environmental justice and climate change · environmental justice and climate change - pening...

Opening Speech by Edo Ronchi

10-11 september 2015

Opening Speech by Edo Ronchi

10-11 september 2015

President of

the Sustainable Development Foundation

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE andCLIMATE CHANGE

Environmental justice and climate change - Opening speech

Indice

1. The two interrelated conditions for environmental justice pag.3

2. We need a green economy pag.4

3. To overcome the “Shrimp Syndrome” pag.4

4. Current trends are forcing the climate crisis towards dramatic results pag.6

5. The poorest are the worst hit pag.7

6. No-one can say “I didn’t know” pag.8

7. The emissions budget still available is restricted pag.9

8. The pledges made so far are insufficient pag.10

9. The pledges made by China, the United States and Europe are decisive pag.11

10. Food for thought for a good international agreement in Paris pag.14

11. Good politics for environmental justice and in order to face climate changes pag.18

Notes pag.19


3

1. The two interrelated conditions for environmental justice

Environmental justice is based on two distinct, yet interrelated conditions. The first is a balanced relationship between man and nature, between humanity and the rest of creation. Environmental justice requires the establishment of a good relationship with nature: it should make us the custodians and not the dominators of our planet, good farmers who know how to use and maintain over time the capacity of the earth to provide good fruit, and not exploit and destroy it. Protection of the environment is good and just, it is not merely an interest or a utilitarian purpose, but rather an ethical value, a choice of behaviour, a moral pathway. “If we no longer speak the language of fraternity and beauty in our relationship with the world, our attitude will be that of masters, consumers, ruthless exploiters, unable to set limits on their immediate needs. By contrast, if we feel intimately united to all that exists, then sobriety and care will well up spontaneously.”(1)

The second condition for environmental justice is equal rights of access for all people to our natural, common heritage: drinking water, clean air, a healthy environment, a non-polluted territory. Those equal rights also apply to future generations, who have as much right as today’s generations to a habitable world. They include the right to sustainable development, which will not, therefore, compromise the natural resources supporting it, and will make it possible and long-lasting. Our world has been struck, however, by widespread environmental injustice. The poorer part of our planet is, in fact, far more widely exposed to environmental crises. It is the part with fewer opportunities to defend itself from pollution, and which continues to live and work in environments that are dangerous for health even today.

These two conditions for environmental justice - that of the correct relationship with nature and that of the right of everyone to a healthy environment - are interlinked. In fact, we cannot have a balanced relationship with nature in the presence of discrimination in the access to our common heritage: good environmental quality cannot be just if it is conceived and practised as a privilege of the few. Nor, on the other hand, is it possible to establish more equitable societies with extensive, all-inclusive wellbeing based on pollution and the depletion of natural resources beyond the limited resilience of the ecosystems. Pollution and the destruction of our natural resources, would, in fact, cut the very foundations of development and wellbeing for the poorer part of the population most of all and, therefore, for the part most exposed to environmental crises.

4


The global climate crisis we are experiencing, even though it could have results that authoritative scientists have no hesitation in defining as catastrophic, is a challenge we could still win by mitigating the effects to within sustainable levels, with policies and measures which are well-known, available and both technically and economically feasible. By facing this climate crisis with adequate actions, there may even be economic advantages. It is in no way a bygone conclusion that the countries which pledge most to climate have to suffer economic and employment disadvantages. It has been proven that the measures to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis require and promote innovations, technological development, new business, new investments and new employment. There continue to be numerous contrasting economic interests in various sectors fed by the economy of fossil fuels. However, they are no longer as powerful and perhaps not even as important any more.

3. To overcome the “Shrimp Syndrome”

2. We need a green economy

In order to extend wellbeing, we do not need just any kind of economic development that lacks social quality and destroys the environment. What we really need - as was continually repeated at the 1992 Conference in Rio - is a sustainable, inclusive and long-lasting development, provided it can peacefully coexist with nature. A development founded on an economy whose aim is not merely immediate profit, and which lacks neither ecological awareness nor social responsibility. We need - as the UNEP expressed so well in 2008 - an economy capable of ensuring an inclusive wellbeing of better quality, which is also capable of protecting our natural assets and eco-systemic services: a green economy.

Wellbeing cannot live side by side with the race towards consumerism. This is a race that leaves many behind, and whereas the quality of life it is able to ensure is arguable, it certainly leads to a serious, global, environmental crisis. We now know - thanks to the knowledge we have inherited and the excellent technologies and good practice available to us - that in less developed and newly industrialised countries we can do more and better with less: with fewer natural resources, less energy, less waste, no rubbish and no pollution. We also know that environmental justice - a balanced relationship with nature and a sustainable and impartial access to its assets - is not incompatible with good living conditions for everyone, but it does require moderation. We need to learn to stop when enough is enough, to educate ourselves to responsible life styles and consumption, and to be aware of the limited natural resources available. It also invites a different role of greater social responsibility of enterprises. The latter have to ensure not only their production and employment objectives, but also the high ecological quality of their production processes, goods and services, as some of them are already doing. They also have to minimise their consumption of natural resources and non-renewable energy, reducing waste by prevention, recycling and reuse.


