On September 9th, I was invited to speak at Sinn Fein’s annual summer school alongside an esteemed group of politicians, including Icelandic Pirate Party MEP Birgitta Jonsdottir – self-proclaimed Anarchist and “Poetician”; Greek Secretary of the Central Council of the Youth of Synaspismos, Nasos Iliopolous; and Sinn Fein MEP, Matt Carthy, on the topic of globalization.
 Cara Augustenborg speaking at Sinn Fein's Summer School, Sept. 2017 | Only the night before the event did I realize this is a rather intimidating task for me –During the last General Election, I was critical of Sinn Fein's (lack of) climate policies in their manifesto, so I wasn’t expecting a warm welcome. Even the topic they asked me to speak about brought me out of my comfort zone because right now, in this crazy world of geopolitics, I find myself conflicted about the role of globalization in climate action… |
Globalization creates the perfect storm
If you’d asked me about the role of globalization on climate change before Donald Trump became president of the U.S.A, it would be easy to asses. We’ve known for a long time that globalization generally increases greenhouse gas emissions. In 2004, The OECD reported that for every 1% increase in international trade, a 0.58% increase in carbon emissions is observed (though hopefully that figure is at least slightly lower now that countries are beginning to de-carbonize their energy system and move toward renewables).
We also know that the transport related to global trade currently contributes to 14% of global emissions, with shipping and aviation emissions (now accounting for 6% of global emissions) expected to double or treble by 2050. More worryingly, because most of our aviation and shipping occur between countries, they’re not included in the Paris Agreement and are thus making slow progress in any kind of emission reduction planning.
We also know that the transport related to global trade currently contributes to 14% of global emissions, with shipping and aviation emissions (now accounting for 6% of global emissions) expected to double or treble by 2050. More worryingly, because most of our aviation and shipping occur between countries, they’re not included in the Paris Agreement and are thus making slow progress in any kind of emission reduction planning.
| | Plus, these new super trade agreements like TTIP, TTP and CETA all point to further risks to climate and environment through global trade – primarily through their inclusion of an investor dispute system or investor court system, which allow private corporations to sue governments if the governments make decisions that might compromise a company’s profits. |
We’ve already seen companies like US oil company Lone Pine using NAFTA’s court system to challenge Quebec’s moratorium on fracking in 2012. That’s one example, but Canada is facing legal challenges of over $2.6 billion from US companies over their environmental protection laws and this is a huge risk from global trade agreements that included these investor court systems.
We also know that almost everything we need to do to address climate change is contrary to the globalization model, namely doing things like encouraging more local and seasonal food purchases and more local energy distribution based on renewables. And we know that the impacts of climate change – in the form of the kind of extreme weather we’ve seen recently -are amplified due to globalization. In other words, extreme weather that happens on one side of the globe now has economic impacts all over the world. We witnessed this during the Russian fires and drought in 2010, which resulted in a ban on wheat export and a spike in global food prices that had a disproportionate effect on people in other developing countries who spend a large percentage of their income on food. We may experience something similar now as parts of Western USA are in a state of emergency due to droughts and fires, some of which they are saying won’t be extinguished until snow falls in October.
We also know that almost everything we need to do to address climate change is contrary to the globalization model, namely doing things like encouraging more local and seasonal food purchases and more local energy distribution based on renewables. And we know that the impacts of climate change – in the form of the kind of extreme weather we’ve seen recently -are amplified due to globalization. In other words, extreme weather that happens on one side of the globe now has economic impacts all over the world. We witnessed this during the Russian fires and drought in 2010, which resulted in a ban on wheat export and a spike in global food prices that had a disproportionate effect on people in other developing countries who spend a large percentage of their income on food. We may experience something similar now as parts of Western USA are in a state of emergency due to droughts and fires, some of which they are saying won’t be extinguished until snow falls in October.
An Uncomfortable New Truth
Clearly, globalization has a negative impact on climate change. Yet, as a result of Trump announcing U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement last June, we now find ourselves in this uncomfortable situation of looking to both global corporations (and individual States) to fill the U.S. leadership vacuum on climate action. For someone like me who has a general distrust of global corporations, this is almost as uncomfortable as hoping the leader of North Korea is a more rational actor that the current president of the United States (also something I’ve bizarrely found myself praying for in recent weeks).
| | Everything about climate change has become uncomfortable since Donald Trump became president – Last week, he stood outside an oil refinery in North Dakota congratulating himself about reopening the Keystone and Dakota pipelines, saying how bad the Paris Agreement was, and that burning oil was more environmentally friendly. |
This was the most tragic moment in the history of climate action to date in my opinion, made all the more tragic because so many people were suffering the impact of Hurricane Harvey and Irma at the same time.
