Professor Jessica F. Green (Washington DC, 45 years old) investigates international regulation to reduce emissions and why it is falling far short of achieving its goals.
She is an expert in energy and the environment, her latest book (
Rethinking Private Authority
,
not published in Spanish) analyzes decarbonization policies and their shortcomings.
"There are 100 companies responsible for 70% of global emissions," criticizes the American academic, whose research has appeared in prestigious journals such as
Nature
and
Global Environmental Politics.
Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto (Canada), Green — who visited Madrid in July to participate in the Ecosystem Now forum, organized by EL PAÍS — takes advantage of the summer to write a new book that tries to answer the question “ What do we do instead of the Paris Agreement, which is not working?
Ask.
Is the Paris Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions working?
Response.
Is not working.
We are not on track to reach the goal of a temperature increase of no more than 1.5 degrees [compared to pre-industrial times].
Carbon markets aren't working either.
Carbon pricing has been touted as a solution to climate change or a major solution, but my research shows that the actual reductions with carbon pricing are minimal.
I've studied a lot of carbon pricing mechanisms around the world and on average they deliver 1-2% emissions reductions a year, which is far from what we need.
The other problem with carbon markets, especially taxes, is that people don't like them.
The yellow vests movement [in France] was an example.
Q.
What is the way then?
R.
We have to think of climate change as an asset appreciation issue.
The more we try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the less profitable things like oil and gas will become.
There are fossil fuel capital owners who are trying to obstruct climate policy because they want to make sure they remain profitable.
So we have to look at international financial, investment and trade institutions as mechanisms to really reorient how capital is invested in the world economy.
More information
The superpolluters that contribute the most to climate change
Q.
Why is the decarbonization process so complex?
A.
We have to stop burning fossil fuels.
Spot.
It means that we must stop subsidizing them.
Billions of dollars a year go into it all over the world.
The second thing is that we have to stop building their infrastructure.
As the crisis in Ukraine intensifies and there are concerns about gas supplies, there has been much talk of increasing our pipelines.
Is it a bad idea.
It's bad for the climate and an increasingly risky financial investment.
And the third thing is that we have to invest in a green economy, and this is the tricky part.
We have to electrify and build the grid and build more renewable capacity.
It is still early to be 100% carbon free, but we can invest much more in green technologies.
It is a question of politics.
P.
How should the political class transmit the message?
R.
It is about making a rethinking.
We need to get away from these technical discussions about how we measure greenhouse gases or how we trade them.
It is achieved by saying that we are going to improve people's lives.
We're going to provide cheaper, clean energy, create jobs, make sure you don't lose your job.
We are going to invest in things like the care economy, which is education, schooling, health care.
This is something that people understand much more easily.
Q.
Is the message of climate change not being transmitted well?
R.
There are errors in the messages, yes.
One, for example, is this idea that we are all responsible for climate change.
Not true, not completely.
100 companies are responsible for 70% of global emissions.
And we know and we know that people with fewer resources emit fewer greenhouse gases.
We are not all equally responsible, there are some bad ones and we have to focus on them and limit them.
And that's the really hard part because they're so powerful.
Q.
Who are mainly those bad guys?
A.
Well, we know that the fossil fuel companies have carried out a campaign of disinformation and obstructionism.
They knew about global warming decades ago and have kept saying that they are doing the best they can and that they are cooperating.
They wield enormous influence in political debates, especially in countries with large extractive industries.
Canada is a great example of this.
Q.
What can the rest of us do about it?
R.
Demand responsibility.
Governments too.
They have to step up and say it's a tough decision, but the right one not only for the planet, but financially.
Betting on fossil fuels for the next 100 years is a lousy bet.
In Canada, there was an oil pipeline that was recently abandoned by a private energy company and was later bought by the Canadian government.
It's a terrible investment.
We shouldn't bail out fossil fuel companies, we have to make them pay through removing subsidies, plus taxes.
Q.
Hasn't anything been done right?
R.
I think there have been many advances in renewable energy.
The price has fallen a lot.
This energy is competitive
or cheaper than coal.
So there is no reason to have coal in most places anymore.
The movement towards regulation, particularly in the European Union, saying that we need to have targets and rules, is what is going to drive change.
We must focus on technological solutions to reduce very energy-intensive processes.
Progress has been made in drawing up sustainability plans in all areas.
There are many efforts to mitigate the effects of heat islands, encourage public transportation, bike and car sharing, and to make certain areas car-free.
People are more aware and more open to the urgency of the problem.
P.
You are a professor at the University, you write essays, books and articles in the press about the urgency of climate change.
With so much information about the situation, can you be optimistic or is the opposite true?
R.
It is a very difficult question.
Some days I feel very optimistic, others are difficult.
I tell my students that not everyone can be the president of the universe and change policies at the highest levels.
But that doesn't mean you can't make a difference, that you can really work to build communities of mutual aid, support and activism, and that those things do add up.
The more people we are, the stronger we are.
You can follow CLIMA Y MEDIO AMBIENTE on
and
, or sign up here to receive
our weekly newsletter
50% off
Subscribe to continue reading
read without limits
Keep reading
I'm already a subscriber