5

However, time slips by, and the margins to mitigate the impacts of this crisis are shrinking; policies and measures have only been partially implemented and, therefore, appear overall to be weak and ineffective. International negotiations have dragged on for years without any definitive results. There is too much egoism at play. There are those who fear that if they are the first to introduce measures to reduce greenhouse gases, they will lose their economic advantages. In so doing, they spark a backward race. There are those who remain further behind thinking they can exploit the benefits in the reduction of the greenhouse gases implemented not only by others (other countries, but also other sectors or enterprises). There are those who, often for political and electoral reasons, emphasise the negative consequences on the economy of policies and measures for climate. They fire campaigns which cynically exploit widespread fears of public opinion. These are the governments that hold international negotiations, the majority of which for various reasons have not shown they are capable of reaching beyond national egoism, at least not until now. They have moved so slowly as to appear to have come to a standstill during all those numerous, interminable, international conferences which have so far been unable to reach the turning point that everyone - including those who do very little to make it possible - acknowledge as being necessary. We hope - and we have good reason to believe this hope is well founded - that the Paris Conference will mark a change of pace, because numerous chickens have already come home to roost, and because nowadays the picture appears clearer and the forces in the field are better oriented. We hope so, even though we are not one hundred per cent certain and we cannot hide our concerns.

But what can we do? To break the deadlock in international negotiations needs a strong, moral force, a true surge of conscience, involving a large number of people full of goodwill, to help the political decision-makers break the block of egoism and take on commitments that go beyond specific, immediate, national, economic interest. Among the various strategies adopted - so far with very few results - to face this uncommon crisis, perhaps what was missing or was too weak was the most simple and most direct: that we appeal to each and everyone’s conscience to do the good, right thing, the thing that aims to face the climate crisis as a commitment towards environmental justice for the common good of all humanity. This surge of conscience can, on the one hand, find fuel in the widespread fabric of initiatives of people, enterprises, organisations and local communities involved in lowering greenhouse gas emissions. On the other, it can give a fresh impetus, greater compass and strength to such initiatives from below, as they have the positive potential of being concrete examples, and are also capable of providing a positive thrust towards the political decision-makers.

6


According to the fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, without any additional measures of mitigation, by the end of the century the current trends will lead to a rise in the average temperature of the earth of between 3.7 and 4.8°C (with a concentration of CO2eq between 750 and 1,300 ppm) compared to the pre-industrial period, against a recommended safety threshold of +2°C (with concentrations of CO2eq not exceeding 450ppm), established in the negotiations for the new Global Agreement for climate. The World Bank(2) has tried to analyse the consequences of a scenario with an average increase in temperature of 4°C: the most probable average value nearest to the minimum of the current trend according to the IPCC. A global warming of 4°C would significantly exacerbate the scarcity of the water resources in many regions, particularly in North and East Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. Conditions of increased aridity would affect southern Europe, Africa (with the exception of certain areas in the north-east), large areas in North and South America and southern Australia. Extreme drought would be accompanied by exceptional rainfall events, concentrated in other periods of the year in the same areas or in other areas on the planet. The risk of instability in the ecosystems as a result of fires, of the transformation of the ecosystems, forestry deterioration, the increase in aridity and the advance of desertification would be significantly higher with a 4°C warming. Our growing vulnerability to heat and drought will probably lead to an increase in mortality and the extinction of entire species. In a 4°C warmer world, climate change now appears to be the dominant driver of changes in the ecosystems, having overtaken the destruction of habitats as the greatest threat to biodiversity. Recent studies show that a loss of biodiversity on a vast scale has major probabilities of resulting in a 4°C warmer planet. The damage to the ecosystem will dramatically reduce the contribution of ecosystemic services, on which our societies depend (e.g. fishing and the protection of sea coastlines - offered by the coral barriers and mangroves). It would already be a significant commitment to maintain adequate levels of food and agricultural production in response to the growing population and to the increase in income levels. The current trend towards a 4°C increase will force us to tackle a dramatic scenario caused by a reduction in crop yield, as the planet gradually warms up. Considerable negative impacts have been observed at high and extreme temperatures in various regions in India, Africa, the United States and Australia. Significant effects have been seen in the United States, as a result of an increase in local temperatures of up to 29°C on maize and up to 30°C on soya seeds. These facts indicate that if we exceed the high temperature threshold, food safety could be considerably undermined in a 4°C warmer world. These risks are increased by the adverse effect of the impacts forecast for agriculture of a rise in sea levels in major areas, where the river deltas are below sea level, such as in Bangladesh, Egypt, Vietnam and in some parts of the coasts of Africa. A rise in the sea level will probably impact coastlines at medium latitudes, as sea water penetrates water-bearing strata along the coast used to irrigate coastal areas. Further risks arise from the probable increase in drought at medium latitudes and flooding at higher latitudes.

