A worrying record was set in 2013. According to the UN World Meteorological Organization, in 2013 the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere r...

A worrying record was set in 2013. According to the UN World Meteorological Organization, in 2013 the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a very high peak. These are only the latest data, which add to the critical scenario described by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the UN body on global warming consisting of approximately 2,000 scientists from 160 countries around the world².

In its increasingly alarmed periodic reports, the IPCC continues to warn us that global warming, resulting from mankind’s higher and higher consumption of fossil fuels and increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, is likely to exceed the “threshold of irreversibility” within ten year, (which is marked by the increase in global average temperature by 2°C this century) if strong and rapid action is not taken at the global level, and it will put on risk the very survival of the human species.

According to the most recent studies conducted by the IPCC, by 2050, global emissions in the atmosphere must be reduced by 40 to 70% compared to 2010. The results of this reduction have to be obtained in no more than 15 years, and be completed over the next 20 years³. Despite considerable but insufficient progress in reducing harmful emissions, China, the US and Europe account for over 55% of these emissions⁴.

Therefore, a trend reversal in air pollution depends on these three economic zones, so that the situation does not go out of control. Through their essential cooperation, other polluting states (in particular Japan, India, Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, South Korea and South Africa) are also likely to be involved. This would allow a binding Agreement (or Convention) among the worst polluters on the planet on gradually reducing CO₂ and other greenhouse gas emissions to be reached during the next international climate conference in Paris in 2015, as well as allow all the necessary measures to be taken to implement the commitments undertaken.

1. The New Energy Paradigm

The energy regime has indeed seriously affected the means of production and life style since the very beginning of human life on the Planet. More recently, since the mid-19^th century, the Industrial Revolution has changed the world, as the solar energy stored over the centuries in coal, oil and natural gas has supplied “unlimited” cheap energy to steam and internal combustion engines. Since then, the pace, speed and flow of economic activities have increased. The boom of agricultural production, mass production of manufactured goods and the extensive use of natural resources of all kinds have led to an increase in the productivity of human activity and an unprecedented material well-being.

The above-mentioned energy regime (cheap fossil fuel consumption by machines) has contributed to the population growth and urbanisation, and, conversely, to the environmental degradation resulting from the unlimited consumption of natural resources, especially energy resources, and of their unrestrained depletion. Now, after more than a century, despite opposition and enforcement actions, including media actions, by fossil fuel-producing states and the large, powerful oil and car manufacturing lobbies, the technology of energy production from solar sources (to which wind source is also linked) has now been developed. Solar energy is an endless resource: in forty minutes, the sun radiates as much energy on earth as the whole of humanity consumes in a year⁵. It is not only abundant but completely free, and it spreads from North to South, albeit in varying degrees.

In general most of the “solar-rich” countries are less developed. Many of them are afflicted by the scourge of poverty, hunger and child mortality, while they benefit from solar radiation levels that are higher than those of other currently more economically developed areas, almost as a form of compensation. The solar energy (and wind energy, resulting from the different thermal fields produced by the sun) generated using different technologies (thermal storage, production through photovoltaic technology or concentrating solar technology) has now overcome the barriers of its cost-effectiveness, competitiveness, reliability and it still offers a very wide scope for further and rapid improvement.

According to the most recent studies:

- from 2007 to 2014, the production cost of photovoltaic solar panels has dropped from 3 euros per electric kW/h to 0.50 euros⁶;

- the cost of lithium batteries for the storage of the electricity produced has plummeted from 1,100 euros per kW/h in 2010 to the current price of 350 euros, and is expected to reach less than 100 euros over the next 10 years;

- moreover, in the meantime, fuel cell technology for the storage of energy produced by solar/wind sources, which are intermittent, has become reliable, efficient and now economical in many cases. The fuel cells, through hydrogen production and its reuse in the same cells, allow excess energy to be stored if needed for times when the energy source is not available (night, winter, rain, weak or excessive wind).

