An important aspect of the negotiations at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) was the financing of climate-adaptation projects in less-developed countries. Climate change poses a more severe threat to stability in developing countries, where government resources are scarce and local economies are reliant on agriculture. Droughts linked to climate change have already contributed to the escalation of violent conflicts in Sudan and Syria. These events have had serious negative consequences for western countries, including a massive migration of refugees to Europe and an escalation of terrorist attacks.

The agreement reached in Paris this summer was an important step in the right direction, guaranteeing developing countries $100 billion per year in adaptation funding by 2020. But will it be enough to stave off the instability and conflict that is sure to accompany global warming?

Developing countries are particularly vulnerable to climate change, and by extension the instability that comes with it, because of their dependence on agriculture. In Africa nearly 60% of the labor force is employed by agribusiness. The World Bank estimates that by 2080 droughts linked to climate change will reduce crop yields in Sub-Saharan Africa 15%, forcing millions of people into poverty. The governments of African countries will be put to the test as they attempt to respond to climate-driven food scarcity and unemployment.

Although climate shocks do not necessarily lead directly to conflict, they act as a threat multiplier, increasing the likelihood that political and ethnic tensions will result in violence. For example, in Sudan an extreme drought fueled the start of the conflict in Darfur. Prior to its beginning in 2003, rainfall was down by approximately 30% for multiple decades in a row, leading to high rates of poverty and malnutrition among farmers and herders in the region. The Sudanese government put in place policies granting additional water rights to people from Arab regions, generating an escalation of ethnic tensions. The region has since descended into civil war, with the Janjaweed – an Arab militia – and the Sudanese government carrying out ethnic cleansing against Darfur’s African population.

Similarly, a report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found a strong connection between the Syrian conflict and climate change. A severe drought lasting from 2006 to 2009 – exacerbated by the “misguided agricultural and water-use policies of the Syrian government” – caused mass crop failure, impoverishing farming communities. As a result, approximately 1.5 million people migrated from rural to urban areas. This influx of people strained government programs and increased the rate of unemployment, resulting in social unrest and eventually an uprising against President Bashar al-Assad in 2011. These events have created a power vacuum for terrorist organizations such as the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra to gain legitimacy amongst portions of the Syrian population by providing them with social services (e.g. education, health care).

Western countries have not gone unscathed. European countries have welcomed unprecedented amounts of refugees, angering their native populations and putting an additional burden on their economies, which have yet to fully recover from the Great Recession. Large-scale terrorist attacks have been carried out in France, and Cologne experienced a mass sexual assault at the hands of largely North African and Arab immigrants. It would be inaccurate to depict climate change as the principal cause of these events, but it is certainly not unconnected.

In order to avoid instability, developing countries will have to implement adaptation programs to prepare for climate change. Currently only 6% of African farmland is irrigated, leaving farmers defenseless against shifts in patterns of precipitation. With more severe and frequent droughts, farmers will need to construct sophisticated irrigation systems and switch to drought-resistant crops. These adaptation measures must be encouraged by government policy, which could provide low-income farmers with subsidies and consultation services.  

However, governments in developing countries often do not possess the financial resources to implement these programs, and are in need of assistance. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) was created at COP16 with the mission of providing less-developed countries (LDCs) with the financial resources to respond to climate change. Then at COP21, developed countries agreed to increase adaptation financing from $10 billion to $100 billion by 2020—a monumental achievement. Following the signing of the final agreement, the South African Minister of the Department of Environmental Affairs, Ms. Bomo Edna Molewa, proclaimed that the delegates had reached an “ambitious, fair and effective legally binding outcome of which we as all South Africans can be proud.” Nevertheless, past funding pledges have failed largely because western countries have been insulated from the effects of climate change; with the continuation of the European refugee crisis, western leaders may begin to develop a greater appreciation for adaptation funding.

Developed countries will have to increase their climate aid substantially in the future in order to meet the growing demand for adaptation projects in the developing world. At COP21, negotiators agreed to establish a new funding goal before 2025 (using $100 billion as the baseline). The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates that by 2050 LDCs will require between $210 billion and $300 billion in assistance per year, more than double the current pledged funding from developed countries.

International organizations have also increased their climate aid in an attempt to reach the UNEP’s looming funding-target. In November 2015, the World Bank announced the African Climate Business Plan. The Bank plans to “build up the continent’s resilience to climate shocks” by devoting $16 billion to adaptation projects. These projects will include climate-resilient infrastructure (e.g. irrigation, dikes, paved roads), energy infrastructure and climate data gathering.

