An astonishing 720 million people around the world face falling back into extreme poverty unless we tackle climate change immediately, warns a new report by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

The report was published as world leaders gathered this week at the United Nations General Assembly and agreed the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), among which is the eradication of extreme poverty by 2030.

This goal is achievable, according to the ODI, but not without a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions peak in 2030, and a fall to near zero by 2100. “Climate change increases the probability that those who emerge from extreme poverty will be at risk of falling back into it,” it concludes.

Beyond 2030

Sustaining poverty reduction therefore relies on curbing climate change the report argues.“If the global community is serious about eradicating extreme poverty for good, it needs to think beyond 2030. Eradicating poverty by 2030 will be no great accomplishment if we are incapable of sustaining that achievement from 2030 onwards.”

It continues: “It is policy incoherent for big GHG emitting countries, especially industrialised ones, to support poverty eradication as a development priority, whether through domestic policy or international assistance, while failing to shift their own economy toward a zero net emissions pathway.”

As the report notes, progress on poverty eradication over the past two decades has reduced the percentage of people living on less than $1.25 a day in the developing world – defined as the extreme poor – from 43 percent in 1990 to about 17 percent as of 2011.

"In order to stop poverty, we must stop climate change." – Jay Winter Nightwolf, Echota Cherokee nation. #ActOnClimate

— Sierra Club (@sierraclub) September 24, 2015

Analysing data on the impact of climate change on food prices, the effects of childhood malnutrition and stunting, the productivity of primary sectors (such as agriculture or mining), and increased droughts, the ODI estimates that up to 720 million people are at risk of facing extreme poverty from 2030 to 2050 under a business-as-usual scenario. As the report starkly points out, this is roughly the same number of people that exited extreme poverty over the last two decades.

However, this number is likely to be much higher if the effects of sea-level rise, an increase in airborne diseases, and conflict – among other climate impacts – are factored into calculations.

Ecomodernist Manifesto

The ODI report comes at the same time as a group of individuals calling themselves the ‘Ecomodernists’ launched their manifesto in London yesterday – among those promoting it include self-styled ‘climate lukewarmist’ Matt Ridley, and former environment secretary and climate denier Owen Paterson.

As the manifesto explains, ecomodernism believes in human rights and freedoms – chief among these, the alleviation of global poverty.

However, in contrast to the ODI’s report, their manifesto goes on to argue that “climate change and other global ecological challenges are not the most important immediate concerns for the majority of the world’s people. Nor should they be.”

Instead, technology should be the main driver in helping developing countries to achieve modern living standards and end material poverty it says. This includes intensive agriculture, nuclear energy, reforestation and urbanisation. Furthermore it argues that renewable energy is inadequate for meeting global energy demands and that there need not be a limit to economic growth.

Economic Growth

But as the ODI argues: “While [economic] growth is unquestionably part of reaching zero extreme poverty, relying on high growth rates alone to achieve this goal would be unwise. First, recent high growth rates may not be sustained. Projecting them decades into the future paints an overly optimistic view of extreme poverty in 2030.

“In reality, economic growth has become increasingly less effective at reducing poverty because of the increasing inequality of that growth. Since 2005, inequalities have widened even further in developing countries, leading to lower rates of poverty reduction than would have been the case if inequality had remained constant.”

Achieving a zero-emissions future, with peak emissions within 15 years, requires all countries to “transform” their economies, the ODI explains. Deep domestic GHG cuts are part of developed countries’ obligation it says, with middle and low-income countries also ensuring their current investment choices reduce their forecast emissions.

“This presents a global challenge that some argue conflicts with the goal of eradicating extreme poverty,” ODI acknowledges, “However, early evidence suggests low-emission economic development, although radically different from historic experience, is consistent with the combination of moderate, sustained and pro-poor growth and reductions in inequality needed to eradicate poverty.”

Therefore addressing growth and inequality together is “far more likely to reduce poverty than a strategy reliant on attempts to maximise growth alone, based on unrealistic projections.”

Agriculture and Cities

Pointing out that industrialised agriculture is a significant contributor to GHG emissions, the ODI looks to the World Bank which argues that “improving the productivity, profitability and sustainability of smallholder farming is the main pathway out of poverty in using agriculture in development.”

Doing so presents a “major synergy”, says the ODI, for reducing poverty and emissions “where there is the institutional capacity and political will to limit the land-use conversion of forests and other natural stores of GHGs.”

And on urbanisation, the ODI agrees it can drive positive change but only if city planners and policymakers tackle poverty and climate change together rather than “entrench and perpetuate old problems for new people”.

“The impact of unchecked climate change creates an insurmountable challenge for the zero poverty target,” it argues, “but climate change mitigation need not.”