4. Current trends are forcing the climate crisis towards dramatic results


7

5. The poorest are the worst hit

The increase in the intensity of extreme events forecast for the future will probably have negative implications on the efforts to reduce poverty, especially in developing countries. Recent forecasts suggest that the poor are particularly vulnerable as regards increased drought in a 4°C warmer world, especially in Africa, southern Asia and in other regions. Extreme events on a vast scale, such as widespread flooding which interferes with food production, also cause nutritional deficits and an increase in the incidence of epidemics. Flooding can also lead to contamination and encourage carriers of disease in drinking water reserves. The effects of climate change on agricultural production can exacerbate undernourishment and malnutrition in many regions, currently major causes of child mortality in developing countries With a warming between 2°C and 2.5°C, a substantial increase is forecast in the phenomena of the arrest in child growth due to malnutrition, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia, and worse scenarios are also forecast with a 4°C increase. Despite significant efforts to improve the health services (e.g. improved medical care, the development of vaccinations, surveillance programmes), additional, significant impacts of climate change are expected on poverty levels and on health.

Further impacts of climate change may include deaths and injured people due to extreme weather events. In the current scenario of a 4°C increase, the number of climate refugees would be staggering. The 2012 report by the Secretary General at the General Assembly of the United Nations on human rights and migrations presented a study which estimates over 250 million people may have to be evacuated as a result of climate change. The Millennium Development Goals – the final Report of 2015 – claims that “climate change and environmental degradation undermine the progress achieved, and poor people suffer the most... because their livelihoods are more directly tied to natural resources, and as they often live in the most vulnerable areas, they suffer the most from environmental degradation”. Furthermore, the poorest countries have fewer financial, technical and management resources to adopt measures to adapt to the climate crisis, to reduce their vulnerability and the exposure of their populations to heatwaves, periods of drought and other extreme weather conditions.

8


The greenhouse effect is a phenomenon which has been studied and known for some time. The increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is measured and the close correlation between its anomalous raising in the atmosphere and global warming has now been ascertained. The Fifth Report of the IPCC, which was finally approved by 195 member states, was completed in September last year, and clarified some of the crucial points:

greenhouse gas emissions are constantly rising - despite the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and over twenty years’ negotiations to reduce them - and have never risen so much as in the last decade; the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have exceeded 400 ppm, the highest in the last 800 thousands years’ history of our planet; the increases in the average temperature recorded in the last century are most probably (over 95%) due to greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activity, in particular by our use of fossil fuels.

The forecasts on the effects of this climate crisis are no longer based only on models processed by scientists. Unfortunately, they are now based on phenomena in progress, verified by everyone. The increase in temperature has caused oceans to warm, the Arctic ice to melt, the snow layer to reduce and the average sea level to increase. It is leading to a modification in the dynamics of some extreme meteorological events: we are seeing anomalous heatwaves and an unusual frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as devastating hurricanes and extraordinarily intense rainfall which cause flooding and multiply landslides. The extraordinary drought recorded in the United States and on the African continent in 2012, followed by the devastating effects of the passage of hurricane Sandy over New York and typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, including the more recent torrential rain which hit Italy and in particular the Liguria and Tuscany Regions in 2011 and 2014 or the Veneto in 2013 and 2014, or this summer’s heatwave of 2015, are but a few examples. The catastrophic scenario of a world with a 4°C increase in temperature is, unfortunately, credible, as it is founded on phenomena which are already taking place, and the intensity and impacts of which would be increased enormously by the plus 4°C scenario. A Task Team of 20 Agencies of the United Nations is studying the social dimensions of the current climate changes(3). The disasters linked to climate have already hit over 200 million people each year. For 2.6 billion people living on an income of less than 2 dollars per day, the climate shocks have already had considerable impacts. Whereas the populations with a high income have more tools to face climate change, the poor have a restricted circle of options: reduce consumption, cut nutrition, take children out of school or sell the productive assets on which their survival depends. The impacts on health in the developing countries are already visible. It has been estimated that since 2004, the slight warming underway since 1970 has already caused approximately 140,000 extra deaths per year. Recent studies warn that, as a result of the current climate change, food prices are expected to double over the next 20 years and this

