CBAM, which is set to go into effect at the start of 2026 once it is confirmed by the European Council and European Parliament, is a tariff on carbon-intensive imported goods like cement, iron, steel, aluminum, fertilizers, electricity and hydrogen. Through these efforts, the EU pushes cleaner production abroad and a decrease in carbon leakage. The agreement effectively urges governments to step up their climate efforts or risk losing competitiveness in the market, making the EU the global leader in sustainability. 

While the deal may seem like a step in the right direction, the developing world has expressed serious disapproval toward the tariff, arguing that the measure discriminates against poor nations that do not have the administrative capacity or climate regulations to comply with CBAM. For instance, India’s Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman denounced the tariff as “unilateral and arbitrary,” acting as a “trade barrier” to the fastest-growing economies. As a result, New Delhi notified the WTO of their plans to retaliate via a retaliatory tariff. 

The EU’s largest exporters in sectors covered by CBAM include Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Egypt and Morocco. However, some of these countries, particularly the EU’s trading partners with developing economies such as Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Mozambique, Bhutan and Jamaica, lack the economic and geopolitical power to impose tariffs. The GDP of developing countries is expected to decline between 1.4% and 2.4% depending on the final Greenhouse gas (GHG) price. As a result, their response will likely take the form of legal disputes at the WTO. 

Furthermore, CBAM can be viewed as a message to major economies and significant GHG emitters of the EU’s commitment to safeguard its domestic priorities. Zhao, Deputy Minister of China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment, claimed China staunchly opposed any unilateral measures that increased costs. “China always respects multilateral practices,” he added. This perspective also anticipates retaliatory responses, such as potential trade conflicts. 

Researchers at the Swedish Institute for European Studies have expressed that expanding BRICS coalition could act as a counterbalance to the EU, potentially competing to shape the future global economic and trade landscape. Green protectionism can force countries to join cooperative partnerships that could reverse decarbonization efforts by encouraging less environmentally aligned economic interests. Consequently, addressing the geopolitical and geoeconomic challenges posed by the CBAM will be a crucial task for the EU. 

While impending trade disputes and wars pose a significant threat to the multilateral trade regime, the pressing urgency of the climate crisis makes it vital to not abandon the CBAM. Rather, the EU must ensure it accommodates the economic needs of developing nations to foster a less discriminatory and effective approach to global trade. 

The EU should adopt a carbon-pricing mechanism that goes beyond a direct carbon tax. It should include both explicit prices and other indirect measures that impact the cost of emitting GHGs, like taxes on fuel or cuts to fossil fuel subsidies. In short, it counts all the costs that make carbon-emitting activities more expensive, even if those costs aren’t labeled specifically as carbon fees. For many developing countries, direct carbon taxes or emissions trading systems are challenging to implement because they require significant resources, infrastructure and administrative capacity. However, virtually every country already has policies that indirectly discourage emissions, like fuel taxes or energy efficiency standards. It would also encourage a gradual transition so developing nations could build up their climate policies without facing immediate trade penalties. Reforms that reduce subsidies to fossil fuel consumption have taken place in many developing countries, such as Ghana and Sudan.

Lastly, the EU’s current CBAM doesn’t qualify as a “border carbon adjustment” according to the WTO because it violates articles II, III, XI and XIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). A border carbon adjustment (BCA) that includes explicit and indirect measures is compatible with WTO law because it is not a unilateral action. According to the 2015 Paris Agreement, BCA mechanisms designed to allow for more leeway in climate policy should be seen as “multilateral universalism”. Thus, policies of this nature should face less stringent scrutiny under WTO rules as the GHG pricing mechanisms being introduced have been implicitly accepted by WTO members. This is evident from their collective endorsement of international climate agreements such as the 2015 Paris Agreement and the 2021 Glasgow Climate Pact. Even nations like China are likely to be supportive.

Thus, the EU must implement a fair and bold carbon border tax now. Absent a WTO-compliant BCA, Daniel Esty, a leading expert on climate change governance, warns, “I can imagine a scenario whereby they’re challenged not once or twice, but a dozen, 15, 20, 30, 40 times within the first six months.” Such legal uncertainties could also escalate into a global trade war, threatening economic stability and international cooperation on climate action. For the EU, this moment calls for decisive action to lead by example and pave the way for a sustainable and equitable global trading system.

