Climate change and poverty have not gone away
An economic and political system that does not deliver for most citizens is one that is not sustainable in the long run
Email
A colony of king penguins and an elephant seal on Possession Island. Because we have been so slow to respond to climate change, achieving the targeted limit of a 2C rise in global temperature will require sharp reductions in emissions in the future. Photograph: Marcel Mochet/AFP/Getty Images
In the shadow of the euro crisis and America's fiscal cliff, it is easy to ignore the global economy's long-term problems. But, while we focus on immediate concerns, they continue to fester, and we overlook them at our peril.
The most serious is global warming. While the global economy's weak performance has led to a corresponding slowdown in the increase in carbon emissions, it amounts to only a short respite. And we are far behind the curve: because we have been so slow to respond to climate change achieving the targeted limit of a 2C rise in global temperature will require sharp reductions in emissions in the future.
Some suggest that, given the economic slowdown, we should put global warming on the backburner. On the contrary, retrofitting the global economy for climate change would help to restore aggregate demand and growth.
At the same time, the pace of technological progress and globalisation necessitates rapid structural changes in both developed and developing countries alike. Such changes can be traumatic, and markets often do not handle them well.
Just as the Great Depression arose in part from the difficulties in moving from a rural, agrarian economy to an urban, manufacturing one, so today's problems arise partly from the need to move from manufacturing to services. New firms must be created, and modern financial markets are better at speculation and exploitation than they are at providing funds for new enterprises, especially small- and medium-size companies.
Moreover, making the transition requires investments in human capital that individuals often cannot afford. Among the services that people want are health and education, two sectors in which government naturally plays an important role (owing to inherent market imperfections in these sectors and concerns about equity).
Before the 2008 crisis there was much talk of global imbalances, and the need for the trade-surplus countries, such as Germany and China, to increase their consumption. That issue has not gone away; indeed, Germany's failure to address its chronic external surplus is part and parcel of the euro crisis. China's surplus, as a percentage of GDP, has fallen, but the long-term implications have yet to play out.
America's overall trade deficit will not disappear without an increase in domestic savings and a more fundamental change in global monetary arrangements. The former would exacerbate the country's slowdown, and neither change is on the cards. As China increases its consumption it will not necessarily buy more goods from the United States. In fact, it is more likely to increase consumption of non-traded goods – such as health care and education – resulting in profound disturbances to the global supply chain, especially in countries that had been supplying the inputs to China's manufacturing exporters.
Finally, there is a worldwide crisis in inequality. The problem is not only that the top income groups are getting a larger share of the economic pie, but also that those in the middle are not sharing in economic growth, while in many countries poverty is increasing. In the US equality of opportunity has been exposed as a myth.
While the Great Recession has exacerbated these trends, they were apparent long before its onset. Indeed, I (and others) have argued that growing inequality is one of the reasons for the economic slowdown, and is partly a consequence of the global economy's deep, ongoing structural changes.
An economic and political system that does not deliver for most citizens is one that is not sustainable in the long run. Eventually, faith in democracy and the market economy will erode, and the legitimacy of existing institutions and arrangements will be called into question.
The good news is that the gap between the emerging and advanced countries has narrowed greatly in the last three decades. Nonetheless, hundreds of millions of people remain in poverty, and there has been only a little progress in reducing the gap between the least developed countries and the rest.
Here, unfair trade agreements – including the persistence of unjustifiable agricultural subsidies, which depress the prices upon which the income of many of the poorest depend – have played a role. The developed countries have not lived up to their promise in Doha in November 2001 to create a pro-development trade regime, or to their pledge at the G8 summit in Gleneagles in 2005 to provide significantly more assistance to the poorest countries.
The market will not, on its own, solve any of these problems. Global warming is a quintessential "public goods" problem. To make the structural transitions that the world needs we need governments to take a more active role – at a time when demands for cutbacks are increasing in Europe and the US.
As we struggle with today's crises, we should be asking whether we are responding in ways that exacerbate our long-term problems. The path marked out by the deficit hawks and austerity advocates both weakens the economy today and undermines future prospects. The irony is that, with insufficient aggregate demand the major source of global weakness today, there is an alternative: invest in our future, in ways that help us to address simultaneously the problems of global warming, global inequality and poverty, and the necessity of structural change.
4 opmerkingen:
Waarom bent u er zo zeker van het dat klimaatverandering werkelijk een probleem is?
Alleen al het gegeven dat westerse media zo massaal gehoor hebben gegeven aan de Al Gore hype, zou toch al voor genoeg twijfel moeten zorgen dat er een luchtje aan zit aan die hele klimaatverandering? Dit mede gezien door het verhaal van Chomsky, dat er bijzonder weinig kritische journalisten doorstromen naar functies bij 'toonaangevende' media.
De berichtgeving over klimaatverandering was tenslotte een prachtige afleiding van de oorlogen in Afghanistan en Irak.
mvg, René
de reden waarom ik denk dat er sprake is van een klimaatverandering is kortweg het feit dat ik sinds midden jaren negentig mij met dit onderwerp intensief bezig hou, dwz: ik heb vooraanstaande wetenschappers hierover geinterviewd voor de vpro, een reeks boeken heb ik over het onderwerp gelezen en bovendien heb ik me verdiept in de argumenten van mensen die ervan overtuigd zijn dat er geen sprake is van een klimaatverandering die door de mens is veroorzaakt. de argumenten van de laatste overigens minieme groep zijn niet sterk. en dat de klimaatverandering een probleem is, staat als een paal boven water. de slachtoffers ervan zijn wereldwijd het bewijs daarvan. dissidenten zijn altijd gemarginaliseerd. dat is niets nieuws. wat uw argument over afghanistan en irak betreft: dat is dan niet goed gelukt, want de meeste mensen denken dat die oorlogen door de vs zijn verloren.
Dank voor uw reactie.
klimaat is logischerwijs altijd aan verandering onderhevig en de mens zal vanzelfsprekend invloed hebben, maar ik kan me niet voorstellen dat deze invloed dramatische gevolgen zal hebben. ik ben ervan overtuigd dat de natuur zich altijd wel weer hersteld, maar waarschijnlijk heb ik te weinig of de verkeerde boeken gelezen.
overigens zijn de aandeelhouders van de militaire industrie de echte winnaars van de genoemde oorlogen en zijn de energiebelangen daar veiliggesteld.
Graag wil ik u nog laten weten dat ik de genadeloze ontmaskering van Geert Mak enorm waardeer. jammer dat voor uw werk te weinig aandacht is in de media.
mvg, René
als er meer aandacht in de mainstream media zou zijn, dan zou dit mijn ongelijk bewijzen. en wat betreft de natuur: die wint natuurlijk altijd. het is de mens die zal verliezen.
Een reactie posten