It is important that world leaders follow through with the financial promises they made at COP21, keeping in mind the security implications of their actions. Global warming is not an isolated issue and should not be treated like one. A failure to fund adaptation programs in LDCs could have serious ramifications in the realm of high politics and national security. The future stability of the international system is largely dependent on the willingness of developed countries to expand adaptation funding in the next couple decades. Defense hawks who often pride themselves as “climate-skeptics”, should take another look at the facts. Climate change has had a devastating effect on fragile states, initiating a set of destabilizing chain-reactions that are almost impossible to stop once begun. This “Pandora’s Box” effect – if unaccounted for by adaptation funding – will have serious geopolitical consequences.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

The post Pandora’s Box and The Geopolitics of Climate Change appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Every year, numerous articles and books are written on the topic of development. These publications regularly focus on Sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest region in the world, and they almost always describe development from a Western perspective, appealing to policy makers and readers in the United States and Europe. Although the authors have virtuous intentions, they often forget to acknowledge the viewpoint of the African people and are one sided in their portrayal. So, what is the African perspective, and are the needs of the African people truly being met by current programs? If there is one man that can answer this question, it is Donald Kaberuka, the former president of the African Development Bank (ADB).

In 2013, Kaberuka spoke at the African Growth Initiative in Washington DC, laying out a framework for comprehensive development. Kaberuka claimed that most African countries require investment in three areas: institutions, infrastructure and integration. These three requirements are interconnected and dependent on one another. International financial institutions are not easily accessible to many countries in Sub-Saharan African, where the amount of capital available at the domestic level is insufficient. As a result, the build up of infrastructure has fallen behind the rate of economic growth and is now limiting development. Further investment in infrastructure is needed in order to integrate Sub-Saharan Africa regionally, creating a steady flow of trade between African countries and preparing domestic firms for global competition. Kaberuka believes that this is the next step in African development.

Presently, African financial institutions lack the necessary funds to finance new infrastructure projects. The World Bank estimates that Africa needs to invest over $93 billion per year in infrastructure. African institutions currently only spend $25 billion, leaving a gap of $68 billion to be filled by foreign investors. China has proven to be a major financial asset, but only to countries that are rich in natural resources, such as Angola and Nigeria. Leaders in Beijing have invested heavily in various African nations in order to secure long-term supplies of heavy metals and fossil fuels, meeting the demands of China’s ever-expanding manufacturing industry. Moreover, international financial institutions, like the World Bank, have offered limited support due to the bureaucratic nature of their loans, which are slow to be approved and often include onerous reforms. Private investors have supplied a minimal amount of funding, and at the cost of high interest rates.

Kaberuka believes that international financial institutions are the best option for financing infrastructure projects in Africa. He argues that international organizations provide the cheapest loans to African countries and that they protect African governments from developing an unsustainable amount of debt. These organizations routinely evaluate the worthiness of projects and take into consideration the solvency of governments, using their development expertise to ensure that loans are spent strategically. However, as of right now, too many strings have been attached to international loans. These strings, which are also known as structural adjustment programs (SAPs), include policies such as trade liberalization, fiscal austerity, deregulation of financial institutions and privatization. Many researchers have concluded that SAPs are detrimental to the economies of borrowing countries, citing historical examples as proof of reforms gone wrong. For instance, during the 1980s, the IMF bailed out indebted Latin American countries on the condition that they implement SAPs. The adjustments unintentionally exposed borrowing countries to financial volatility and increased the rate of poverty by removing capital controls and eliminating the social safety net.

As the largest shareholder of the IMF and the World Bank, the US could use its voting power to lessen the restrictions that are placed on loans to governments in the Sub-Saharan region. Although the risk of default would be higher with fewer SAPs, African countries will achieve greater economic development if they are given more freedom. For example, fiscal austerity measures should be abandoned, as government spending is an essential component of stimulating an economy. There are many incentives for the US to reduce the number of economic reforms attached to loans. Mainly, advancements in infrastructure will open up new business opportunities for American multinationals, which could stand to benefit from the abundant natural resources and cheap labor. International financial institutions will be able to more effectively generate economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa if they are not required to demand as many policy reforms.   

Kaberuka’s final point is that Sub-Saharan Africa needs to be integrated as a region. This process involves two parts: improvements in infrastructure and removal of barriers to trade. Regional integration is extremely important, because it boosts overall economic growth, mitigates the risk of market fluctuations and prepares emerging firms for competition in the global economy. Kaberuka makes the case that the process of integration must begin with improvements in regional infrastructure.

There is a very large deficiency of infrastructure in the Sub-Saharan region. The World Bank reports that major ports are regularly overwhelmed due to a lack of capacity and that “road freight moves no faster than a horse-drawn cart.” Additionally, regular power outages, which are caused by a lack of updated equipment and poor maintenance, have hurt the economies of African countries and limited their growth. The costs of transportation and electricity have harmed domestic firms and discouraged foreign ones from investing. Financial support targeting roads, railways and ports would help to improve the African business environment and encourage integration.