6. No-one can say “I didn’t know””


9

7. The emissions budget stil l available is restricted

Bearing in mind that today, with an increase of under one degree (0.85°C between 1880 and 2012), we have produced such major effects, we cannot exclude that future studies and assessments may require an even greater commitment. The safety threshold decided in the negotiations for a new global agreement on climate, which should be defined in Paris next December, would be to restrict the increase in temperature to +2°C. To achieve an over 50% probability of remaining within the 2°C increase, we would have to stop the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases at around 450 ppm. To maintain this concentration, the greenhouse gases accumulated in the atmosphere - that is to say the difference between the global emissions and the global absorption – would have to be restricted to approximately 3,000 billion tCO2eq. As it is estimated that approximately 2,000 billion of tCO2eq of greenhouse gases have already accumulated in the atmosphere, there is still room for approximately 1,000 billion tons. If the current trend in emissions continues, this budget would be exceeded before 2040. To keep to this budget of greenhouse gas emissions, compatible with the increase of no more than 2°C, bearing in mind absorption and the time the greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere (between 50 and over 100 years), we need to act quickly and reduce the global emissions of these gases. By how much? By however much is needed to keep in line with the emission trajectory set by the IPCC which, taking into account factors of uncertainty, indicates that the world greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 should be cut by 40-70%, compared to those of 2010. This cut would enable us to manage the remaining budget of emissions and achieve substantial carbon neutrality - emissions equal absorption - by the end of the century, with a good probability of not exceeding the 2°C increase in temperature. In order to remain within the

trend will increase at a greater average rate compared to the past. A recent report drawn up by an American and British taskforce(4) raises a series of concerns for the impacts of climate change not only for individual areas of agricultural production, but also for the overall resilience of the world food system. This means we have to strengthen and extend measures of adaptation to the climate crisis, in order to ensure agrifood production. Together with more assertive measures to protect the territory, and to prevent and reduce the risks of a hydrogeological imbalance, we need to provide adequate support in the poorest and most exposed countries to reinforce the diffusion of agronomic actions and practices, capable of increasing the resilience of agriculture to climate change. We need to offer them the choice of a variety of the most resistant crops and animals, encourage a systematic reintegration into the soil of organic substances, the regular use of legume crop rotation, and diffuse the techniques and measures to improve the quality, availability and efficient use and water saving.

10


8. The pledges made so far are insufficient

With the negotiations for a new agreement for climate for the period post-2020, to be adopted at the COP21 in Paris in December 2015, various countries have agreed to report their so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), that is to say the pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions they are prepared to make within the framework of the new agreement, during the Convention before the final negotiations at the Paris Conference. A recent study by the IEA(5)

(2015) considers not only the pledges (INDC) made up to May, but also the commitments taken by governments outside the INDC mechanism - such as the China-USA agreement. According to the analysis by the IEA of the emission scenarios in the energy sector (which accounts for approximately two thirds of the global emissions of greenhouse gases) with the current pledges made by the governments, the available budget for emissions for this century will be used up by around 2040, just eight months later than predicted, in the absence of the commitments announced on the eve of the Paris Conference. Although they will be slowing down, world CO2 emissions will not have decreased by 2030. On the contrary, they will have continued to increase by 8% between 2013 and 2030 and will not even have peaked by 2030. World CO2 emissions in the energy sector will have increased to 34.8 billion tons of CO2, instead of decreasing from 32.2 billion tons of CO2 of 2013 to 25.6 billion, as envisaged by the 2°C trajectory. After analysing the gap between the declared pledges and the 450 ppm scenario in the major countries producing greenhouse gases, the IEA observes that:

China will emit 3.7 billion tons of CO2 more than predicted by the 2°C trajectory (10.1 as opposed to 6.4 Gt), 58% more;

the USA will emit 1 billion tons of CO2 more than predicted by the 2°C trajectory (4 GtCO2 as opposed to 3 Gt), 33% more;

the EU could do better by reducing 2.4 instead of 2 GtCO2, 20% more.

trajectory of the cut in emissions established by the IPCC, compatible with the 2°C, calculations of the intermediate objectives have already begun in view of the Paris Agreement:

to be able to have an effective reduction in world emissions from 2020, we would need to act now, so that we reach the emission peak before that date and then begin to reduce;

reductions from 2020 must be significant, so that by 2030, world emissions will be lower than those in 2010, to be able then - by 2050, therefore in the next 20 years - to ensure a reduction of approximately 50% (between 40 and 70%, again compared to the 2010 emissions).


11

The possibility of reaching an adequate agreement in Paris which will enable a greater global reduction in emissions than the one predicted so far to recoup the 2°C trajectory, depends mainly on the commitments made by China, the United States and Europe, which are the principal world producers of greenhouse gas emissions.

