A green energy transition is not intrinsically a win-win for all

Over the past few years, we have seen growing calls for phasing out carbon and making a just energy transition. While the last climate moot in Dubai hesitated to endorse the need for a complete phase-out of carbon, consensus was finally reached on transitioning away from Earth-warming fossil fuels. While a more drastic deadline to abandon fossil fuels would have been more desirable, this past December was the first time that we have seen global consensus concerning the need to eventually move away from the use of oil, coal and gas to meet our ever-growing energy needs.

The previous year, at the climate summit in Cairo, wealthy countries had reluctantly agreed to provide resources for countries and communities facing the brunt of environmental pollution and injustices, which they have done little to cause. While a ‘loss and damage fund’ has now been created, initially being hosted by the World Bank, the approximately half a billion dollars of funding that has been allocated for addressing the recurrent climate havoc being caused around the global south is nowhere near enough.

Richer countries have long been promising to help the global south leapfrog to the use of greener technologies so that they do not emulate the dismal emissions record of the industrialised world which has led us to the current climate crisis. However, little aid has been provided for such purposes, and as a result, large countries such as India have become amongst the leading emitters of greenhouse gases in the process of boosting economic growth.

Providing a sustainable level of energy for the ecologically intensive lifestyles of the well-off and overcoming the energy poverty of those still struggling to catch up amidst the growing threats caused by climate change, is not going to be easy.

The singular pursuit of green energy has also caused unanticipated problems. Consider, for instance, the food inflation caused due to the demand for corn ethanol and soy biofuel, which worsen food inflation and hunger, and in fact are proving to be an inefficient way of producing energy as well. However, other alternatives such as solar power have become much more pervasive and cost-effective. Yet, the need for raw materials to power solar batteries and to make batteries for electric vehicles has led to the re-creation of colonial era extractive industries for raw materials used in the production of green technologies. The horrible conditions of men, women and children toiling away in the cobalt and copper mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo to meet the demand of Chinese and western companies which supply raw materials essential for a green transition is a glaring example of how adoption of green technologies is not necessarily good news for everyone.

Further, the creation of carbon markets enables major emitters to purchase credits to emit carbon, and for entrepreneurs to secure carbon offsets by undertaking activities such as forestation which enable carbon to be sequestered. While such market-based mechanisms promise to provide win-win solutions for all, they have in fact led to the creation of exclusionary schemes which can further marginalise local communities whose lives and livelihoods depend on natural resources such as forests.

More equitable mechanisms must be created to move the world toward a net-zero future. Such mechanisms, be they formulated via multilateral, bilateral or national level efforts, must be anchored in notions of justice and equity, as well as meaningful collaboration. Otherwise, we risk seeing the repackaging of top-down and market-driven solutions, which will place a further burden on already struggling segments of society and serve to exacerbate already stark inequalities in the name of saving the planet.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 9^th, 2024.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.