Philippe Charlez is an energy expert at the Sapiens Institute.
Former scientific advisor to France Stratégie, Nicolas Meilhan is a member of ASPO France, the Association for the Study of Oil and Gas Peaks.
Eight years after the Paris Agreement, the decarbonization of the global economy has made little progress.
2023 broke records for coal, oil and gas consumption.
Since the beginning of the century, the proportion of fossil fuels has barely fallen, going from 87% in 2000 to 83% in 2023. And this despite 6,000 billion dollars invested in 15 years in renewable energies.
In this unsatisfactory picture for the climate, coal remains the second most important source of energy: in 2022 it accounted for 27% of primary energy consumption and 35% of electricity generation.
However, these 35% hide a very strong disparity: 95% of coal-fired electricity is concentrated in a
“club”
of 14 countries consuming more terawatt-hours (TWh) of coal-fired electricity per year and including China, India, United States, Japan, South Korea and Germany.
Since coal electricity is responsible for 27% of global GHG emissions, eradicating this coal cancer should be the priority of the Conferences of the Parties.
A second recurring priority subject at the COPs is to help the poorest countries to carry out their energy transition but also to adapt to global warming, 90% of the victims of which are located in emerging countries.
According to British economist Nicholas Stern, this would require a transfer of 2.5 trillion dollars per year from rich countries to poor countries, or nearly 4% of OECD GDP.
A totally unrealistic amount when we know that the microfinancing of 100 billion dollars promised during the Paris Agreements has still not been implemented.
In 2022 alone, such a tax would have brought in $1,250 billion, or half of the sum put forward by Stern.
Philippe Charlez and Nicolas Meilhan
The mechanism we are proposing consists of imposing an import tax equal to a quarter of the coal electricity percentage on goods exported from the club of 14 to all countries in the world.
Thus, a product imported from India (74% coal electricity) or China (61% coal electricity) into France would be taxed at 19% and 15% respectively.
The funds would be collected by an international organization then redistributed to the poorest countries so that they can both ensure their transition and adapt to warming.
In 2022 alone, such a tax would have brought in $1,250 billion, or half of the sum put forward by Stern.
The method is triple virtuous.
Raising the price of exported products, it would encourage
“Club 14”
to reduce its coal-fired electricity as quickly as possible.
Any country reducing its coal-fired electricity production below 100 TWh would automatically leave the Club and see its tax reduced to zero.
It would also encourage consumers to redirect their purchases towards products with a lower carbon footprint that have become, thanks to the tax, mechanically less expensive.
Finally, it would allow the poorest countries to massively finance mitigation and especially adaptation projects essential to their survival in the face of global warming.
In addition, it would make it possible to avoid mass exoduses from the most sensitive countries, particularly to rising oceans.
The method could only be applied with global agreement and would be decided at COP level.
And that is obviously the whole difficulty, particularly within the EU where only two countries (Germany and Poland) would be targeted by the tax.
Finally, given the enormous sums collected, the management of the funds should be managed by a very rigorous control body (dependent on the UN) in order to avoid any drift into receiving countries often undermined by corruption.