The post The EU CBAM Conundrum: Balancing Climate Goals with Trade Justice for Developing Countries appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

These words, from Canadian philosopher and futurist Marshall McLuhan, emphasize both the necessity of a collectivist attitude and the necessity of coordinated action toward climate change. As the world rapidly approaches the disaster barrier that is 1.5 degrees celsius, it is imperative that the United States takes steps to reach critical climate targets such as net-zero global carbon emissions by 2050. 

Though these may seem like lofty goals, they are now considered essential by many climate experts, if we are to avoid major climate catastrophes that will cost millions of lives, destroy ecosystems and environments and affect trillions of dollars in global revenue. 

Given the extent to which oil and natural gas lobbyists are entrenched and hold influence in American politics, implementing large-scale renewable energy may be difficult to accomplish within the next 10 years. Alternatively, other avenues must be considered to reduce our carbon footprint. A course of action that has been seemingly overlooked is legislation to reduce methane emissions by decreasing the number of cows consumed — essentially, legislation to tackle the meat industry. If deemed politically feasible and in the interest of the administration, President Joe Biden currently faces several alternatives and options for reducing emissions from livestock in order to meet emissions targets.  

Agricultural emissions in the United States account for approximately 10% of all GHG emissions. The largest culprit within the agricultural industry is cattle which — through digestive methane production, transportation, packaging and distribution — directly contributes approximately 30% of all agricultural emissions. The most concerning of these emissions is methane (CH4) — which has a global warming potency 86 times higher than that of carbon dioxide (CO2). 

Cattle contributes to methane emissions primarily in 2 ways. The first is through a process known as enteric fermentation, which is a natural digestive process in which food is decomposed and fermented, creating a by-product of methane. The second primary contributor is cow manure, which often releases methane as it decomposes under anaerobic conditions in piles or open-pit lagoons. 

Combatting methane emissions is a nuanced issue, and agricultural organizations and scientists alike have been doing their best to tackle the challenge for the past 30 years. Many have sought to reduce emissions through intentional alterations of a cow’s rumen, the stomach chamber in which microbes ferment feed hence producing methane. Others have focused on selective breeding for cows with less methane-producing microbes, as well as experimenting with different feeds that promote better digestion. Nevertheless, emissions from agriculture have actually increased despite efforts in many developed countries to actively reduce methane production in cows.

There are several critical reasons why, even with an average reduction of methane emissions per cow, global methane emissions from cattle have still increased by 10% within the last 30 years. First is the phenomenon known as “meatification” in regions like Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Demand for meat has skyrocketed as purchasing power has increased within these regions, and, as a result, global meat production has nearly doubled since 1990. 

Second, measures adopted have been inefficient at reducing overall methane and GHG emissions. While they have made some difference in reducing emissions per cow, raising cows is still a massively inefficient process. In order to raise a cow for slaughter, you must raise it for two to three years as well as provide it with an exceptional amount of land, water, and food. Moreover, cows produce about up to 21 tons of manure per year, and ineffective manure management can lead to greater methane emissions. On top of that, many of these measures have been adopted inconsistently throughout the globe, given that wealthier nations are more equipped to fund the research and supplies needed to successfully implement these measures. 

Yet, research still continues in these areas despite the limited effectiveness of the measures being developed. Why? The larger answer lies in the fact that improvements and advancements in these areas allow the animal agriculture industry to expand. 

But these scientific advancements cannot fix an industry that is inherently destructive – not only to the planet, but to the health of citizens as well. If the United States is serious about combating the negative externalities created by animal agriculture — including methane emissions from cattle — a new agricultural landscape must be constructed rather than focusing improvements to the current one.

There are several paths the Biden administration can pursue if it wishes to significantly reduce the cattle industry’s methane emissions. The first alternative is cut from the old cloth, but worth exploring nonetheless. It involves feeding cows a specific type of seaweed. A 2018 study from the University of California, Davis suggests that feeding cows seaweed could reduce methane emissions from beef cattle by as much as 82%. Unfortunately, implementing this on a massive scale is near impossible because there is simply not enough of that type of seaweed to sustain a cow’s diet, and there are several logistical challenges with providing seaweed supplements to cows grazing on an open range. 