China was considered a developing country by the 1992 Framework Convention for Climate and as such it did not make any pledges to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, a situation which was, then, perhaps imprudently, confirmed by the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. However, since then the situation has changed dramatically: today, China is a world economic power and is the main world producer of greenhouse gases. It alone produces 30% of the world greenhouse gas emissions and has higher greenhouse gas emissions per capita than Europe. The increase in world emissions recorded in the first decade of the new millennium (the annual growth rate passed from an average of 1.3% from 1970-2000 to 2.2% from 2000-2010) can be ascribed to China’s increased emissions and in particular to the major, growing use of coal for energy production. It is true that China’s historic responsibilities for emissions remain lower than that of the more industrially advanced countries. However, this difference is decreasing. In fact, if we consider the CO2 emissions accumulated from 1980 to 2014, we can see that China’s total emissions since 1980 are slightly above those of Europe and not much lower than those of America. In any event, if China does not reduce its emissions - which have now grown out of proportion and are the main cause of the deviation from the 2°C trajectory (i.e. for almost half the overrun of the target for 2030) - the efforts of other countries will be made in vain and it will be impossible to remain within the 2°C trajectory.

Cumulative energy-related CO2 emissions from 1980 to 2014 (Source: IEA 2015)

9. The pledges made by China, the United States and Europe are decisive

0

200

50

100

150

250

Gt

UnitedStates

EuropeanUnion

Japan China India Russia Rest ofthe World

1980 - 2014

12


There are different signals which could reflect a change in the attitude of the Chinese government. For various reasons: the effects of the climate crisis are also strongly felt in China and the extensive use of coal - for 80% of their electricity and for approximately 70% of their total energy requirement - causes intolerable levels of local pollution in various urban areas. Will the Chinese government manage to do more and make a pledge of responsibility of international and not merely national importance, to improve the specific emissions per unit of GDP or value added, in order to start reducing its total emissions by 2020 and not, which would be too late, by 2030? By implementing the commitments undertaken, China (according to the aforementioned 2015 IEA Report) would achieve emissions per capita in the energy sector of 7.1 tons of CO2 (compared to the current 7.2 tons per capita, which are not only far above the world average of 5 tons, but also above the 6.8 tons per capita of the EU, even though they are a long way off the over 16 t of the USA). In the 2°C scenario world CO2 emissions per capita should not exceed 3 tons. If China does not begin to reduce its total emissions and does not also lower those 7.1 tons per capita predicted by 2030, it will, in all probability, be unable to go lower than the 3 tons per capita envisaged by the 2°C scenario. A recent report (2015) by the Grantham Institute of the London School of Economics, signed by Sir Nicholas Stern, indicates that China could already start reducing its emissions by 2025, 5 years before the objective it has declared so far of 2030. The report explains that Beijing is pursuing structural changes, which would allow it to continue to have a strong, even though more restrained economic growth (around 7% for the next 5 years) with a better quality in terms of social benefits distribution and impact on the environment, by moving the growth in investments in heavy industry to those in domestic consumption and services. It is also restricting its use of coal: for the first time this century, Chinese coal consumption - which between 2000 and 2010 grew approximately 10% per year - dropped by 2.9% in 2014 and the downward trend is continuing in 2015. Again in 2014, China reduced its energy intensity, that is to say the ratio between energy consumption and its GDP, by 4.8%, almost one percentage point more than the objective it had given itself. Beijing also aims to achieve 100 GW from photovoltaic power, 200 GW from wind power, 11 GW from biomasses and 330 GW from hydroelectric power. At present, it is difficult to estimate the impact of the crisis of the Chinese financial bubble and its economic consequences on its climate measures: the hope is that these difficulties produce further stimuli to improve the Chinese economy from an environmental point of view and that they are not used by the political executives to hold back climate measures.

The United States, according to the Kyoto Protocol, should have reduced its emissions in the period 2008-2012 by 7% compared to 1990, whereas, as they did not confirm or implement that Protocol, they have increased them by 10%. With the agreement with China, the United States have reviewed the pledge already made (-17% by 2020) and committed to reducing their emissions on the 2005 basis - peak year for USA emissions - by 26-28% by 2025 and then, by extending the same trend of reduction, President Obama in August 2015 announced his pledge to reduce emissions by 32% by 2030. Given the declared animosity of the majority of the American Congress, President Obama’s pledge for climate is to be accredited among the positive signals on the eve of Paris. Unfortunately, even with this commitment, the reduction in the emissions of the United States would not be in line with the 2°C trajectory established according to a principle of environmental justice and, therefore, of convergence towards sustainable emissions per capita.


