A cool consensus emerges on global warming

Many nations, rich and poor, find it hard to end fuel subsidies. Several poor nations have made moves to do so while Europe plans to temporarily keep fossil fuel power plants in reserve. The Paris talks on climate change must build on this consensus.

AP Photo
New Zealand's Prime Minister John Key addresses world leaders at the United Nations Climate Change Conference outside Paris Nov. 30. He represented a coalition of more than 30 nations asking for an end to fuel subsidies.

If the current negotiations for a climate-change pact have taught the world anything, it is the need for more hard work to break old energy habits. One habit under a harsh spotlight at the Paris talks is the common practice of governments to subsidize coal and oil use. This financial support only encourages fuel waste. And it sends the wrong signal about the future cost of global warming. Ending fossil-fuel subsidies would cut global carbon emissions by 20 percent, according to the International Monetary Fund.

“Fossil fuel subsidy reform is the missing piece of the climate change puzzle,” says New Zealand Prime Minister John Key, who helped form a coalition of more than 30 nations before the talks to push for subsidy reform.

Since 2009, fuel subsidies have fallen by a fifth, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). At the same time, even richer countries that are well on the path to clean energy find the habit hard to break.

In poorer countries, the subsidies allow the price of gasoline and diesel to remain affordable for low-wage consumers. In wealthier countries, they support the petroleum or coal industries, and the jobs they bring. In recent years, a few poorer nations such as India, Indonesia, and Egypt have reduced their subsidies after being persuaded there are better ways to help the poor but also to help reduce air pollution. This is a point of progress in the global effort against climate change.

Among eight of the most industrialized nations – Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States – government support for fossil fuel production still amounts to a combined $80 billion a year, according to a study by the Oil Change International and the Overseas Development Institute. And the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development recently tallied up 800 ways that wealthier nations support fossil fuel producers.

A good example of the problem lies in Germany, one of the most successful countries in advancing renewable energy. It finds solar and wind power to be too erratic and intermittent to provide a steady supply of electricity. To prevent blackouts, the government plans to pay utility companies to keep big power plants on the ready during peak demand. France, Britain, and a few other European countries are moving toward similar “capacity” payments to keep oil, coal, or gas plants in reserve. Yet officials also admit these payments are only temporary until a range of solutions to address climate change are in place.

The Paris talks are not expected to reach a consensus about placing a high price on carbon use. Yet a global consensus is clearly emerging to end fuel subsidies. Good habits are replacing bad ones.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to A cool consensus emerges on global warming
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today