A second policy Biden mught consider is focusing on supporting the growth of businesses that produce plant-based protein substitutes. Plant-based meat alternatives have historically been frowned  upon, but their popularity has absolutely exploded in the past few years with the success of companies like Beyond Meat. Two out of five Americans have tried plant-based meat, with that figure stretching to over 50% for those 25 and younger. Moreover, plant-based substitutes are expected to achieve a whopping 85 billion dollars in sales in 2030, an 1,847% increase from 2018. This growth has only accelerated throughout the pandemic, as the unsafe COVID-19 conditions endured by many meat processing workers have increased calls for more meat-free alternatives.

Another promising innovation the Biden administration could support is lab-grown meat. Currently, lab-grown meat is still in its infancy in the United States, with plans to serve cultured meat still several years away. However, in the United Kingdom the process is a little further along. There are currently 15 startups focusing on lab-grown meat and they have plans to expand to mass production in the coming years. CE Delft expects that by 2030, lab-grown beef could be just as inexpensive as agricultural beef. Even better news, if lab-grown factories were funded by renewable energy it would reduce total beef emissions by 93%. Lab-grown beef may be the best potential alternative because not only does it allow us to reduce our methane emissions and assuage ethical concerns about animal farming, but it also allows consumers to keep the taste and nutrients of meat readily available in their diet.  

But one notable hurdle the United States faces with both plant-based proteins and lab-grown beef is the political strength of the U.S. agribusiness industry. According to research from New York University, major meat and dairy producers have spent millions on lobbying efforts and campaigns aimed at discrediting links between climate change and animal agriculture. Over the last two decades, ‘Big Ag’ has spent $750 million on supporting national political candidates who hold similar policy stances, with Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Joni Ernst among their top recipients. 

Unsurprisingly, these major conglomerates have been able to get away with highly carbon-intensive methods of agriculture, as well as produce food at a very cheap rate due to large agricultural subsidies. The Barack Obama administration tried to check the advances of Big Ag, promising millions of rural farmers that they would fight back against the most powerful players in the industry, only to stop when the major agricultural conglomerates banded together with their congressional allies. 

Nevertheless, the emergence of climate change as a central political issue will facilitate Biden’s ability to check the power of Big Ag. As more and more American citizens express their concern about climate change, Congress will have to listen to its constituents or risk losing popular support. Additionally, with Democratic control over the House, and the Senate nearly equally split, climate policies will face less hurdles than they did under former President Donald Trump. Biden should take advantage of these circumstances to steadfastly push climate action.

And as such, I believe the Biden administration should consider adopting the following measures to mitigate the effect of the meat industry on climate change.

1. Increase investment in seaweed farming products;
2. Increase subsidies to plant-based protein companies in order to promote industry growth and reduce prices; 
3. Decrease or eliminate subsidies to animal agriculture, which keep the price of beef and other animal products artificially low; 
4. Have the EPA classify methane as a criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA);
5. Fund research, infrastructure, and production capacities for lab-grown beef;

The climate crisis grows more grim every day. If substantial action is not taken by the Biden administration to fundamentally reduce American beef consumption and minimize animal agriculture in general, the United States will struggle to reach its emission targets, thereby hampering the global climate fight and bringing the world closer to environmental catastrophe. 

The post The Biden Administration Ought to Reduce Meat Consumption appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In 2019, carbon dioxide levels and greenhouse gases rose to unprecedented levels, a concerning development as climate change has already affected industries, economies and weather patterns worldwide. Although greenhouse gas emissions were projected to drop by about six percent in 2020 due to COVID-19 shutdowns and slows in economic growth, this alone will not solve the climate crisis.

However, the international community has already started to make progress on climate change. In 2015, the United Nations developed the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a universal call to action to protect the planet by enacting 17 initiatives by the year 2030. The same year, parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reached an agreement, called the Paris Agreement, to rapidly increase action and investment into a global response to the climate crisis. For the first time in history, this agreement effort brought hundreds of nations together under a common cause for climate change initiatives to mediate the effects of global temperature increases. The Paris Agreement established a binding commitment for countries around the world to uphold and maintain their nationally determined contribution to limit global temperature increases to below 2 degrees Celsius, with a primary goal of fewer than 1.5 degrees celsius. 

Sustainable Development Goal 17, Climate Action, hopes to strengthen countries’ ability to deal with the impacts of climate change through enhanced global measures and a capacity-building framework. As 2020 comes to a close, five years following the Paris Climate Agreement, what have various countries achieved in their climate goals, and have they done enough to combat the growing global climate crisis? 