13

With the announced commitments (including the increase to 32% in 2030, which is in the same trajectory of 26-28% by 2025 still compared to 2005, the year of the highest emissions of the United States) the CO2 emissions of the energy sector of an American citizen could drop to 10.9 t/year by 2030: a per capita level that remains high (compared to both the Chinese and European level) and not easily compatible with the average of 3 tons per capita envisaged by the 2°C scenario. To drop from the 5.7 billion tons of CO2 emissions of 2005 to 3 billion tons in 2030 (2°C trajectory) the United States would have to lower their emissions by 47% and not just by 32%. The failure to apply the Kyoto Protocol weighs on the considerable delay by the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and continues to make things more difficult. But not impossible, because the United States have a strong financial, technological and management capacity, they command high margins of improvement in energy efficiency in buildings, services, industry and transport and have enormous potential to develop renewable energy sources.

The EU15 has fully met the target set by the Kyoto Protocol, showing an average for 2008-2012 compared to 1990 of -12% (-16% with flexible mechanisms and forestry absorption) as opposed to its target of -8%. The EU27 in 2012 reduced its emissions by 19% compared to 1990, practically achieving the 2020 target well in advance. With a decision of 23 October 2014, the European Council approved the guidelines for its common energy and climate policy by 2030. In particular, it fixed the targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (a mandatory -40% compared to 1990 for all member states), and final gross energy consumption from renewable sources (at 27% by 2030, from the 20% by 2020, mandatory only for the EU), and to reduce energy consumption (a merely indicative -27% compared to the scenario of current trends). In its estimate of the effect of the measures announced (aforementioned report), the IEA says that the EU could also do better. Even though the 40% reduction by 2030 would be in line with an 80% reduction by 2050 - and, therefore, with a 2°C trajectory - and even though its emissions per capita by 2030, with decisive measures, would come down to 4.7 t, the EU could do better. A good choice, which would help a better international agreement, would be to come to Paris ready to improve its package of measures, by raising the objective of improved energy efficiency to 30% and also by raising the share of energy from renewable sources to 30%, as is possible without excessive effort, and to ensure the objective with mandatory national divisions.

14


The question of equal distribution of the effort required to combat climate change will be the focal point of the Paris negotiations. This equity will not be able to be achieved by following a path which leads everyone to the same sustainable level of emissions per capita by 2050: a level of greenhouse gas emissions per capita per year, in line with the goal of not exceeding the 2°C, estimated at approximately 3 tCO2eq which means 2 tCO2 from energy processes. As we have seen, China and the United States - China, because it continues to increase its emissions and the United States because they are decreasing them too little - are still far from an equitable, effective trajectory towards the 2°C. Even though Europe has done more than China and the United States and is closer to the 2°C trajectory, it could do better.

The trend of emissions in the energy sector indicates the group of countries that will continue to have high emissions per capita by 2030: in addition to China, the United States and the European Union, this also includes Russia with 12 tCO2 per capita, Korea with 9.8 t, the Middle East with 8.2 t and Japan with 7.3 t. These countries will hardly commit themselves more, unless China and the United States (and Europe too), the largest and most prolific producers of greenhouse gases, do more.

We also have to take into account that there are some large countries and vast regions on the planet which, by 2030, will continue to have very low levels of CO2 emissions: South-East Asia will be at 2.7 t, Latin America at 2.5 t, India at 2.1 t and Africa at 0.9 tCO2 per capita. All these countries are also the poorest - even though their emissions by 2030 will be below the objective of the trajectory of 2°C, even though they are not responsible for the historic emissions accumulated in the atmosphere - they, too, are hit by the climate crisis, which causes them greater damage because they are more vulnerable.

10. Food for thought for a good international agreement in Paris


15

Energy-related CO2 emissions per capita by selected region in the INDC Scenario and world average in the 450 Scenario, 2030 (Source: IEA 2015)

In view of the Paris Agreement, we have to overcome considerable difficulties, not only to start up binding measures of adaptation, but above all to reach sufficient cuts in greenhouse gases. When it revealed the 2014 data, the IEA announced that greenhouse gas emissions from energy processes had not increased for the first time in 40 years despite an increase in the world GDP of 3%. In the last 40 years, emissions have remained stable or have decreased compared to the previous year only three times and each of those three times occurred during a year of crisis for world economy. The data of one single year is not enough to show a turnabout, but it does indicate a concrete possibility, which could be cultivated and strengthened by making headway with some indications and measures:

1. The pledges to reduce greenhouse gases made by individual countries for 2030 during the Paris Conference will have to be assessed and, if necessary, improved, especially in the case of the main producers of greenhouse gases (China, Unites States and Europe) so they are consistent with the previously agreed scenario of 2°C. Therefore, they must be consistent with a global reduction in emissions of approximately 50% by 2050 and with an equally divided commitment for that date for the same level of emissions per capita, not exceeding 3 tons.