We find ourselves in this sad situation of no longer being able to count on the USA to lead global climate action, and what’s left is the hope that corporations will join the 159 countries who have ratified the Paris agreement (along with the US Climate Alliance of states who plan to continue to uphold its aims) to lead a revolution on the scale of the Industrial Revolution.
Corporations are doing it for themselves
Corporations are unlikely to act on climate for selfless reasons, but fortunately they have plenty of selfish interest to do so now. -Europe’s largest insurer, Allianz, reports climate change stands to increase insured losses on an average of 37 percent per year over the next decade and single year losses could top US$1 trillion, and that was before Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. World Bank President Jim Yong Kim has stated: “Every company, investor and bank that screens new and existing investments for climate risk is simply being pragmatic”. Insurers now acknowledge climate change is the main threat to their industry and the economy.
This technological transition is not just limited to the insurance sector. The 2017 report “Power Forward 3.0: How the largest U.S. companies are capturing business value while addressing climate change” found 63% of Fortune 100 companies and nearly half of all Fortune 500s have set one or more clean energy targets, with significant numbers of companies setting 100 percent renewable energy goals and science-based greenhouse gas reduction targets to align with the Paris Climate Agreement.
Last May, 30 high-profile CEOs encouraged the US President to honor the U.S. commitment to the Paris Agreement, perhaps because they saw the trend that solar power is becoming cheap enough to push coal and natural-gas plants out of business faster than previously forecast. The current political landscape in Washington may slow this boom, but a great transition from the Industrial Revolution is already there for any corporations who choose to grab it.
This technological transition is not just limited to the insurance sector. The 2017 report “Power Forward 3.0: How the largest U.S. companies are capturing business value while addressing climate change” found 63% of Fortune 100 companies and nearly half of all Fortune 500s have set one or more clean energy targets, with significant numbers of companies setting 100 percent renewable energy goals and science-based greenhouse gas reduction targets to align with the Paris Climate Agreement.
Last May, 30 high-profile CEOs encouraged the US President to honor the U.S. commitment to the Paris Agreement, perhaps because they saw the trend that solar power is becoming cheap enough to push coal and natural-gas plants out of business faster than previously forecast. The current political landscape in Washington may slow this boom, but a great transition from the Industrial Revolution is already there for any corporations who choose to grab it.
In the coming year, global efforts toward the next Industrial Revolution will ramp up, aided by the U.N. Paris Agreement. To depend on US corporations to lead this transition instead of the USA itself is less than ideal.
 | It certainly indicates we need to be even more wary of these new global trade agreements, which pay no heed to climate impacts and give corporations way too much power to obstruct climate action. However, the alternative now being proposed – to weaken international climate efforts to encourage the U.S. to remain in the Paris Agreement – would spell disaster for the climate. So, ironically (and just for now), I find myself advocating for the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to wash their hands of the Trump’s America and let States and corporations pave the way to a fossil free future instead. |
What I learned at Sinn Fein Summer School
I was delighted Sinn Fein MEP Matt Carthy picked up on my concerns about trade agreements like TTIP and CETA in his own talk and was so well briefed on the issue of trade. It was a relief to see we have some representation in Europe who gets that these trade agreements would be a disaster for agricultural, health, labour and environmental interests in Europe and particularly in Ireland. However, I still didn’t see any sign of interest in the climate issue out of Sinn Fein leadership from my limited time at their summer school.
| They hosted a fabulous debate between Sinn Fein TD Eoin O’Brion and the legendary Vincent Browne asking “Will Sinn Fein be the party to transform Ireland?” and while O’Brion proposed lots of plans to build social housing, not once did he mention the biggest transformation the world (and Ireland) will face in the next 30 years -to get off fossil fuels and adapt to a rapidly changing climate. |  |
I can’t take any political party talking about “transformation” seriously if they don’t at least acknowledge the fossil free transition we’ve agreed to both in our own legislation and through our commitments under the U.N. Paris Agreement, so here’s hoping Sinn Fein (and all the other political parties in Ireland) have a few more “think ins” about real transformation before I read their next election manifestos.
 | Keep fighting the good fight! -Cara Special thanks to the organizers of Sinn Fein summer school for giving my daughter and I a warm West Cork welcome and to the Mills Inn for being so child-friendly! ;-) |
RSS Feed
