By Gabriel McCoard
Anyone who has visited the OZ-like specter known as the Palau National Capitol has no doubt walked under the solar panels covering the parking lot, which is actually a good place for them. If I remember correctly, the European Union donated them to offset carbon use under one of its agreed-to obligations.
Shortly after my sojourn in the island republic, I considered joining a bio-diesel startup. At first, I was excited about building an alternative energy company from the ground up and figuring out how to turn an abstract chemical reaction into a commercially valuable product that is better both for the environment and local economies.
From my regret for not taking more chemistry in college— we need to stop entrusting our futures to the whims of our 20-year-old selves— I attempted to learn about catalytic reactions, agricultural waste streams turned chemical feedstocks, glycerin by-products, small-scale refineries, commercial sales, equity investing and everything else that goes into starting a business.
Then came several harsh realizations. Alternative energy, like many new ways of doing things, is much more expensive than the petrocarbon variety. Until you add on the cost of the U.S. military serving as oil nanny, that is, but we’ll save that for another time.
My second realization was that my potential business partner was bat-guano crazy. I realized that if I joined him, I’d end up in prison one way or another. (The last I heard he was awaiting trial on over 100 counts of animal cruelty, so I guess I called that one right.)
Then there was another one: alternative energy often needs government incentives, like tax breaks and carbon credits. Take those away, and it withers or becomes too expensive, as exemplified a generation ago when Ronald Reagan ripped Jimmy Carter’s solar panels off the White House roof.
All of which is to say that Donald Trump won a second term as president of the United States. While there are many unknowns for his second-round agenda, his record on the environment has been pretty clear. First time around, he selected the chair of ExxonMobil as secretary of State and withdrew from the 2015 Paris Agreement. Since his reelection, he has designated an oil executive for secretary of Energy and his pick for Environmental Protection Agency head has sent environmentalists into a tailspin.
Reducing carbon emissions is probably not a policy objective. Increasing them might be.
Short on the heels of Trump’s not-entirely-surprising renaissance, the 29th Climate Change Olympics, formally known as COP29, received a jolt. The 13 largest carbon emitters announced they would not attend this year’s conference in Azerbaijan. “Petrostate” has been the descriptor of choice for this year’s host.
I’ll call them the “C13,” as in the “Carbon 13.” If you want to stay consistent with UN acronyms, you can call them the “G13,” as in “Group of 13” in line with the group of the seven largest economies, the G7. Or the relatively new group of conflict-vulnerable nations, the G7+.
The C13 includes the U.S., China, Russia, India, Europe, most of the world’s economic output, and a huge chunk of its population. Most of them still sent representatives, but not the high-level government functionaries that climate-craft diplomacy has grown to know and love.
Papua New Guinea also boycotted the event because, they declared, it was “a waste of time” and the large polluters haven’t kept their promises.
This year’s tone was different, partly because of the looming role of the U.S. under Trump, and partly due to the sinking realization that the event has become a trade show for the oil and gas industries as much as it is activism theater for climate protesters.
There were the normal speeches. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres spoke of the injustice that big ocean developing states face on the fronts of climate catastrophes they did little to cause.
Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr. signed a memorandum of understanding with the World Green Economy Organization to advance a green economy and bolster climate action. The alliance the Big Ocean Developing States, or AOSIS, continues to push for holding greenhouse gas emissions at 1.5 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels.
The COP’s more somber tone may have also been due to its evolution into a financial body. Gone were references to bombing islands. There were no ministers knee-deep in water. At least in the first week.
Instead, the conference was about funding a loss and damage fund, who should contribute, and how much. Some countries are pushing for $20 billion, courtesy of other nations, of course. As has been the case for a long time, there are scantily few details on what exactly this money will do. Climate change mitigation is a fine concept, but what precisely will the money be spent on?
The Pacific islands may benefit from Trump’s reascendance, but not because of rising sea levels. The Pacific power steppingstones have given the region more sway than the size of their populations and economies would suggest. The rising tide of tension between the U.S. and China might wash more money onto Micronesian shores.
And maybe nations that can’t agree on 1.5 in practice might decide that paying out some money or donating climate change goodwill will be easier. It worked for the EU, after all.
Gabriel McCoard is an attorney who previously worked in Palau and Chuuk State. Send feedback to gabrieljmccoard@hotmail.com.
Subscribe to
our digital
monthly edition
Comments