Companies producing fuel cells, including listed companies, now exist and thrive (Rolls Royce, Teledyne Inc., Hidrogenics etc.), although they are only focused on niche markets (e.g., backup of computer data);

- solar electricity distribution technology using the interactive power network (intergrid) has advanced and is now wide spread.

- high-end electric cars (hybrid and plug-in) are currently competitives, considering not only their initial purchase cost but also their longer life and lower operating costs (e.g., Tesla)⁷. Within a few years their competitiveness is also expected to extend to small and medium engine size cars which are already being produced and distributed on the market (e.g., Renault, Nissan, BMW, etc.).

The spread of solar (and wind) energy:

- will dramatically reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions since the electricity produced and the use of electric motors do not release pollutant emissions;

- will powerfully free us from our dependence on fossil fuels, especially in “solar-rich” countries, which are currently suffering the consequences of underdevelopment (Africa and South East Asia), and have all suffered the negative effects of global warming (the drying up of watercourses, desertification, reduction in agricultural crops, typhoons, floods, hurricanes and other natural disasters due to an increase in extreme weather events linked to global warming) without reaping the benefits, all in favour of today’s developed countries. They will be able to benefit from electricity production at almost no cost, thus triggering endogenous development processes in the sectors of traditional agriculture, handicraft, the on-site production and use of raw materials and the goods produced. One possible indirect effect, will be a reduction in migration flows and the population settlement in the countries of origin;

- will contribute to spreading not only wealth and reducing inequalities but also democracy, as all the people on earth will be able to produce the energy they need for themselves and their families almost for free, without having to depend on external producers to purchase fossil fuels.

This will provide all the evidence needed to prove what an inestimable gift the Sun is. This evokes and breathes life into the words of St. Francis of Assisi in his Canticle of the Creatures:

“Be praised, my Lord, through all your creatures, especially through my lord Brother Sun, who brings the day; and you give light through him. And he is beautiful and radiant in all his splendour! Of you, Most High, he bears the likeness”.

2. Make Binding Agreements Among Polluter States Possible

As aforementioned, in 2012, China, the United States and the European Union produced 55% of the total global CO₂ emissions in the atmosphere (34.5 billion tons, a 1.1% increase compared to the previous year). China is responsible for 29%, the US for 16% and the EU for 11% of the total emissions. Disaggregated data, country by country, show once again that per capita emissions in the US are more than double those of China and the EU, which are equal, however⁸.

Consequently, developing countries cannot agree to the US proposals, clearly stated in the 2009 Copenhagen Conference and dictated by the US Congress (and so far maintained), to calculate the progressive reduction in CO₂ emissions in the atmosphere on the basis of the total emissions of each country (and not on the per capita emissions) because they are obviously contrary to the most elementary principles of fairness and justice. The longest-industrialised countries are, inter alia, the ones that have benefited most from the low-cost consumption of fossil fuels and are responsible for the majority of the CO₂ and other greenhouse gas accumulated in the atmosphere and should bear most of the costs of greening the economy.

However, the principle of cost-sharing on the basis of the total emissions would place the burden of higher costs on the developing countries that have most suffered the adverse effects of pollution, mainly caused by industrialised countries. Putting forward the US proposal again means making agreement impossible, despite the counterparties’ willingness. Therefore, the United States needs to address negotiations with other states starting from a reduction in pollutant emissions on the basis of the per capita emissions of each country.

As with all international treaties, the loose Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2020, lacks the necessary governance, sanction and coercion instruments. Therefore, it has been widely disregarded. When its targets were achieved in some countries, this was due to the country’s ability and interest rather than to its willingness to observe the provisions of the international Treaty (which, however, was not ratified by many major polluting states). Therefore, it is necessary to go beyond the conclusion of a new international Treaty.

In Paris an Agreement must be reached that includes the establishment of a “World Environment Organization” under the auspices of the UN, at a higher level than polluting states and with the power of monitoring them. This Organization should be modelled on the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which, after the war, European states entrusted with rationalising the energy resources of the time and regulating production and consumption in key areas for post-war reconstruction. The new Organization should be endowed with real powers and financial autonomy and be managed by an independent High Authority with the task of implementing a Global Plan to reduce CO₂ emissions in the atmosphere in a balanced manner – agreed upon under the above-mentioned binding Agreement – as well as of adapting the objectives to the evolving situation, implementing structured actions to combat global environmental emergencies, develop new technologies in the energy sector and transfer them to industrialising countries.

