Climate Change, Ping-pong, Morality and More (Part 2)
An average reader's headache when it comes to understanding global climate action and what we can do differently
Some gratitude and a little disclaimer, before I get to the post.
I was pleasantly surprised with the messages and kind words from friends and colleagues about my newsletter. Good things are built on such warmth; I am very grateful for that.
This two-part essay brings together my views on different climate actors, their constraints in making planet-friendly choices, and its trade-offs. This is my version of ‘Hello, world!’ for Living In A Greenhouse and is a long-form manifesto of my take on the climate landscape.
As advertised, Living In A Greenhouse will start explaining the upside and the downside to climate developments beginning next week.
I concluded the first part (very conveniently) at acknowledging the objectively difficult, yet unshakeable fact that the climate is changing, and that our current ways are unsustainable.
Something’s gotta give - but the political will of nation-states, the economics of a low-carbon transition, the failings of the ‘fourth-estate’, among others, make it difficult for an average reader to understand who is doing what to save the world.
And at that point, everyone loses their minds…
For any concerted action towards addressing climate risks, we need to ask ourselves two questions -
What should we do differently? and, who pays for it?
Climate scientists (yes, the same ones with the thankless job) are certain that ending our reliance on fossil fuels is a sure-shot way that will break us out of our current climate trajectory.
A grand hypothetical, but assuming we do decide to move away – where do we get the energy to power our houses, streets, and industries?
We cannot replace our current thermal capacity at-scale with renewable energy, without solving for the intermittency that comes with wind and solar energy. Energy storage technology has come a long way but not enough to constantly supply peak-load. There are promising developments happening regularly all-around, but we are nowhere near replacing grid-level infrastructure for cities and countries across the world.
Germany was one of the early-shifters to wind-powered electricity infrastructure. They are doing reasonably well, but there are challenges –
[…] Germany’s move to a power system largely reliant on weather-dependent renewables is quickly running up against limits—issues that all countries exchanging conventional fuels for wind and solar will eventually face. What happens when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow for hours or even days at a time? And what about the short, dark, cold days of midwinter when renewables of Germany’s power demand?
And it’s not only shortages that are problematic but also surpluses: Stormy days can be so windy that the power flows from wind parks on- and offshore overwhelm the power grid, even triggering its collapse. These electricity tsunamis can threaten the stability of neighboring countries’ energy systems, a brickbat the Poles and Czechs wield. Moreover, when there’s excess power in the grid, prices can go negative, forcing grid operators to pay customers to take the electricity.
The transition from a conventional energy system with 24/7 production to one based on intermittent renewables entails more than just swapping one set of energy sources for another; it demands rethinking and restructuring the entire energy system.
Is Germany Making Too Much Renewable Energy, Foreign Policy
A quick summary of the state of affairs -
Fossil fuels are bad. There is no credible alternative yet that can fully substitute it. Developed nations are better placed to adopt the next best alternative – to increasingly cater to its energy demand from renewable sources. Most are doing that, but the pace is sluggish. National emissions are reducing, but not at a rate that countries signed up for in the climate agreements.
Concerning, but not alarming.
Here’s another version of the quick summary from the point of view of developing nations. (Read it at 1.5x).
Fossil fuels are bad. There is no credible alternative yet that can fully substitute it. Developing nations are trying to increase energy use from renewable sources. Although grid-level solutions are rare. Building green infrastructure needs funding. Developed nations agreed to support the transition with financial aid and technology transfers in the 2015 Paris Agreement. Developing nations could then focus on improving the living standards of its citizens and unencumbered economic growth, and eventually be able to sustain financing themselves.
Long story short, developed economies have not met the floor of $100 billion per year in climate financing to the roughly 150+ developing countries with over 6.5 billion residents. There is also the issue of inequitable distribution of available financial support, with only 14% of total climate finance going towards least developed countries and only 2% to small island nations. These are the countries that have done the least to cause the climate crisis and stand to lose the most from climate change.
Concerning and alarming.
Low Carbon, Zero Carbon, Decarbonis… I give up
The next big challenge comes in the form of key industries that rely on fossil fuels to produce the goods and services that we consume regularly. The biggest polluting sectors such as cement, steel, aviation, shipping etc., are essential to our economy and our lives, especially to keep the increasing fragile global supply chain intact.
Time for another grand hypothetical. (At this point, you must have realised my love for them.)
Let us assume a conscientious large manufacturing corporation, in one of these sectors, decides to invest substantial amounts of money to develop the technology to decarbonise production processes. Let us also assume that they are very successful at that.
Now, they must pass on the costs to someone, because.. they are a business.
There are two way this could be paid for – the government pays for the costs because the public stands to benefit from reduced emissions, or customers foot the bill.
The second choice is only theoretical, because we do not live in a world where customers are willing to pay a green premium. I am certain a lot more industries will be incentivised to lead the transition to sustainable ways of production, should it be otherwise.
