Britta Pedersen/AP Images
Wind turbines on the Baltic Sea in an offshore wind farm in Sweden
We are failing the planet when it comes to climate change. Scientists have long warned that human actions will drive irreparable, long-term change to the world’s natural order, but no microphone has been loud enough to spark change equal to the size of the challenge. Nations of the world have underpowered emissions goals with relatively modest commitments like the Paris Agreement and have failed to even live up to them.
Among the world’s largest and most advanced countries, not a single one will achieve the mission of the Paris Agreement to prevent more than 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century, under their current trajectory. Even if Canada, Japan, and the European Union met the goals they set under Paris, it would translate to temperature rises of nearly double that threshold or more. The U.S. has pulled out of the agreement, and has no goals to even meet.
These are the countries that have benefited most thus far from greenhouse gas emissions, and it should also be on them to make the largest concessions, especially when they expect credit for their green diplomatic initiatives.
But mostly thanks to the global youth-powered climate movement, the conversation around the importance of the climate crisis has intensified. This rhetorical shift can’t be confused with action, but there are righteous initiatives in several countries around the world, and some could become widely adopted solutions.
The biggest problem to tackle remains lowering emissions levels and shifting to “cleaner” sources of energy. As the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) countries develop, they rely on the cheapest sources of energy to sustain their growth, mostly in the form of coal. Meanwhile, the OPEC nations and their fossil fuel–dependent economies are invested in keeping the world’s second-most-valuable commodity, oil, as the world’s most-used energy source.
The world can’t quit coal or fossil fuels overnight. If every coal-fired power plant closed tomorrow, people would die as food and medicine transport would stop and most office buildings, hospitals, and homes lost power—not to mention how this would disproportionately affect poorer countries. But with deliberate investment in alternatives, countries can find their power in the form of renewable sources.
WEALTHIER COUNTRIES like France and the U.K. have increased their share of renewable energy sources, while also implementing comparatively aggressive coal phaseout plans, according to a Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) report. However, it may be surprising to note that Kenya leads the world in clean-energy use. The East African country gets about 85 percent of all of its energy from renewable geothermal energy.
Kenya’s geothermal power project has been developing for decades, harnessing just 45 megawatts of power in 1985 and 630 megawatts today, according to The New York Times. The country of 48 million has committed to getting all power from renewable sources by 2020 with a combination of geothermal, solar, wind, and small hydro power. “We, as a country, have committed ourselves to attain 100 per cent green sufficiency by 2020 and we are on the right path towards realizing that target,” said President Uhuru Kenyatta, in a press release. Since President Kenyatta took over in 2013, his electricity program has gone from just 2.2 million connected households to 6.9 million, and almost every public primary school.
Kenya’s renewable-energy program creates a model for developing countries working to increase energy access while also prioritizing sustainability. The alternative is increasing access to energy using carbon-emitting sources. India, for example, followed the paradigm of the Industrial Revolution, and it is now heavily reliant on coal-fired power plants, accounting for about 70 percent of its energy generation. Although India is on track for 2 degrees Celsius of warming with its current policies, its renewable-energy transition goals will be challenging.
Sweden is on a path for total net-zero emissions by 2050. Per capita emissions there are at roughly the same level they were in the 1950s.
CHINA USES THE MOST COAL in the world but also manufactures the most solar energy technology as well as having installed the most solar capacity. By 2018, it had already surpassed its 2020 solar energy goals. This was achievable because the Chinese Communist Party prioritized the climate crisis. The People’s Republic announced it would invest $361 billion by 2020 and create 13 million jobs in the green-energy sector. It has also implemented successful regulations on emissions and an emissions trading scheme, according to the Climate Change Performance Index’s most recent report.
China’s current policies remain, despite these investments, “highly insufficient,” according to the Climate Action Tracker. If every country made goals like China’s, the Earth would warm to between 3 and 4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. But its clear and directed transition to renewable resources for its highly industrial and factory-focused economy indicates the immense possibilities for improvement and change in a way that benefits the planet and provides economic stimulus with job opportunities within a growing sector of the global economy.
Additionally, China’s climate plan provides greener options for consumers, most notably with electric vehicles. The People’s Republic sold more than 1.1 million electric vehicles in 2018, more than any other country. One out of every ten vehicles sold in China this year is also expected to be electric, with that number increasing again in 2020, according to the Climate Action Tracker. The synthesis of setting strict quotas for manufacturers on fuel standards and providing subsidies for consumers to buy electric cars has bolstered China’s electric-car market unlike any other country.
China has mirrored Kenya with the goal of 100 percent renewable energy throughout the country. This means quitting coal altogether. But the fuel that powered the world’s industrial transition is easier for some countries to give up than others. Phasing out coal has rightly fallen to those countries that enjoyed fossil fuel energy on the way up.
THE U.K. WAS THE FIRST national government to commit to a coal phaseout. London’s fog is today thought of as coming from the city’s rainy microclimate, but it was actually a very British way of referring to the smog and air pollution from the city’s coal-power factories. In 1960, coal powered 80 percent of Britain, but accounted for just 5 percent of energy generated in 2018. The phaseout, which began in 2015, will be completed by 2025. Following suit in Europe, France also has implemented a coal phaseout plan for 2022; joined by Italy and Ireland, who will be phased out by 2025; and then Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Finland in 2030. Germany, the EU’s most powerful economy, has not yet set a date for a coal phaseout, but just this year legislation was proposed to eliminate coal by 2038. The Paris Agreement insists on a 2030 coal deadline for EU member states, but even Germany’s goal surpasses other more coal-dependent EU countries, such as Poland, which has not yet made any commitments.
Outside of Europe, Canada also has implemented a coal phaseout plan, called the Powering Past Coal Alliance. However, all other G20 countries, especially the highest coal exporters and users, don’t have long-term strategies for phasing out coal. Exporters like Australia, Indonesia, and Russia are being hit hard by declining coal demand, but this has yet to lead to transitioning away from the industry.
ONE OF THE MOST successful decarbonization projects among developed countries has been in Sweden, which has reduced emissions threefold since the 1970s. Per capita emissions in the country are at roughly the same level they were in the 1950s. This has come at a time when median income in the country has doubled, contrary to the impression that transitioning away from fossil fuels must come at the cost of economic growth. Sweden is on a path for total net-zero emissions by 2050.
Though the Nordic states are recognized for their social democratic framework, Sweden’s decarbonization plan took a managed-market approach. Sweden introduced a carbon tax of $110 per ton in 1991, partially offsetting it with the elimination of most other energy taxes. The carbon tax is now up to $500 per ton, with tax breaks for industry to prevent outsourcing to less carbon-restrictive countries (though they have been gradually rolled back).
Residential and commercial energy use is almost entirely carbon-neutral, despite the cold climate, aided by substantial retrofitting as well as mandates for new building stock. District heating that draws energy from multiple sources—including biofuels, geothermal, and even garbage combustion—produces enough warmth for homes and businesses. Electrified public transit keeps transportation emissions to a minimum. And nine nuclear power plants produce about 40 percent of the used and exported energy in the country. Several of these are scheduled for closure next year as renewable sources come online, making it a true bridge fuel.
While the very worst predictions for an Earth ravaged by global warming may be years off, it is impossible to ignore the small-scale apocalyptic disasters already happening. From this summer’s water crisis in Chennai, India, and Central Europe’s deadly heat waves to unseasonably long wildfire seasons in California, the world’s climate is changing because of man-made decisions. But that also means we have some control over how we respond. We can follow the bold initiatives of the few countries taking the climate challenge seriously, or we can all succumb to the status quo and it will remain a catastrophic crisis.