Photo: Asian Development Bank via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

If the recent frufrah over NDP candidate Linda McQuaig’s comment that “a lot of the oilsands oil may have to stay in the ground” is indicative of anything, it’s that Canada’s election cycle is in full spin. May all reasonableness and sensible dialogue and accountability be damned.

Perhaps that’s the blunt and singular reason behind the Conservative Party and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s outrage at McQuaig’s entirely non-contentious assertion that, because of our international commitments to curtail global climate change, Canada won’t exploit the entirety of its oil reserves.

Harper accused the NDP of having a “not-so hidden agenda,” saying the party “is consistently against the development of our resources and our economy.”

“That’s why they…would wreck this economy if they ever got in, and why they must never get into power in this country.”

But Harper’s reaction seems conspicuously overwrought given the Prime Minister’s own pledge, along with the other G7 nations, to phase out the use of fossil fuels by 2100.

At the time of signing — a whole two months ago — Harper said the plan would “require a transformation in our energy sectors.”

He added: “Nobody’s going to start to shut down their industries or turn off the lights. We’ve simply got to find a way to create lower-carbon emitting sources of energy — and that work is ongoing.”

Harper may have been diplomatically coerced into signing the G7 leader’s declaration. After all, an inside source did come forward at the time to say Canada and Japan were “the most concerned” about the agreement and according to federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May Canada played a role in delaying the pledge's original 2050 target date. At the very least, the declaration runs contrary to the Prime Minister’s own energy superpower ambitions.

Yet the decarbonization pledge wasn’t exactly out of left field, either.

Several major institutions had already come forward to raise concern about the risk of stranded assets in a carbon-constrained world.

Already in 2012 the International Energy Agency (which Bloomberg concedes “is no den of Greenpeace radicals”) concluded that to stay within the 2 degrees Celsius limit for global temperature rise, two-thirds of the world’s known fossil fuels must remain underground. 

Then in the fall of 2013 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its calculations on the world’s “carbon budget” and warned more than half of the global carbon dioxide allowance had already been used up. The scientific body warned “substantial and sustained” reductions in greenhouse gas emissions were immediate necessary to avoid passing that 2 degree Celsius target.

In 2013 a study led by Lord Nicholas Stern from the London School of Economics along with Carbon Tracker identified trillions of dollars dangerously reliant on inflated fossil fuel reserves. The so-called “carbon bubble” could trigger a major economic crisis, the report warned.

In 2014 the Bank of England warned insurance companies of the risk of potentially worthless fossil fuel investments, after its head Mark Carney cautioned the “vast majority of [fossil fuel] reserves are unburnable.”

Around the same time President Barak Obama bluntly stated: “We’re not going to be able to burn it all.”

“Well, science is science,” the president said. “And there is no doubt that if we burned all the fossil fuel that’s in the ground right now, that the planet’s going to get too hot and the consequences could be dire.”

A study published in the journal Nature in early 2015 took the stranded assets research further and identified those high-cost, high-carbon fossil fuel reserves that should remain unused given a global carbon budget. The study concluded production in Canada’s oilsands should drop to “negligible” levels by 2020 to remain within that 2 degree Celsius target.

That report was followed by a call to divest from fossil fuels from World Bank president Jim Yong Kim and reports from HSBC, Citibank and Standard & Poor, some of the world’s major financiers, on the financial risk of unburnable fossil fuels.

More recently a group of prominent scientists publicly called for a stop to further growth in Canada’s oilsands. The group argued adding new development in the oilsands goes against the recommendations of the scientific community when it comes to climate, ecosystems, species protection and indigenous rights.

So it appears on the issue of decarbonization, the Prime Minister doesn’t agree with anybody. Not even, erm, himself. 

Keith Stewart, Greenpeace energy and climate campaigner, and part-time faculty member at the University of Toronto where he teaches a course on energy and the environment, suggests this comes down to Canada’s “disconnect.”

“We want to do something on climate change but the minute you look at what that means, people say not that, not that,” Stewart said on the CBC’s The Current.

“There’s a fundamental dishonesty here, to tell the world Canada will play its role on climate change and then tell Canadians there will be absolutely no limit on the expansion of [the oilsands] sector,” he said.

“Nobody is talking about shutting it down tomorrow. This is about how much is it going to expand, what are we going to do over time and how are we going to phase this out over the coming decades because that is what Canada has committed to.”

Image Credit: Stephen Harper via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Stephen Harper’s participation in the G7 leader’s declaration to decarbonize the global economy by 2100 was a massive headline generator in Canada, and not surprisingly so.

For a Prime Minister who has openly mocked the idea of carbon pricing, mercilessly driven an expensive (both financially and politically) energy superpower agenda and earned a reputation for pulling out of or stalling climate negotiations, the very idea of an ‘end’ to fossil fuels would seem … counterintuitive.

Although the shock of seeing Harper even touch something called ‘decarbonization’ is still reverberating, experts were quick to point out a long-term goal that shoves off concrete climate policy is likely just what Canada was hoping for.

