CliMates: youth in the international debate about environment

Sustainable development has a lot to deal with Humanity’s future. In this regard, new generations are main stakeholders in the debate on environment. As a matter of fact, youngsters and their opinions about development are seldom directly taken into account by governance all around the world. Hopefully things will change for the better in the future since an international students think tank, called CliMates, was created in 2011 to share the new generations’ view on environmental and development issues.

CliMates started in 2011 and its central organization committee is based in Paris with many local committees located in every country members are from. CliMates now gathers up about 170 students from 35 different countries in the world. Members of CliMates have a special definition for their organization which they call a “think-and-do-tank”. Doing and not just thinking seems to be the heart of that project since CliMates is a network for young scientists as much a lobby with an aim to take part in international negotiations to push solutions forwards.

With help of a few experts in development and environmental science like Nobel Prize Jean Jouzel and IPCC member Rik Leemans, students from all around the world turned CliMates into a real international organisation in less than a year. This achievement is welcome news in the world of international politics since it gives youngsters a voice in a debate that affects them more than any other.

CliMates held its first international conference in October 2012. On that occasion the think tank illustrated its originality by publishing the CliMates Call for Action. The document promotes a politically neutral approach, an attachment to innovation and academic research along with local actions. In a way CliMates sent a clear signal that climate change and environmental development are not simply a theoretical argument for the new generation but major concerns that must be address with pragmatism. Members of CliMates want those questions to be raised and tackle and they hope to be part of it.

Some of those members took part in the negotiations during the Rio Earth Summit in 2012. Their CliMates Call for Action was taken up to Doha’s summit in November 2012. Within a few years, CliMates has become recognized as a creative force in international negotiation. Within CliMates, students can do much by marshalling collective thoughts and using their network. They might not make it to the IPCC yet, but they surely aim at playing a greater part in the international debates in the future.

World Bank calls an international response to global warming

In November 2012, the World Bank released a report calling for tackling the issue of global warming. Pointing out the risks of a 4°C temperature rise on Earth, this report is a significant step towards a wider mobilization.

The reality of global warming has been debated about a long time before political leaders around the world finally agreed on a consensus. Doubt about what is now recognised as one of the biggest danger of our century is no longer an option. The World Bank made a strong statement in this regard by releasing an alarming report. This document is entitled “Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided” and highlights the shape of the world to come if global warming is not controlled in the present years. Needless to say, the World Bank’s conclusions are gloomy. The 4°C temperature increase could very well be reached by 2100, and such an option would shattered most opportunity for global development

A further step in the recognition of global warming

“Turn Down the Heat” was realized by Climate Analytics and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research on the behalf of the World Bank. Its President, Jim Yong Kim, commented on the report’s release, saying his hope was that “this report shocks us into action”. Such a statement illustrates how seriously global warming is considered at the top of the world economic governance.  

The report is making a simple point. Considering the past and present trends of global warming, there is a 20 per cent chance that the Earth’s temperature will rise by 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degree Fahrenheit) by 2100. These conclusions are echoing those of many researchers on the subject. For instance, they match the findings of Pricewaterhouse Coopers which stated in a previous report that limiting global warming below 4°C would require quadrupling the rate of decarbonisation.

The World Bank’s recent report includes a collection of the most up to date scientific data about climate. It confirms the risks that were pointed out by the World Development Report on climate change in 2010. “Turn Down the Heat” was released before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued his own report about climate change for year 2013/2014. There is no doubt however that both of these publications will draw similar conclusions.

It is a significant symbol for world governance that an institution such as the World Bank publishes a report like Turn Down the Heat. It strands for an official acknowledgement of the emergency regarding the stake of global warming. With such a report, the World Bank simply calls countries in the world to act against climate change for their own safety.

A “doomsday scenario”

Calling to action is probably a weak word for what the World Bank aimed at triggering with this report. This document shows what Jim Yong Kim himself called a “doomsday scenario”. “Turn Down the Heat” makes a list of the different issues that would be induced by such a rise in the world’s temperature. All of them are of course a source of concern for the environment, but some of them in particular are a direct threat for human life.

Concerning water for instance, the report anticipates harder drought in Southern Europe, Africa, Southern America as well as Australia. Northern Europe, Northern America and Siberia on the contrary would be subject to wetter weather conditions. Overall water distribution on will suffer from greater geographical disparity. Such a phenomenon is expected to have a massive impact on some of the biggest human settlement and richest ecosystem on Earth. For example, the World Bank mentions the Ganges’ flow will increase by 40% because of a 4°C temperature increase whereas the Mississippi’s and the Amazon’s could decrease by 40 to 80%

The water issue also has significant consequences over food supplies worldwide. The World Bank provides a reminder of the fourth report by IPCC stating that global food production might increase along with the Earth’s temperature rising between 1 and 3°C. But the production is expected to drop in case of higher temperature rise. “Turn Down  the Heat” confirms the plausibility of this scenario, explaining that “drought-affected areas would increase from 15.4% of global cropland today, to around 44% by 2100”. Besides, salinity of aquifers might increase in some areas due to sea-level rise on coastal lands.

According to the World Bank’s report, the issues that Humanity would have to face on the Earth which temperature has raised by 4°C would simply be too huge to handle. Drought, starvation and poverty could no longer be controlled. The aftermath of this is crucial since it would most likely result in conflicts and wars and shatter decades of struggle for development in the world. “A 4°C warmer world can, and must be avoided,” said Jim Yong Kim. Along with him, developing countries already seriously anticipate the risk since global warming puts them in the first line.

