Today marks the start of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNSD). The Conference, Rio+20 for short, brings together government, NGO, and private sector leaders to discuss the advancement of a green economy and international cooperation in hopes of achieving worldwide sustainable development. In other words, Rio+20 aims to promote economic development that will meet present needs without jeopardizing future generations’ ability to meet their own. The burning of fossil fuels offers an excellent example of unsustainable development. While the cheap energy they provide has short term economic benefits, their impacts on global climate (increased frequency of drought, rising sea levels, more frequent flood events, etc.) threaten future food and water security, and increase the likelihood of natural disaster. Climate change, however, does not explicitly appear as one of Rio+20’s seven priority issues. That being said, climate policy will have to be breached if notable progress is to be made on any one of Rio+20’s development objectives. If history repeats itself, though, an international regulatory policy on climate has only a glimmer of hope this week.

Why have international efforts to combat climate change largely failed? Jennifer Morgan points to economic, political, and social complexities to explain the inertia within the global community. For instance, developing nations often oppose strict emission regulations on the grounds that fossil fuels offer cheap energy sources crucial to their economic growth. And, on the grounds of equanimity, they should be able to utilize those sources just as developed nations once did. On the other hand, industrialized nations believe developing countries are responsible for new emissions growth, and that curbing emissions is more cost-effective in emerging economies.

Complicating the issue further, divides exist between both domestic and international factions. Namely, politicians’ hesitation to lose their voter base with vested interests can thwart support for climate policies and clean energy bills.

Mounting rifts at home make American cooperation with international initiative all the more difficult. In accordance with the Copenhagen Climate Accord the U.S. committed to reducing 17% of its greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2020. Brazil and Japan will cut emissions by 39 and 25 percent below 1990 levels, respectively. Clearly, the U.S. commitment is lagging as it has the most lax emission target of the participating developed countries.

As noted by Rebecca Burns, the 2011 Durban Climate Conference achieved little except a global climate initiative to be negotiated in 2015. Nonetheless, Durban was a definite step in the right direction-as long as meaningful negotiations actually occur. Burns, however, asserts that the focus of the talks will be on a “green economy.” Conceivably, this refers in large part to government support of sustainable economic growth by enticing investment and providing stimuli to renewable energy projects.

The BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2012 reported that power generated from renewable sources rose 17.7 percent in 2011. In the U.S. alone, solar installations grew by 109 percent. Seemingly, the advent of a “green economy” is well underway. Considerable gains must be made by the sector, though, to obtain significant climate change reductions. But, as the “world’s largest clean-energy investor,” the U.S. should continue these investments. As in any industry, production of clean-energy technology can be expected to achieve economies of scale; the capital and costs needed to bring such technologies to market will decline per unit. Such a development would make solar panels, wind turbines, etc. more competitive in the global market, and one could expect to see accelerated displacement of fossil fuels by these cleaner energy sources.

Besides the economic benefits of becoming a global industry leader, the U.S.  would benefit from a stabilizing climate along with the rest of the world. After all, the larger the share of the global energy portfolio renewable sources account for, the fewer greenhouse gases emitted. The United States, therefore, should embrace a role at the forefront of the clean-energy industry as international climate talks shift their focus away from regulating emissions and towards developing a green economy. In doing so, the United States will strengthen its economy, greatly contribute toward climate change mitigation, and in turn create a more secure future for itself and the world.

Share on Facebook

Tweet