Like me, you are probably an energy hog – among the 17% of the world’s population that consume 70% of global energy. But beyond our sheer greed, we also dominate the narrative of the crisis of climate, framing it against the background of our excess energy consumption and associated economic wealth. When you are as energy rich as we are, cutting back to save the world seems like a minor inconvenience. A choice of how to allocate our disposable income.
Not so when it comes to the rest of the world. It comes as a shock to realize their priorities may not be ours. And what matters to them matters a lot more than what matters to us since there are more of them than us.
The Nullah Leh flows through Rawalpindi. In good times it is the source of nurturance. But in bad times it is the source of destruction. As Mustafa Daanish has argued, those who live by the banks of the Nullah Leh will experience climate change, not as an additional new source of destruction, but as an exacerbation of existing sources of destruction: the river will flood more often and to higher levels.
Consider yourself a householder located near the river. Assume you have no funds to spare for home improvement as things stand. But now suppose you are given the following choice: an increase in income with a greater chance of climate change or holding to the status quo. An increase in income will allow you to build a new home on stilts to better withstand the flooding. But climate change may increase the severity of that flooding. So, the stilts will have to be higher and stronger than what would be needed without climate change. That said, you may still come out ahead. If enduring climate change is the only way to increase your household income to have funds to build in the first place, the key question will be what the additional cost will be of building to withstand the effects of climate change on the river.
There is an underlying intuition behind the idea that you may still come out ahead here: that climate change poses less of a risk than other threats that poor people face in their lifetimes. If there is a choice of increasing income with a risk (or even the actuality) of climate change, that income gives you protection not only against the effects of climate change, but also against more salient risks as well.
If that rings untrue to citizens of the Developed World, it maybe because we start with a relatively high household income. Additions to that income that risk climate change are relatively small relative to our total income, as well as relatively modest in their value to us. A one thousand dollar addition to the household income of a one hundred thousand dollar a year household has a very different value than it does for a one thousand dollar a year household.
But wait! Why suppose that the only choice is between an increase in income with a greater chance of climate change or holding to the status quo? Because, at least for the next 50 to 75 years, that is the real choice we face. Developing economies grow initially by increasing energy intensity as they industrialize. Moreover, as household income increases so does demand for energy, as the late Hans Rosling illustrated in his beautiful TED talk call The Magical Washing Machine. Renewable energy currently constitutes less than 20% of current global energy demand but global energy demand is growing at about 2% a year. As Vaclav Smil has argued, only magical thinking can overcome the real-world constraints on how long the transition to fossil-free global energy will take.
But wait! In the long run, isn’t it all of our interest to limit energy growth and wait for that transition – especially the poor of the world who stand to suffer the effects of climate change the most when it comes to the potential loss of future generations?
Not necessarily. Here is why. If you are poor, increases in household income increase the chances of your offspring surviving to be able to reproduce themselves. As such, the value of avoiding the loss of one’s immediate offspring may hold even if we treat the risks of climate as potentially unlimited in the long run. For avoiding loss of my immediate offspring obviously trumps avoiding the risk of loss of future generations that are my direct descendants, since their very existence depends on the survival of those immediate offspring.
As with individuals, so with nations. We, the wealthy nations, blithely assume the interests of all nations align with ours. That the way we see the world is surely the way they do, or ought to see it. But for us, the choice between putting off economic growth to wait for fossil-free energy to meet increasing demand is not a painful choice. For them it certainly is.