The Contradictions of Environmental Policy, Which as It Is Has No Future

Roberto Palea
Member and former President of the Centre for Studies on Federalism

The proposal of important and well-known American economists, published in the Wall Street Journal on January 17, 2019, and quoted in another section of this Magazine, in many ways mirrors the position of European federalists, who, for some time, have been proposing to finance the measures needed to rapidly reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere by introducing a “carbon tax”.

It should be noted, however, that for Europe it would be impossible to redistribute to taxpayers, on a per capita basis, the entire amount of the “carbon tax” collected, as proposed by the aforementioned group of US economists.

There would be dividends for everyone, indeed, but indirectly, in terms of improving the “welfare state” and resolutely promoting economic development.

In fact, the “carbon tax” collected by the Eurogroup at the border would increase the European Budget and, thus, strengthen all active policies of the EU.

The national “carbon tax”, applied the same way and according to the same criteria across all the Member States of the Union, should be used to reduce, from the outset, the taxation of employees’ and companies’ income (thus reducing the “tax wedge”) and provide the future Agency for the Environment and Energy (already authorised to borrow directly from the market or through the EIB) with substantial contributions to finance joint actions.

But the most significant weak point of the US proposal is that it focuses on the US economy (currently responsible for 15% of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere), without noting that global warming is a global phenomenon and must be addressed jointly, and with common policies, by all (and in particular the most polluting) states that are responsible for the emissions.

We must point out, once again, the contradictions of the environmental policies that must be resolved, to avoid their inefficiency and the systematic stalemate of the environmental improvement measures needed to preserve humanity (and especially future generations) from disasters, from the costs, also in terms of human, plant and animal lives, and from all kinds of damages that would result from the Earth being exposed to an average temperature change of 3–5 °C and an exponential trend of environmental degradation.

To date, the pressure of the States and of the very powerful lobbies of the producers of oil, natural gas and coal, that defend their dominant and privileged positions with their teeth, has certainly been a strong influencing force. Just think that, at present, it is difficult to finance the Global Green Fund, established in Cancun in 2010, for 100 billion dollars a year, left on paper, while the anti-historical contributions of States to coal mining companies alone amount to 600 billion dollars a year.

A second element is due to the structural difficulty of democracy (a universal, irrepressible conquest of civilization) to operate with a long-term vision, being forced to a “short-sighted vision” from one election of the Parliament to another, an interval in which the democratic governments cannot (lest their re-election be in jeopardy) take decisions that displease their voters, should they impose on them immediate costs and sacrifices in view of advantages that will come to fruition only in the medium or long term.

In authoritarian democracies and dictatorships, there are no such limits. It is currently the case of China, where the most incisive reforms, such as those concerning widespread education, universities of excellence and the formation of human capital, are carried out rapidly, without any particular concern with the people’s consent. This happens also for their challenging multi-year plans for infrastructure and transport (think of the grandiose project of the New Silk Road in which billions of dollars are committed, even beyond China’s physical borders), relying mainly on the foresight of President Xi Jinping, who controls the party and, through the party, the National People’s Assembly and, therefore, the State of the People’s Republic of China.

Moreover, democracy is an indispensable achievement, a fundamental pillar, together with the values of freedom and equality, of the universal civilization of humanity. On the other hand, paraphrasing Winston Churchill, all the forms of government that have been experienced so far have proved to be worse than democracy, despite its shortcomings.

But the most crucial element to consider is the selfish defence, by the States, of their true or supposed sovereignty which, as far as problems that have a continental or global reach are concerned, has completely evaporated.

Complex problems on a global scale can no longer be governed jointly, simply by international cooperation. Every international agreement among sovereign states can “photograph” a static situation and testify to the will declared at the time of the respective signing of the Heads of State or Government, but is not capable of addressing situations in continuous evolution, that are largely unpredictable in their unfolding, such as climatic or environmental events; nor can they stabilise the will of States, even if internationally committed, due to the frequent turnover of people or parties in national governments (e.g. Clinton/Bush, Obama/Trump).

How can complex phenomena of world-wide scale be governed jointly, without adequate common institutions, vested with decision-making authority, and suitably financed?

In the case of global problems, the States must adopt the federal method, establishing supranational, independent institutions, coordinated with the lower level of government of the States and with the EU (in the case of the States of Europe), entrusted with implementing the common policies to be pursued, adequately financed by contributions from the States and/or by their own resources coming from a recognised capacity to enforce taxes and/or debt; institutions subject to democratic control in the ways and forms that will be determined.

Federalists have long proposed creating an Agency or Organization for World Environment, under the aegis of the UN, legally above the states of the COP, inspired by the model of the European  Coal and Steel Community (1951) in the process of European unification. There is no alternative for the nation states, if they want to tackle and solve problems whose size overshadows them.

The history of the European unification process is the plastic evidence of this. The current difficulties in this process are due precisely to the fact that some Member States do not seem willing to accept new restrictions to their sovereignty, in order to implement more efficient European policies, put in place by supranational institutions such as the EU bodies.

Sovereignty belongs to the people who, however, must and can exercise it through institutions, each of which must operate in its own order, according to the size of the problems to be dealt with: local (typically municipalities and regions), national (the national state), and continental (in Europe, the EU).

At a global level, the cosmopolitan citizen must claim his right/duty to participate in decisions concerning peace or war, environmental emergencies, and the economic and social policy of the Planet, which affect the whole of humanity, through democratic institutions at the global level, superordinate to the States.

International cooperation must take the form of an independent organisation, based on federalism, with the States remaining the natural backbone of its action.

The first body that must be convinced of this is the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), its Secretariat, the officials and researchers who work therein, so that they realize that their commitment and their efforts are vain and ineffective if the international agreements that they patiently weave do not include, as a prerequisite, putting in place the aforementioned institutional framework: one that is supranational, has adequate powers and financial resources, and is able to act.

They must examine the history of their activities and the enormous amount of work they have done, from Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to the Kyoto Protocol approved in December 1997, which entered into force in 2005 following the ratification by 196 States, after 7-years of exhausting negotiations, and to the Paris International Climate Agreement of 2015. It is well known that the Kyoto Protocol proposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2012, on average by only 5.2%, an amount that is totally inadequate, as we have seen a posteriori; that target was actually achieved by chance in many countries, not due to the international commitments undertaken, but rather for internal political reasons.

The much stricter Paris Agreement so far had no effect: after COP 21 in Paris, the subsequent COPs held in various countries, up to Katowice (COP 24), have not yet reached a consensus on its application and financing.

Concisely and simply one could say: while the world is burning, the UNFCCC diplomacy is running idle.

The worldwide demonstrations of millions of young people marching for the Earth and promoting days of strikes against climate change in every part of the globe fill us with hope.

The words of one of the young leaders of this spontaneous popular movement, the Swede Greta Thunberg, just 16 years old, who decided to devote her life to saving the world from climate change are heart-warming.

Greta addresses parents and all her peers with these words “one day, perhaps, my children will ask me about you, why you didn’t do anything while there was still time to act. You say you love your children above all else and yet you’re stealing their future in front of their very eyes. You are not mature enough to tell it like it is.”