Russia12.0

United States10.9

Korea9.4

Middle East8.2

Japan7.3

China7.1

Caspian6.0

EuropeanUnion4.7

Mexico3.4

SoutheastAsia2.7

LatinAmerica

2.5

India2.1

Africa0.9

450SCENARIOWorld 3.0

16


2. According to what this Agreement establishes, individual countries should make legally binding commitments and, therefore, envisage suitable reporting procedures and regular checks on compliance with their commitments. To achieve real emission reductions, we should not merely indicate the targets, but also the measures taken to reach them.

3. The countries with per capita emissions exceeding 3 t per year should at least prohibit the construction of new coal power plants and begin to close down existing ones, commencing with the oldest and most inefficient. Together with the reduction in the consumption of coal, we also have to reduce the use of oil and leave the reserves longer underground.

4. Despite repeated requests for the need to abolish them, subsidies for fossil fuels have remained stationary worldwide at the incredible figure of 510 billion dollars in 2014 (IEA 2015). At least 13% of the energy which emits CO2 benefits from subsidies, which equals a subsidy of approximately 115 dollars per ton of CO2 emitted. By 2020, these subsidies should have been eliminated and the carbon tax should be extended (to this regard the recent proposal put forward by the French government appears interesting), better if it were to replace an equivalent tax on employment, which would encourage higher employment.

5. World energy consumption (for electricity, heat and fuel) has grown from 1990 to 2013 by 54%, electricity alone has risen by 96%. This steep growth in energy consumption - which has dragged with it a 78% increase in coal consumption, 30% for oil and 72% for gas from 1990 to 2013 - has occurred mainly in those countries which produce the majority of greenhouse gases. There is no possibility of mitigating the climate crisis and falling within the 2°C trajectory, unless these countries reduce their energy consumption considerably. To do this, we need to strengthen the policies and energy saving measures in all sectors, by making adequate investments with binding standards and targets. The pledge to save energy brings not only environmental benefits, but also economic and employment advantages. Even the reduction in the production of waste and an increase in recycling according to a model of circular economy produces not only a saving in the use of natural resources, but also an energy saving.

6. For the first time in 2013, the new electric power installed using renewable sources exceeded that of the sum of fossil and nuclear sources. Growth also continued in 2014 with 128 GW: 37% from wind sources, a third from solar energy and approximately a quarter from water. Since 2000, approximately 60% of world investments in plants to generate electricity have involved renewable sources, especially water, solar and wind (World Energy Investment Outlook, IEA, 2014). Progress has been made, therefore, in the development of renewable energy sources: primary sources worldwide have grown by 64% from 1990 to 2013 (in view of the 54% increase in the world demand of primary energy); energy production they have grown even further, by 167% from 1990 to 2013 (against the 96% increase in the world demand for electricity). However, these numbers must not make us forget that in 2013, the total renewable sources still only represented 14% of the world demand for primary energy, which is still fulfilled by 29% coal, 31% oil and 21% gas (81% of the demand is, therefore, fulfilled with fossil sources). The share of renewable electricity rose in 2013 to 24% of the demand, but coal continued to represent 41% and gas 22%. The nuclear source for


17

technologies based on the fission of uranium continues to be risky and expensive, and involves the risks of the proliferation of nuclear arms and the production of waste, which remains radioactive for many thousands of years. The techniques to capture and sequester carbon are increasingly promising, but as yet they are expensive and limited to just a few experiments. The effort of recent years to develop renewable energy should not slow down; on the contrary it should be considerably increased. The Paris agreement should see all the major emitting countries least pledge adequate targets to increase renewable sources by 2020.

7. In 2013, the transport sector consumed 27.8% of world energy and produced a good 21% of the world’s CO2 emissions with a considerable growth in these emissions: over 60% since 1990. Given these numbers and considering the strong growth in mobility envisaged in China, India, Russia and the developing countries over the next few decades, when we consider a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and re-entry into the 2°C trajectory, we must give priority to this sector with a series of measures which envisage:

the reduction or control of the increase in the demand for private vehicle mobility, e.g. via instruments of telecommunication, such as telecommuting and planning choices which put a brake on urban spread;

the movement of the demand for mobility towards more energetically efficient means, e.g. public transport, rail or cabotage, but also car-sharing and moving around on foot and by bicycle;

improved efficiency of vehicles and fuels, improved limits imposed on the emissions of new vehicles, taxing less efficient vehicles and providing incentives for less polluting vehicles;

the increase in the quota of electric, hydrogen or hybrid vehicles, aiming to fuel them with electricity from renewable sources.