This article will analyze five countries’ responses to climate change and whether their efforts are realistic in achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals by the end of 2030. 

Russia

Russia is the world’s fourth-largest greenhouse gas emitter. Russia’s intended nationally determined contribution in the Paris Agreement is to limit “anthropogenic greenhouse gases in Russia to 70-75% of 1990 levels by the year 2030.” Additionally, Russian boreal forests have a massive global significance for mitigating climate change. Through conserving biodiversity and accounting for 25% of the world’s forest resources, forests have become a central element of Russian environmental policy. These forests consume about 500 million tons of CO2 per year, which is essential in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing emissions by 25-30% from the 1990 base level by 2030 will allow the Rusian Federation to achieve its contribution to the long-term objective of lowering the global temperature. 

Currently, Russia is on course to meet its Paris target, but its commitment only impacts the output of carbon emissions. Moreover, internal data is mostly out-of-date or scarce, making it difficult to confirm Russia’s progress in meeting its Paris commitments. As one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters, it is essential that Russia maintains on track to decrease global temperature. As of 2017, global carbon emissions worldwide increased by 1.7% in two years and rose a further 2.7% by 2018. However, with action, there is potential to reduce carbon emissions within 12 years and prevent temperature increases from surpassing 2 degrees celsius. 

United States

In 2015, the United States agreed to “achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28% below its 2055 level in 2025.” However, in 2019, the United States pulled out of the Paris Agreement. Currently, the United States has backed out of numerous domestic policies, pulled out of global climate initiatives, and moved in the opposite direction of achieving its climate goals. Being the only nation to exit the agreement voluntarily, the United States has exponentially hindered global efforts to tackle climate change. In 2018, the United States was the second-highest producer of greenhouse gas emissions in the world. Despite recent gains in energy efficiency and emissions reductions, these small steps are menial for the United States’ larger impact on global warming. 

President-elect Joe Biden has vowed to rejoin the Paris Agreement and plans to increase the ambitious domestic U.S. climate targets. Under this new presidency, there is potential for the United States to begin progressing on its intended nationally determined contribution to the Paris Agreement. As the second-largest greenhouse gas emitter, upon rejoining, the U.S. will likely be expected to update its climate target and create a concrete plan focused on reducing domestic emissions. Furthermore, the United States will need to rebuild trust with other nations and meet the bold global climate initiatives other countries have presented. China has pledged to become carbon neutral by 2060, with the EU presenting even more ambitious goals of becoming carbon neutral by 2050. Biden plans to invest $2 trillion to initiate a transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. He also plans to cut carbon emissions from eclectic power to zero and reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Although the United States has fallen far behind its emissions goals, it has the potential to secure its position again as a leader in climate change mitigation.

India

India is among the few countries in the world that has reached its goal of reducing carbon emissions and limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. India is also spearheading remarkable growth in renewable energy, including energy sources like wind and solar power. This growth has been possible through government support, which has spurred confidence in investors of the renewable energy sector. In India’s National Electricity Plan, they outlined the growth of renewable energy to be the fastest-growing energy sector, aiming to achieve 225 GW of renewable energy capacity by 2022, exceeding its target of only 175 GW in the Paris Agreement. By 2030, their goal rises further to 500 GW. In their plan, they also address a timeline for decreasing coal power plants to reduce pollution. 

As of 2018, 65% of the country’s electricity was still generated from coal, a notorious contributor to carbon emissions. India has historically dominated the coal industry, where they consumed more coal than both the United States and Japan combined. Therefore, few ever expected India to exceed key commitments to the Paris Agreement. India is on track to reduce emissions by as much as 45% by 2030, 10% more than it had initially planned. This “green revolution” in India has only been possible through a combination of political, economic, and technological support. In contrast to the United States, where clean energy is a matter of heated political debate, India passed taxes on coal production with nearly unanimous approval from all 36 political parties in the parliament. They have made a staunch commitment to making clean energy cheap and accessible, where technological breakthroughs dropped the price of solar power to become cheaper than coal. India has surpassed all expectations of its progress towards zero emissions, setting a prime example for other countries to follow to collectively achieve and perhaps even surpass the zero-emissions goal.