Towards collaboration between developed and developing countries?

The aftermath of a 4°C rise of the Earth’s temperature would hit developing countries most badly. “Turn Down the Heat” emphasizes on the unequal impacts of such a temperature rise. South Asia, the Middle East, northern and eastern Africa are quoted among the most vulnerable areas to the adverse consequences of uncontrolled global warming. Those who have less are also those who have the most to lose in this regard and the World Bank expressed his deepest concern that climate change might destroys years of efforts and developing the poorest countries in the world.

Even though global warming was first triggered by most developed countries, the emergency is now so important that the World Bank wish developing countries to get involved in climate change policies. Any isolate attempt would undoubtedly fail to control global warming. “Only early, cooperative, international actions can make that happen” concludes the report.

Countries’ perception of global warming’s stake is changing slowly around the world. Both developed and developing countries now knows that this industry-induced worldwide catastrophe might destroy their attempt to reach satisfying levels of development. “Turn Down the Heat” is an alarming report issued by the World Bank. It also is a further step toward a better tackling the issue of global warming. The World Bank has sent a message: neither countries nor companies around the world should underestimate their responsibility in this phenomenon. And all economic actors have their part to play for solving it. Let us hope this message will be heard. Our future on Earth depends on it.

The Worldwatch Institute’s perception of degrowth

What if degrowth could be part of a broader sustainable model of development? Such an idea is taken very seriously by researchers of the Worldwatch Institute. They have indeed recently published their annual report about the State of the World and promote “selective degrowth” as a promising tool to be use by sustainable development policy in developed countries.

Directed by Robert Engelman, the Worldwatch Institute has been recognized as a scientific reference within its forty years of existence. It has indeed become a major analysis provider for development-related subject. Each year, Worldwatch release a report with the purpose of summing up the State of the World regarding the most urging global issues. Year 2012’s edition is subtitled Moving Toward a Sustainable Prosperity and introduces original thoughts on how sustainable development could be pursued in developed countries.

The report was co-directed by Erik Assadourian, one Worldwatch senior fellow. In one of the articles that composes the report, Assadourian makes an interesting point by describing the benefits economic degrowth could bring to the world and developed countries. The author here starts with a simple assessment: Humanity’s global footprint is estimated to 1,5 Earths. In order to reach a sustainable state, worldwide economy has to be reduced “by at least a third”. Considering that “one third of humanity still needs to considerably increase its consumption to achieve a decent quality of life”, Assadourian asserts that a selective degrowth – which would target “overconsumming societies” – would enhance global equity.

As for developed countries which are mainly concerned by such a policy, Assadourian claims degrowth could solve numbers of societal problem induced by the obsession of consumption. From debts to obesity, numbers of health and social issues could be solved through what Assadourian calls “the intentional contraction of overly inflated economies”. Worldwatch’s analysis about growth makes sense in many ways. It is a shame however that the Institute does not illustrate more about how degrowth could fit in developed societies.

What about work for instance in a society which is aiming to selective growth? In developed countries, work remains an essential part of societies’ foundation. It remains crucial as social cement. Assadourian mentions the reduction of the average working time as a corollary to degrowth. Such a goal could indeed be achieved through “job sharing”, “longer parental leaves and vacation times”. But are these options really sufficient to give every individual a function in a society which is aiming toward producing less? Through the scope of degrowth, sustainable development looks even more like a sociological matter.

Is EU’s new framework for Biofuel really sustainable?

On the 17^th of October 2012, the European Commission issued its new recommendations on biofuel. The EU thus made biofuel producers aware that their activity had to evolve towards more sustainable standards. In an attempt to ensure that biofuel production will not compete with food industry, organic waste should be used in priority to produce renewable energy.

Back in 2009, the EU adopted a major goal: its aim was to get the transportation sector to use 10% of renewable energy in 2020. Thus Europe expected to reduce its dependency on imported fuel and supporting sustainable development. Biofuels were of course one of many energy sources to be developed in that scope. However, they have been subject to controversy since then and their integration to the panel of sustainable energies now knows some conditions.

When biofuels production started to thrive in the 2000’s, it appeared that this kind of energy was likely to make the food prices raise and to deepen the food crisis around the world. Crops and raw material used to make biofuel were indeed often cultivate detrimentally to agricultural and food security considerations. The risk of the biofuel dilemma was besides very well illustrated in 2007. This year, Mexico exported so much of its crop production that food shortages now remembered as “tortilla crisis” occured in the country.

Five years after these events, the European Commission finally completed its policy on biofuels with the intention to meet obvious sustainability criteria. On the 17^th of October, EU decided to limit the use of “food-based biofuel”. Such fuel thus won’t represent more than 5% of the energy used to meet the 10% renewable energy target set in 2009. The European Commission instead expects biofuel production to use farm waste and algae.

Such a decision is an encouraging sign from the EU institutions. However, we can arguably doubt of its future efficiency already. Tracy Carty – spokesman for the Oxfam NGO – indeed made a declaration saying that “the cap is higher than the current levels of biofuels use and will do nothing to reduce high food prices”.

Now that the EU decided the issue of biofuel had to be tackled, it sounds like the success of its decisions is a matter of proportions. If a 5% cap is indeed not enough to prevent biofuel production to compete with food production, limitation levels should be reexamined since renewable energy were always meant to fuel engines and not starvation throughout the world.