The Four Ps of Sustainability in Glasgow

After the COP26 climate summit held in Glasgow, it is time to take stock. The objective of this article is to offer an analysis of the summit from the perspective of the donut economy. This conceptual framework is based on four fundamental axes: ecological limits, social bases, a redistributive economy and a regenerative economy. Using this scheme we can reflect on the main conclusions of the summit, the agreements reached and the points that are still pending.

Ecological limits: prudence

If science has taught us anything in recent decades, it is that we are heading towards the abyss. Perhaps the first study with global impact was the text The limits of growth. In this work, different future scenarios were proposed that depended on the reaction of society.

One of the main conclusions of this work is that there is practically no good option. Humanity has to work to achieve the least harmful scenario for the environment and society. In other words, we have spent decades trying to make the least bad option a reality.

We have a wealth of scientific evidence on the human contribution to global warming and climate change. However, there are many aspects that we still do not know. Faced with this scenario of uncertainty, we must exercise caution. If we don’t know if we can solve the problem, at least let’s try not to aggravate it. In this context, the main objective of the summit was to keep alive the commitment to limit average global warming to below 1.5 ℃.

The summit concludes with some specific agreements along these lines. For example, China and the United States have committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions this decade. India has also committed to achieving zero emissions by 2070.

Another positive step is the Global Methane Commitment, reached a few days before the end of the summit. Methane is estimated to be responsible for 30% of the increase in global warming. This pact aims to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030.

Another important step is the commitment to stop deforestation by 2030. These agreements can be important, but only if they are fulfilled.

However, despite these specific minimum commitments, in general the countries have simply agreed to design more ambitious policies to protect the environment for next year. This is clearly insufficient. Are we aware of the serious environmental recklessness what are we committing?

The social bases: progress

Despite the fact that developed countries are the main polluters, southern countries are the ones that suffer the most from the consequences of global warming. In addition, they have fewer resources to deal with the damage and risks caused by climate change. This situation contributes to exacerbating poverty and further complicating the achievement of the SDGs.

In this sense, one of the main objectives of the summit was to seal a commitment from developed countries to contribute 100 billion dollars annually. This money should be used to finance climate change adaptation projects in the global south.

In this aspect of climate justice the summit has also disappointed. The participating countries have not reached a clear agreement on how to help developing countries finance the damages and losses generated by global warming. The only agreement reached is limited to doubling the current contributions in 2025.

Developing countries do not have sufficient resources to cope with the losses and damages caused by climate change. This represents a clear brake on social progress in many countries of the world. We need to bet decisively on actions that contribute to improving the well-being of all people around the world.

Redistributive economics: pragmatism

Today we are fully aware that damage to the environment negatively affects human health in many ways. For example, it is estimated that air pollution causes the death of some seven million people in the world. It is also believed that it may contribute to some six million preterm births globally. Besides, the atmospheric pollution it can cause other kidney, cardiovascular or neurological problems.

This happens in both developed and developing countries. But once again, they are the people with the fewest resources and opportunities. those who suffer the most consequences from an unfavorable environment. The concept of eco-anxiety it also highlights this situation on a psychological level and its consequences for society.

One of the main problems of COP26 has been the limited role of civil society and indigenous populations. This fact implies that not all points of view are reflected in the final agreements. Consequently, there are many problems for which adequate solutions are not provided.

The message that we are not working to find the best solution needs to be repeated tirelessly. All the scenarios we discussed refer to getting the least bad option. There are no longer positive contexts and, unfortunately, our options are limited to reaching the least harmful scenario.

For this it is necessary to focus on pragmatism. If things do not change, in the future the problems will be even more serious, more difficult to solve and, ultimately, will require a greater financial effort. That is why we need to improve wealth redistribution mechanisms to improve living conditions around the world. Otherwise, we will all lose out.

Regenerative economy: proactivity

From the point of view of the need to advance in a regenerative economy, the summit did not meet expectations either. One of the most difficult aspects has been the aspiration for countries to review their action plans more quickly. The commitment in Paris 2015 was intended to review them every five years. An annual review has been agreed in Glasgow, starting in 2022. We will have to trust that promises will be fulfilled, although the record is not very promising. Despite this, some countries are making this commitment legally binding.

The commitment to decarbonize the economy. In this sense, the first draft made a specific commitment to “eliminate coal and fossil fuel subsidies.” However, the final text refers only to uncontrolled thermal power plants, inefficient subsidies and the progressive reduction of emissions. In the same vein, major car-manufacturing countries have pledged not to produce diesel and gasoline vehicles from 2035.

It’s getting harder and harder to be optimistic given the lack of decisive action and commitment on the part of the different actors.

There remains the option of be proactive in this sense. Truly sustainable companies are improving their profitability and brand image. At the same time, there remains the possibility of acting as citizens and consumers to reward truly sustainable behavior, to demand responsibility from our representatives, and to support the actors who clearly bet on a regenerative and environmentally friendly economy.

Will this minimum agreement serve to confront with guarantees the greatest challenge in the history of humanity? Probably not. We have to keep working and we have less and less time.



This article is part of the coverage of The Conversation on COP26, the Glasgow climate conference.

Follow full coverage on English, French, Canadian French, indonesian language and español, here.


Javier Sierra, Department of Applied Economics, University of Salamanca

This article was originally published on The Conversation. read the original.



Reference-www.eleconomista.com.mx

Leave a Comment