In the future, a global carbon tax should be introduced to discourage the use of fossil fuels, with different rates that vary according to the carbon content of each fuel. This tax would also provide the World Organization with the funds necessary to achieve the purpose for which it will be set up. It should operate under the democratic control of the UN General Assembly, and in the future of the UN Parliamentary Assembly (when it is established), in accordance with the principle of “no taxation without representation”.

3. Conditions for feasibility

The aforementioned binding Agreement requires the total support of the European Union. However, considering its very advanced positions on CO₂ emissions reduction, it is being called upon to play a leading role in the green conversion of the world economy based on solar energy, which best suits its history, aspirations and interests. The introduction of a European carbon tax in Europe, at least in the Eurozone, aimed at financing a “Special European Fund for Growth and Employment”, which should be achieved using the “enhanced cooperation” mechanism provided for in the Lisbon Treaty, falls within the objectives of providing the EU with the financial resources necessary to implement a “European Investment Plan”, essential to promote sustainable development in the EU and reduce unemployment. Therefore, it is being advocated by the European Parliament and the Commission itself.

If it were approved in the EU, as hoped, also in the wake of the announcement-effect of its intent, this would provide a clear signal of its willingness and could act as an effective example, strongly encouraging other countries (primarily the United States and China) to emulate it. Therefore, a European carbon tax is of strategic importance to facilitate its extension to other industrialised countries. The European Union is the only economic area where the virtuous process of the green conversion of the world economy can be launched. This worldwide launch requires a starting point clearly identified in a major economic area. This is precisely the EU, which can trigger an emulation process that exceeds its own borders.

A European carbon tax should also play this important role. Its first target would be consumption, by imposing a European tax rate allocated to the above-mentioned “European Fund”. At a later stage, this rate could be increased by an additional proportion used to finance the World Organization. Citizens would then realise that they are simultaneously citizens of their own country, the EU and the world. The new tax would be welcomed by European states and citizens, if the European investments needed to stimulate European economic recovery were financed at the European government level. National budgets would no longer bear the burden of these investments, and they could reduce the national tax burden with the new available resources for the corresponding amounts, especially on labour and corporate income, with additional benefits to boost demand and economic recovery.

4. Conclusion

An energy regime based on solar/wind energy, which does not release any harmful emissions into the atmosphere and on which the gradual mitigation of global warming depends because it reduces the number of the sources of the emissions, is within reach. Moreover, this regime will not be able to immediately replace the production systems in place in different countries and will require timescales for its introduction (consider, for example, the case of France where 80% of electricity production derives from nuclear power).

However, these timescales could be quickly reduced to the benefit of the environment, if the desired binding Agreement on CO₂ emissions reduction and the ensuing establishment of the above described new World Organization were reached at the Paris Climate Summit. The introduction of a global carbon tax would further accelerate progress towards the decarbonisation of the economy. However, this decision is linked to the EU’s willingness to take the first step by internally introducing a carbon tax, which is necessary to finance investment in development and employment, aimed at stimulating economic recovery and halting the European Union’s rapid decline.

This text is a memorandum prepared for the Holy See in view of the UN Climate Change World Conference that will be held in Paris in December 2015

² Website: www.ipcc.ch

³ IPCC – Fifth Assessment Report (AR5): Sectoral Reports

⁴ IEA data - International Energy Agency (www.iea.org)

⁵ John T. Houghton, Global Warming, Cambridge University Press, 1997

⁶ European Photovoltaic Industry Association data, News 2014

⁷ Tesla, Umicore, UBS “Will Solar, Batteries and Electric Cars Re-Shape the Electricity System?”, Q series UBS, August 2014

⁸ IEA data - International Energy Agency (www.iea.org)