China Road and Bridge Corporation is in the process of constructing a railroad network in Kenya, the economic hub of East Africa. The railway will connect major cities in Sub-Saharan Africa to Mombasa, the only large port on the Coast of East Africa. It is expected to have a huge payoff, significantly reducing the costs and hazards of shipping. Chinese investors, both public and private, have largely subsidized the project, providing the Kenyan government with cheap loans. And this project is only a scratch on the surface; the Chinese government recently developed an ambitious plan with the African Union to build a high-speed railway to connect every country on the continent within the century.

However, Kaberuka points out that China has directed its investment towards resource rich countries, ignoring a vast majority of the 48 countries that make up Sub-Saharan Africa. Additionally, China’s demand for commodities has decreased significantly in the last year and will likely continue to do so for the foreseeable future. It is questionable whether China will continue to invest in the region as its economic growth slows.    

The US has also launched infrastructure projects in the region, but has been plagued by a lack of financial support. President Obama united the private and public sector in an initiative known as Power Africa, which plans to bring electricity to millions of people in the region. Nonetheless, the program is off to a bad start, failing to raise enough money to reach its initial target. Given these examples, its is clear that foreign investment from the US and China is not sufficient, and that multilateral development banks (MDBs) need to play a larger role in infrastructure development. An increase in funding from the World Bank would make a tremendous difference.

Kaberuka’s second step in the process of regional integration is trade liberalization, which is entirely dependent on African leaders. Presently, the 48 economies of the Sub-Saharan region have particularly high barriers to trade and operate almost entirely independent of one another. There are eight official African Union Regional Economic Communities, which were established over two decades ago by the Abuja Treaty. However, these Communities have barely increased the amount of commerce, with regional trade currently only accounting for between 12 and 16 percent of Sub Saharan imports and exports. Kaberuka proposes several steps to increase regional trade: 1) the eight Economic Communities should cooperate and work to increase the amount of transactions between their member countries and 2) domestic laws pertaining to commerce should be harmonized across the region. For instance, Kenya and Zambia should have similar environmental standards, so that one country cannot discriminate against the other country’s exports.

Although a lot of progress has been made in the development of African economies, Kaberuka accentuates that there is still a lot of room for improvement. International financial institutions need to step up and play a more significant role in funding infrastructure projects in the region, and African leaders need to further liberalize trade, removing tariffs and harmonizing regulations. Kaberuka has spoken on behalf of the African people. The real question is: will the rest of the world listen?

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors or governors.

The post Development from an African Perspective appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

At the G7 summit in Germany this past month, world leaders from developed nations pledged to completely phase out fossil fuels by 2100 in an attempt to mitigate climate change. If this weighty goal is to be reached, a transition to alternative energy needs to begin within the decade. The question on everyone’s mind—is renewable energy ready to replace fossil fuels?

The short answer is no. Renewable energy has made significant technological advances in the last decade, but has yet to reach a cost that is low enough to satisfy consumer demand. An assortment of problems has prohibited renewables from becoming competitive; mainly, sources of renewable energy are inconsistent and geographically limited. Until these challenges are overcome, nuclear power needs to be taken seriously as an attractive stand-in. Problems that previously overshadowed its benefits have largely been resolved by recent technological developments, making increasing nuclear production a more feasible and immediate method of climate mitigation than expanding renewable energy.

The major improvements needed to increase the viability of renewables are in energy storage and transportation. A new generation of batteries, led by the Tesla Powerwall, seems to overcome the obstacle of intermittency, but once again the price is just too high. Tesla is asking for a whopping $7,140 for the installation of its residential battery—much more than the average household is willing to pay. Furthermore, improvements in electrical infrastructure, i.e. the power grid, have been few and far between. Presently, it isn’t feasible to transport electricity from the rural areas where wind and solar energy are often generated. Although the marginal cost of wind turbines and solar panels has steadily declined, it is still relatively expensive to use renewable energy due to the issues of storage and transportation. For the time being, renewable energy is not competitive enough to replace fossil fuels, and a different alternative is needed.

In the campaign to drastically reduce reliance on fossil fuels, the only “quick-fix” that has proven viable is nuclear energy, which generates enormous amounts of zero-carbon electricity and rivals the cost efficiency of fossil fuels. A standard reactor can produce enough energy to supply 690,000 households with electricity. Nuclear energy could be used to curb China’s growing emissions and limit its consumption of coal, which currently accounts for almost 70% of its energy sector. In contrast to wind and solar, nuclear energy can be produced constantly and therefore does not require storage. Developed nations could run nuclear energy as their base-load supply of electricity, and then have intermittent renewables pick up the slack during peak demand.

