenomenon. Thorstein Veblen answered that question. He described these super rich as belonging to the "leisure class'' who strive to gain social recognition by demonstrating - through "conspicuous consumption'' . Veblen further said that this conspicuous consumption filtered down to the lower and middle classes. He described conspicuous consumption as a waste diverting resources from producing goods people need to producing goods what they can show off. The result is a treadmill of dissatisfaction as they continue to consume more to keep up. Veblen even described "the captains of industry'' as parasites, only interested in making money and completely ignorant of the industrial processes.
In a period of high unemployment, especially youth unemployment and rising poverty in many parts of the world including developed world, growth is considered the key to address these problems. If these economies start to grow again at the same rate as before the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), the goal to achieve decline in CO2 emission will come to a halt. Surprisingly, it has been observed that only times there have been halt in rise in CO2 emission are during periods of economic recessions. But politicians and mainstream economists consider economic growth is essential to face multi-frontal problems faced by both developed and developing countries. More importantly, it is the key yardstick of economic success. China now has emerged as the single largest emitter of CO2 as the economy has been growing at a very fast rate over the last four decades, but much of this increase has also come from outsourced production from the USA and European countries.
Given the relationship between economic growth and environmental crisis, many such as the Club of Rome have challenged what they described as "growth fetishism''. Any suggestion otherwise such as a planned reduction in economic growth or steady state of economic growth keeping in tune with ecological sustainability are outright rejected on the ground that it would hurt the little people notwithstanding enormous wastage involved in the current system of industrial production as Veblen has pointed out. Such ideas are summarised as the idea or concept of "de-growth''. Such a concept underpins an inexorable link between climate crisis and economic growth which, in turn, promotes industrial production (the main source of CO2 emission) including green technology product such as solar panels. De-growth suggests to make choice and sacrifice to mitigate the catastrophic risks arising from climate crisis by reducing the size of the economy. Yet many fear that economic growth is so much an integral part of the global economic system, any pushback to it will cause global economic dislocations.
Now there is a general consensus that climate crisis will result in catastrophic consequences for countries like Bangladesh. A World Bank Report published in 2013 predicted that the world would become 4 degree centigrade hotter during this century in the absence of deep and fast cuts to global carbon emissions. Bangladesh is already prone to flooding encompassing two-thirds of its area every three to five years, drought every five years and catastrophic cyclones every 7-10 years. Under this circumstance Bangladesh will experience hotter local temperature, higher levels of flooding and cyclones and lower crop yields. It is estimated that one meter rise in sea level would submerge almost 20 per cent of the country and displace more than 30 million people in the Southern Bangladesh. But the actual rise of the sea level is expected to be much higher by 2100. Northern Bangladesh will move to a new climatic regime with temperature much higher than in the last century. More ominously, the report further warns that a sea level rise of 5 meters or more in coming centuries could pose an existential threat to Bangladesh.
Within the debate on growth and de-growth, for a country like Bangladesh with acute poverty and squalor and facing catastrophic consequences as climate crisis deepens, how climate change will impact on economic growth and hence future welfare of the people? The question should not be put in the reverse order for a country like Bangladesh. The prognosis looks very dire.
We are told that we are all in the same boat so far as climate crisis is concerned. But that is not true. While sea levels are rising for everyone, people are being flooded in a country like Bangladesh but a country like Holland, having geographic features similar to those of Bangladesh, is building floating cities with resources accumulated over centuries. That resource accumulation was made possible by those very activities that have landed us in climate crisis now. Countries like Bangladesh which have contributed least to climate crisis are going to pay the heaviest price for it and those who have contributed the most will suffer the least.
Overall, the impact of climate crisis is more acutely felt in developing countries like Bangladesh than developed countries. As developed countries contributed to the environmental degradation through increased industrial production and consumption not to speak of waging wars over resources and economic predation by very rich and powerful countries, a global transfer payment system will help to a great degree to mitigate the climate crisis for developing countries. As climate crisis is deepening and decisive corrective measures are not taken, it may reach a point when there will be no option left out except forced de-growth for the developed world. The final irony is even the very rich, whether in the developed or developing world, will also be affected by climate crisis.