Long-term Goals Are Easy

Michael Levi, senior energy and environment fellow writing for the Council on Foreign Relations, said the G7 agreement merely rearticulates what diplomats and policymakers have basically agreed to for several years now: dramatic emission cuts are required by mid century if we are to avoid surpassing the two-degree target.

“If the-two degree target didn’t motivate deep enough emissions cuts to actually meet it, recasting it in terms of global emissions won’t change that,” Levi wrote. “And the idea that an 85-year goal will have much impact on present policy or investment is a bit ridiculous. (Had you told a physicist in 1905 that a fifth of U.S. electricity would be generated by nuclear fission within 85 years, they would have said, ‘What’s a nucleus or fission?’)”

Levi said the bottom line is this: “Fiddling with distant targets is a great way to generate headlines, but doesn’t do much to affect policy and emissions themselves; at best it’s marginally irrelevant, at worst it lets people feel good without doing anything.”

Mark Jaccard, energy and climate economist from Simon Fraser University, agreed, saying the goal to end fossil fuels by 2100 makes it easy for politicians like Harper to detract from the short-term.

“Harper has gotten good at shifting timeframes, helped by a forgetful opposition, media and public,” Jaccard told DeSmog Canada. “His 2006 promise for reduced emissions in 2020 slides into a 2015 promise for reduced emissions in 2030. His 2007 promise for reduced emissions in 2050 slides into a 2015 promise for reduced emissions in 2100.

“It would be funny — like Lucy lying to Charlie Brown that she would hold the football — if it weren’t so tragic." 

Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, said the G7 agreement does have the upside of legitimizing discussions around decarbonizing.

"The important thing here is that for the first time we have world leaders acknowledging that we have to ditch fossil fuels; not just reduce emissions at the margins, but go cold turkey on our fossil fuel addiction,” he said.

“Of course we'd be crazy to wait 85 years to do it. But it's now a question of when, not if, we go to a 100 per cent renewable energy system."

David Keith, professor of applied physics and public policy at Harvard University, who lives in Calgary, said the agreement does nothing more than score cheap political points.

“It’s not groundbreaking,” he told the CBC. “It is politically cheap to pledge a non-binding commitment that falls way behind someone’s time in office.”

“What we really need is specifics in the next few years or decades.”

Keith was one of more than 100 natural and social scientists who recently called for a moratorium on new projects in the Alberta oilsands, Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada’s Climate Target Weakest in G7

Environmental Defence recently gave Stephen Harper’s conservative party a ‘C’ on a climate scorecard, saying Canada currently has the weakest post-2020 climate target of all G7 nations (although Japan has yet to submit its plan).

Canada’s target to reduce emissions by 30 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030 was recently assessed as “inadequate” by the Climate Action Tracker, a coalition of four research institutions including Climate Analytics, Ecofys, NewClimate Institute and the Potsdam Institue. The groups determined Canada’s reductions targets will not be sufficient for Canada to do its fair share for the world to avoid dangerous climate change. 

In its report, Environmental Defence said Canada has shifted its climate targets over time as a way of appearing to do more than it actually is:

“The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) and the Kyoto Protocol (1997) both used 1990 as the reference or base year. Most countries still use 1990 as the base year but some have started using more recent base years. Since the Copenhagen summit in 2009, Canada has been using 2005 as a base year. This makes comparison between targets more difficult. It also makes targets look stronger than they are since Canada’s carbon pollution increased significantly between 1990 and 2005. For example, the Canadian government’s pledge to reduce emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 by 2030 is actually less than half as strong (-14.4 per cent) when expressed using 1990 as the base year.”

Environmental Defence adds Canada has consistently refused to address the Alberta oilsands when discussing climate targets, a subject of some controversy during last year’s UN climate talks in Lima, Peru.

Canada has pledged to regulate emissions from four sectors: natural gas-fired electricity, the chemical industry, methane emissions from the oil and gas sector and sources of hydrofluorocarbons.

For years the federal government has failed to deliver on its promise to regulate carbon from the oil and gas industry. Last year Harper said it would be “crazy economic policy” to regulate the oil and gas sector and indicated (incorrectly) that no other country was doing so.

Last year, Canada's environment commissioner Julie Gelfand said the country has "no overall vision" when it comes to oil and gas regulations and as a result will not even meet its 2020 international greenhouse gas reductions targets agreed to in Copenhagen.

Ed Whittingham from the Pembina Institute said he thinks industry will begin to pick up the slack, now that definitive dates for decarbonization are being discussed.

"We are all clear, we are still going to need fossil fuels for some time to come. Now we have, at the global level, the latest day for when we need to be off fossil fuels," he told the CBC. "CEOs in Calgary are smart; they will do the planning that needs to be done." 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.