Reducing carbon emissions globally faces political and economic challenges

Reducing climate change is not an easy thing, as the main energy balance of the planet cannot be changed overnight, nor can a global economy based on fossil fuels serve billions of people without violent political objections, but the problem today seems very difficult.

On July 29, and in the context of the US President Donald Trump’s administration continued to deplete emissions efforts, the US Environmental Protection Agency announced that it will abandon its main authority in organizing global warming, and this is in line with the White House attacks on climate science and researchers in this field, and in Europe the war in Ukraine has motivated the growth of defense budgets, which reduced spending on green policies that also face opposition Renewed political.

Some voters on both banks of the “Atlantic” believe that the cost of reducing emissions is very high, or should fall on the responsibility of others, and in poor countries that have historically issued emissions much less than rich countries, many of the “green policies” they see are strange and indifferent to the local urgent need for energy.

As the major international companies sensed the winds of politics, they are silent about caring for the environment, although many of these companies are still seeking, none of this deprives the world of its technical ability to remove carbon from a large part of its economy, and in this regard things were never in their best cases, the cost of clean energy is declining, with the continued increase in demand, and the problem lies in politics.

Ambitious goal

The scientific logic of a strong “zero carbon”, and the elimination of “global warming” requires the stopping of the high level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and this means either a world without emissions, or a world that pulls from the atmosphere the same amount of greenhouse gases that it enters, and the logic is inevitable.

On the other hand, the political logic is also clear, as saying by achieving the goal of reducing carbon emissions to “zero” by a specific history is an ambitious goal, and is easy to express, and for strict and ambitious goals advantages, as you can never know what can be done until there is an actual involvement in the process, however, reaching “zero carbon” in the near future requires a rapid, deep and painful reduction.

As for countries that have not yet witnessed any decrease in emissions – which is what happens in most countries of the world – the most severe discounts must come very early, and in many cases, it is difficult to imagine such scenarios in practice, as well as the possibility of implementing them politically.

If the goal is very difficult so that it cannot be approved, it must be changed, but how? The rich countries abandoning the goals of reducing strict emissions categorically would frustrate the “vegetables”, stimulate skeptics, and make reasonable reforms more difficult, and it is better to find ways to facilitate and classify them within the category of “guidelines”.

There will be resistance from those who believe that all problems can be solved with a “greater political will”, but as a German politician with an iron will once said, politics is “the art of possible.”

Decreased emissions

Some politicians realize this, for example, the Prime Minister of Canada and the economist, Mark Carne, who realizes that the most effective way in many cases to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to impose taxes on them, but many voters hate these taxes, so he was quick to cancel paragraphs in the Canadian carbon pricing system that directly affects them.

Instead of imposing pollution fees, many governments supported the efforts to avoid it, and some of these benefits resulted, as the excessive demand led to a positive cycle of the largest quantities and low prices, which made wind energy, solar energy and batteries more available and less expensive, and the costs are now so low that the incentive demand will push it to further decrease, and this guarantees, to some extent, an increasing amount of increasing than Carbon removal, whatever happens.

Even America beyond the “Beautiful Great Law” project – for spending and taxes – will witness a decline in its emissions, albeit at a slower pace than expected.

However, support still affects the markets, and reduces emissions at a cost of lower than the usual carbon price, so it is logical to impose emissions fees when this is politically possible (for example, when this does not affect voters directly), and governments should also cancel many of the climate that harm the climate, such as those that are still applied to fossil fuels.

Reducing the suffering

Governments must make a greater effort to alleviate the suffering caused by the removal of carbon with many ordinary people, and do not force them to buy thermal pumps, for example, in light of the presence of a very few technicians to install them, and governments should facilitate the transition to electric cars, by building an infrastructure for charging, allowing cheap imports from China, all in order to reduce the suffering of people, and adapt to the new situation.

The French populist leader, Marine Le Pen, touched a sensitive tendon when she complained that the French elite has air conditioners, while her fans do not possess them.

As for America, it will play an extraordinary role as long as Trump is in power, and some promising clean energy technologies, such as advanced ground thermal energy, are now supported by the two parties, but the American administration’s war on climate work will leave the country in a worse situation, and at a time when the demand for energy, some of which are necessary to operate the resources of artificial intelligence – is a priority for national security – the prices will rise, and the efforts to create an industry will fade An American renewable energy competes with China. About “Economist”

---

China emissions excel America and Europe

Many do not believe that the strict “zero -carbon” goals, in which some governments linked their climatic policies, are in their interest, or that they will benefit anyone else.

Some believe that they are treated as stupid, paying huge money to achieve bad goals, while companies and individuals in other places spoil the carbon and do not care about this, as China, which is constantly increasingly, eliminates emissions of the superiority of Europe and America combined, thus provoking the anger of Western voters.

• Some voters on the “Atlantic” banks believe that the cost of reducing emissions is very high, or should fall on the responsibility of others.