France, which derives approximately 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy, is an ideal model for the energy structure of developed nations. France is the largest net exporter of energy in the world, with an annual profit of well over $3 billion. The French government has used the capability of its nuclear power to advance aggressive environmental policies; in 2014, the French government established a long-term target to reduce greenhouse gas emission to 40% of 1990 levels by 2030, dwarfing targets set by the United States and other developed nations. Furthermore, France is not dependent on foreign energy and is therefore less vulnerable to political instability. Countries in Central and Eastern Europe should take note; nuclear energy might be a solution to dependence on Russian gas.

Nonetheless, nuclear power has suffered its own share of setbacks over the years. A list of nuclear accidents – most recently Fukushima Daiichi – has created the perception that nuclear energy is unsafe. There is also unease over the security of nuclear power plants, which have been identified as potential terrorist targets. To top it all off, environmentalists have expressed concerns over the limited amount of uranium available and the long-term toxicity of radioactive waste. However, technology has surmounted many of these challenges.

In 2011, a tsunami disabled the cooling system of three nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, bringing Japan close to its first nuclear meltdown. Reports would later reveal that the Fukushima accident was the result of inadequate regulations and obsolete safety measures. Updated nuclear reactors include passive safety mechanisms that eliminate the possibility of human error by relying on gravity, heat resistance and natural convection. Presumably, the crisis would have been avoided had the proper standards been in place.

Despite this fact, anti-nuclear protests erupted in many countries in the wake of Fukushima, and in some cases led to the eradication of nuclear energy. Most notably, Germany, which previously produced a quarter of its electricity using nuclear power, instituted a phase-out plan to shutdown all of its reactors by 2022. Fear of a nuclear meltdown drove the German government to begin decommissioning 17 reactors, all of which had been deemed safe by the Reactor Safety Commission. As a consequence, power plants that use coal and natural gas have had to increase production, emitting additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Critics of Germany’s phase-out plan point out that Japan, home to the most recent nuclear accident, still maintains a robust network of nuclear power plants with improved safety systems. There is no reason that nuclear power plants with updated safety measure should be deactivated.

In addition to improvements in safety, nuclear power plants are now secure and well protected from threats of terrorism. Experts previously worried that an organization like al-Qaeda would blow up a reactor and expose the general public to radiation. However, reactors are encased in steel-reinforced concrete to prevent the escape of radiation and the intrusion of foreign objects. Computer simulations, for example, have concluded that a nuclear reactor would survive the impact of a large commercial airliner.

Concerns over the long-term supply of uranium have been satisfied by recent estimates of the world’s economically accessible uranium, which predict that at the present rate of consumption there is enough to last over 200 years. Breeder reactors, which allow for the recycling of uranium, have already decreased fuel consumption. At the moment, a single uranium fuel pellet – measuring the size of an average fingertip – produces a quantity of energy equivalent to 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. Additionally, these fuel supply projections will likely be extended as nuclear science continues to improve.

Fuel-efficient reactors have also decreased the amount of nuclear waste generated. Historically, radioactive waste has been stored at the nuclear power plant where it is produced. Thus far, this method of management has been effective, but it is contingent on the existence of an organization that oversees the site for tens of thousands of years—the amount of time its takes for radioactive waste to completely decay. Although there is currently no long-term plan to manage radioactive waste, new methods of storage can be developed and implemented to limit the associated risks.

The upfront cost of constructing a nuclear power plant is one remaining impediment to nations that might wish to copy France’s model, such as Eastern European nations hoping to decrease their reliance on Russian gas. Recent evaluations calculate the cost (including financing) of constructing a nuclear power plant to be between $6 billion and $9 billion. No individual private actor can afford to finance a power plant of this expense without government subsidies. Despite the controversy over government intervention, handouts are common in the energy sector. Last year, government subsidies for fossil fuels totaled $550 billion worldwide. Tax dollars would be better spent on nuclear energy.

When world leaders meet in Paris for the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP 21) this December, they will attempt to produce a universally binding agreement on the reduction of carbon emissions. The goal is to prevent global temperatures from crossing the two-degree threshold, which many scientists have labeled the tipping point of climate change. World leaders will need to be proactive in their reductions rather than continuing to wait for a breakthrough in renewables.

Ultimately, there needs to be a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, but the short-term fix is nuclear. More research and development is needed before renewable energy can be considered a practical solution. Fortunately, the countries that are the greatest emitters of green house gases already possess nuclear capabilities, so there is no need for a proliferation of nuclear knowledge. If China and the United States alone increase their nuclear power, the prospects of a stable global temperature are much more likely. Nuclear energy is the stepping-stone between the industrial revolution and a renewable revolution. COP 21 is a chance to rekindle the conversation about nuclear power.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Nuclear Energy: A Stepping-Stone appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.