18


The climate crisis is a difficult challenge and a chance to change. “Hope would have us recognize that there is always a way out... Still, we can see signs that things are now reaching a breaking point, due to the rapid pace of change and degradation...”, as Pope Francis’ Encyclical tells us(6). Alarm increased by the observation of the inadequacy of the answers: “the problem is that we still lack the culture needed to confront this crisis and we lack leadership capable of showing us new paths...”. Unfortunately, too many years of negotiations - Paris will be holding the 21st international conference on climate - without reaching effective measures to mitigate this climate crisis, have shown “the dramatic consequences of politics focusing on short-terms results” in which “the short-sighted building of consensus (and power) limits the far-sighted environment agenda in the governments agenda”. At the Paris Conference we need a powerful, responsible initiative for an effective, far-sighted international agreement, capable of facing the climate crisis as a commitment of environmental justice, with equitable, and therefore valid and effective solutions for everyone. To reach this agreement, today more than ever before “we need a policy with a wider breadth of vision...” - as Pope Francis says - we need “true statecraft”, of the kind that “is manifest when, in difficult times, we uphold high principles and think of the long-term common good”. We should bear in mind that the efforts to face this climate crisis “are not a waste of money, but rather an investment capable of providing other economic benefits in the medium term. If we look at the larger picture, we can see that more diversified and innovative forms of production which impact less on the environment can prove very profitable. It is a matter of openness to different possibilities which do not involve stifling human creativity and its ideals of progress, but rather directing that energy along new channels”.

11. Good politics for environmental justice and in order to face climate changes


19

Notes

(1). From Pope Francis’ Encyclical «Laudato si’»

(2). World Bank – Turn Down the Heat (November 2012)

(3). The United Nations Task Team on Social Dimensions of Climate Change, currently consisting of 20 Agencies: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), International Labour Organization (ILO), International Organization for Migration (IOM), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), United Nations University (UNU), UN Women, World Bank (WB), United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The Task Team is convened jointly by ILO, UNDESA and WHO, and is part of the work group on climatic change of the High-level Committee on Programmes (HLCP) of the system of the United Nations.

(4).The US-UK Taskforce “Extreme weather and resilience of the global food system” 2015

(5).IEA, World Energy Outlook – Special Report “Energy and climate change” 2015

(6).From the Encyclical «Laudato si’»

Founded in 2008 by will of companies, business associations and sustainability experts, the Sustainable Development Foundation aims at encouraging the transition towards a green economy.Chaired by Edo Ronchi, former Italian Minister of the Environment (in charge from 1996 to 2000) who signed for Italy the Kyoto protocol in 1998, nowadays, the Foundation relies on a network of 100 associated green companies and more than 50 top level senior experts and young talents in the sustainable development field. As a reference organization active in deepening and spreading knowledge on thematic areas such as climate change, renewable energy, resource efficiency, sustainability strategies and reporting, sustainable mobility, etc., the Foundation holds workshops, lectures, conferences and learning events open to public participation.At national level the Foundation is the reference organization for the “States General of the Green Economy”, a multi-stakeholder engagement process aimed at promoting solutions towards a green economy in Italy through a platform of policy recommendations elaborated according to a bottom-up approach. In the international scenarios the Foundation cooperates with the International Energy Agency (IEA), the International Union of Railways (UIC), the Institute for environment and energy (IFEU) in Germany. It is member of the UN Global Compact, organizational stakeholder of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Itlian member of T&E (Transport and Environment in Brussels) and is associated to the ISWA (International solid waste association). Furthermore,under the High Patronage of the President of the Italian Republic, the Foundation promotes every year the “Sustainable Development Award”, a prestigious award devoted to enterprises and start-ups particularly active in the field of the green economy.

Via Garigliano 61 A - 00198 Roma

Tel. +39.06.84.14.815

[email protected]

www.fondazionesvilupposostenibile.org

The Opening Speech to the International Meeting “Environmental Justice and Climate Change”, held in Rome, the 10th and 11th September 2015, at the Institutum Patristicum Agostinianum, promoted by the Sustainable Development Foundation, under the Patronage of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers.

The following speakers have participated to the Meeting: Gian Luca Galletti, Ismail A.R. Elgizouli, Lord Nicholas Stern, Lamia Kamal-Chaoui, Jeffrey Sachs, Josè Maria Vera Villacian, Enrico Giovannini, P.Augusto Chendi, Rodriguez Maradiaga, Card. Oscar Andres, Francesco Caio, Maria Helena Semedo, Ségolène Royal, Achim Steiner.

The Meeting has been concluded by the Audience of the Holy Father Pope Francis dedicated to climate crisis.

Print with ecologicical inks and with recyclable and biodegradable paper, certifcated FSC and OGM free, 100% produced by green energy.

environmental justice and climate change · environmental justice and climate change - pening...

Documents