Saudi Arabia

Despite ratifying the Paris Agreement in 2016, Saudi Arabia has taken minimal tangible action towards its goals, falling into the “critically insufficient” category on the Climate Action Tracker scale. On its current path, the country is on track to increase temperatures by more than 4 degrees Celsius. In the Paris Climate Agreement, they targeted to reduce up to 130 MtCo2e below the baseline, yet have failed to even provide a baseline emissions level to make their targets measurable. Their pledge within the Paris Agreement also contained a fatal “get-out” clause, allowing Saudi Arabia to adjust its target if it deems that the Paris Agreement creates an “abnormal burden” on its economy. 

Commitments made by Saudi Arabia to transitioning to clean energy has been volatile. In the government’s 2016 “Vision 2030” plan, they strategized that Saudi Arabia would phase out fossil fuel subsidies, but pulled out of this goal in December 2017 in order to “enhance the economy”. Then, in 2018, Saudi Arabia canceled its biggest solar project shortly after SoftBank and the Saudi Public Investment Fund announced plans to build a $200 billion 200GW solar plant. Over time, the Saudi government has set a precedent for backing out on renewable energy commitments, creating pushback in the Saudi solar market as investors gamble with the government’s volatility. As of now, there is an extreme “gap between promises and reality,” said Benjamin Attia, a global solar analyst with Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables. Until the Saudi government can formally commit, the country has had minimal contributions to the Paris Agreement. However, as one of the biggest fossil-fuel producers in the world, Saudi Arabia’s shift towards clean energy is essential to the global climate change effort. 

Costa Rica

Thus far, Costa Rica has shown promise in taking action against climate change, receiving a “2º C Compatible” rating from Climate Action Tracker. This indicates that its current trajectory is just shy of the Paris Agreement goal of limiting temperature increase to 1.5º celsius. Regardless, Costa Rica has set lofty goals for electricity production to be 100% renewable by 2021, and it has shown resolve in accomplishing this. As of 2018, 98% of its electricity was generated from renewable energy sources for the fourth consecutive year. They have even enacted the National Decarbonisation Plan in 2019, aiming to become a “decarbonized economy with net-zero emissions” by 2050. 

President Carlos Alvarado Quesada has repeatedly stated that “decarbonization is the great task of our generation and Costa Rica must be among the first countries to achieve it, if not the first,” asserting a long term vision for Costa Rica to spearhead the transition to zero-net emissions. Though COVID-19 has negatively impacted Costa Rica’s original trajectory, it continues to work towards drastically reducing its carbon footprint and has potential to be a strong role model for other countries. 

Looking Forward

Climate change has not only begun to have detrimental effects on the environment at large, but individual countries around the world are already feeling the impact. Almost every major industry, like human health, agriculture, transportation and energy, has been impacted by climate change. It has raised concerns for health risks associated with wildfires, pollution, and the spread of tropical diseases like the Dengue and Zika viruses to name a few. Changing seasonal patterns also threaten to destabilize food security by hampering the annual crop yield and distribution systems across the world. Climate change’s cascading effects have ultimately spread to nearly all sectors, demanding reform of the energy industry to move away from fossil fuels, and pushing for greener modes of transportation. Even so, major greenhouse gas contributors are working to mitigate climate change but are seeing longer timelines for reducing their impact.

Studies have found that over 75% of carbon emissions pledges for 2030 under the Paris Agreement are not nearly enough to reach the 2 degrees Celsius target. Scholars warn that failure to do so will cost the world “a minimum of $2 billion per day in economic losses from weather events made worse by human-induced climate change.” 

Though the outlook on progress has been relatively bleak, especially considering the insufficient efforts of major countries like China and the US, recent commitments may provide new promise. China has recently revised goals to hit net-zero before 2060, and many experts are encouraging countries to invest their COVID-19 recovery funds into greener technology for “a green pandemic recovery.”

Ultimately, there has been a large variance among countries in terms of reaching their emissions goals. However, it has become clear that the most successful countries have found ideological cohesion between the government, the economy and the technology sector to move forward together. The compliance of each sector is imperative to each country’s ability to succeed in reaching these goals. However, there is still a chance to get back on track. According to Sir Robert Watson, former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “We have the technology and knowledge to make those emissions cuts, but what’s missing are strong enough policies and regulations to make it happen.” 

Even with setbacks in the transition to green energy due to the pandemic, it is now more important than ever to clamp down on climate change and save large parts of the planet from being uninhabitable. 

The post 2021 and the Sustainable Development Goals: Is the World Meeting its Climate Goals? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.