The likely party to absorb the costs is government (and I am better than to just cite the impending debt crisis across the world for them not to or the overused ‘but, where will the money come from’.) Except, the business is unlikely to embark on developing a successful decarbonisation technology without securing funding guarantees.
It is carpet bombing at best or throwing money down the drain at worst. It is hard to pick what to fund or what has the highest likelihood of success because everything is experimental.
For governments to pay for the costs of innovation, there needs to be a reasonable guarantee of success or a discretionary allocation to research and development of decarbonisation technologies. Even if governments manage to predict levels of success, how many sectors can a government, or for that matter, multiple governments allocate funding towards?
I admit that there is more nuance to funding innovation. There are several examples of promising technologies commercialised through government and philanthropic funding. However, it is safe to assume that the probability of multiple, climate trajectory-altering technologies arising out of this channel is low.
This is where cleantech and climate tech startups are making significant strides in advancing technology, alongside large corporations. Government support to such entities can take the form of financial and non-financial subsidies that de-risk innovation costs and incentivise the flow of private capital.
Governments can then do what they do best - regulate, by policing and pricing industrial emissions through carbon markets.
I am personally a big fan of carbon markets, on the condition that they are systematically implemented. National carbon markets are key to achieving a large-scale drop in industrial emissions. It is one of strongest policy tools we have at our disposal that offers a flexible system to tailor programs to different sectors, based on emissions profile and national economic priorities.
Irresponsibility in words
I am sorry if your head started to hurt once I got to the part about remedial action. It is very evident that tackling climate change is like trying to solve a gigantic multi-armed bandit problem. Except, each arm is another multi-armed bandit, stuck in a perpetual loop, and our only choice is to solve it when under constant existential threat.
The media coverage of the climate crisis over the last couple of years has me in knots. Especially since the publication of AR6 by the IPCC’s first working group.
I admit that the situation is bad - global climate agreements do not hold good outside the dotted lines, the economic growth machine continues to chug along, and extreme weather events that were once-in-a-decade occurrences happen once a year, and that is if we are lucky.
You might stand on either side of the debate about whether an ‘end is nigh’ kind of coverage is the right way for people to consume news about the planet, and that’s okay. I am very certain that it is far from ideal.
I strongly believe that painting a doomsday scenario at a time when human attention is limited to 5 seconds or less about a very real and a very visible existential situation is insidious, and I am being kind when I call it that.
News houses and media have a civic responsibility to highlight the complexity of the problem, the extent to which the solutions can address them, the constraints that administrations operate under, and highlight institutional lapses or inadequate action. When the underlying subject is complex and polarising, this civic responsibility should manifest itself as an impartial observer offering a realistic account.
I seldom understand who the intended audience is or the central message for most of the current climate coverage. I am reasonably certain that it is not one of advocacy to influence political action or to speak truth to power.
All this, while it successfully fuels an average reader’s anxiety about the future of our planet. And even that is sure to be written. (Kindly google ‘climate change’ and ‘anxiety’ for a sample)
I do not mean to discount the critical role of the media in relaying information. In all probability, the intention might be to communicate urgency and push for political action. The journalists themselves might be extremely concerned for the state of our planet. However, doing so should not come at the cost of pragmatism or result in only a partial representation.
Everything about climate change comes with trade-offs. Governments are locked in negotiations over whether funding should be prioritised for national interests or to finance low-carbon transitions in developing countries. And industries grapple with technology and cost constraints to move ahead with their decarbonising efforts. Sure, there is a lot of culpability with the same actors that are stuck in this loop of negotiations and inadequate progress.
But the way out of this is increasingly becoming less about accountability and more about acceptance of the ways of the world. Once we accept that in good faith, we can start moving towards identifying ways to improve our planet’s future together.
What we do at this point and going forward matters a lot more than what we haven’t done so far.
Consumption with a generous side of morality. Please and thank you.
For lay people like you and I, purveyors of vast amounts information, we can do one of two things -
We can either wait for a breakthrough, any kind of breakthrough, that allows us to remedy natural disasters, melting ice caps, wildfires, and droughts, across the world.
Or, we can rely on individual action while nations and corporations take their time to agree on collective action.
The trade-offs required for individual action are a lot less consequential than those for collective action. We trade-in continuity for inconvenience, the sort that is contained to our own lives and does not spill into (off the top of my head) national budgets.
Individual action is relatively simple once we start thinking about it. We can try and change our diets incrementally. We can audit the waste we generate as individuals and families. We can think about the environmental costs for the items we purchase and use regularly. And should they have a high footprint, we can use them longer than we would otherwise, or ensure someone else uses them. We can read more about what individuals can do differently (you can start here, and please look for more ways to regularly do what you can).
We can be deliberate about our climate response.
Oh, and let’s not be difficult to those that don’t think the same way or act with similar levels of urgency that we exhibit about climate change. I call that climate bigotry and it doesn’t help anybody.