Combating Climate Change and Building Resilience

We learned to better understand the urgency for acting now, acting together, and acting differently. Although there many benefits to taking immediate climate action, a lot remains to be done. So what will it take to curb emissions? The most important thing we now need is strength of political will. I think we understand the immense risks of climate change. We understand the scale of economic change we need to make. That is, essentially, a new energy, an industrial revolution. In the case of industrial revolutions in the past, there have always been dislocations. There have always been people who oppose change. You should not dismiss that, you should recognize that dislocation is involved. You should recognize that some energy prices will have to go up, and you have to deal with that change. Now, what could such a green industrial revolution include, and what possible benefits would it offer?

We need to accelerate the pace of the new industrial revolution that is taking place right now. We need to accelerate the pace of the new industrial revolution that is taking place right now. This industrial revolution is moving in the direction of green technologies, green energy, cleaner technologies in various production processes, but also in infrastructure, housing and transportation. Accelerating that pace will keep us below two degrees. It will also reduce emissions, and in effect, promote growth and wealth creation in poorer countries.

Climate change is thus a challenge that can be turned into valuable opportunities. What are some policy interventions that countries can start exploring right away while taking advantage of subsequent economic and social benefits? In many countries we have way too much debt and not enough equity. And if we deal with the climate change issue right, we can actually address the three. The environmental damage, the lack of revenue that could actually reduce debt and restore fiscal situations, and we could certainly restore that economic instability that would result from the environmental damages caused by climate change. And getting the pricing right is key. If you don't price in the externalities, the negative externalities, to use colloquial economic jargon, then you miss a huge opportunity to deal with the three issues I've identified. The second thing that they can do is to actually gradually phase out and remove the subsidies that apply to energies and particularly fossil energies. If the price of fuel, of fossil energy, is right because it incorporates the negative externalities, then it encourages investment in the renewable energies without subsidies.

We have a five-point plan. For us, probably, the most important thing we need to do is to put a price on carbon. The second is to remove fossil fuel subsidies, over 500 billion a year in fossil fuel subsidies. We have to improve energy efficiency and renewable energy use. We've really got to focus on building low-carbon resilient cities. And then finally, we've got to do a lot more in the area that we call climate-smart agriculture.

And we are in the politically incorrect moment when we have to say that adaptation is simply not going to be enough. If 40% of the maize crop in sub-Saharan Africa will disappear within 20 years, that's not my grandchild's problem, right, that's our problem.

How are countries already acting now, together and differently, on climate change? Let's start with the Philippines, where flooding, disasters, and more intense cyclones due to climate change are putting huge amounts of the population at risk. Especially the poor people who live in areas prone to these events. How has this motivated the government to invest in mitigation and adaptation now? Just one single incident can impact our GDP, between 2 to 3% of GDP. Now, for a developing country that really works so hard to grow our economy, 2 to 3% wipes out all the gains that we have worked for the longest time. More importantly, it impacts the poorest. And not so much those resilient cities in our country. First, it impacts the fisher folks. About less than half the fisher folks are poor in our country. It impacts the farmer households. And more important, in urban cities, it impacts the informal settlers who live in areas that are prone to dangers. The case for acting now is thus essential. But when it comes to thinking differently, countries should first identify what has hampered action on climate change to date, and then seek solutions around those obstacles. What problems were encountered in the Philippines, and how did the government respond to them? Now what's the problem? Our problem is that we have attended to this in silos. There has never been a cohesion in harmonized approach to this problem. And part of the solution is the budget. And we force this harmonization by enforcing institutions and policies to harmonize. And more importantly to reflect that into the budget, which is really the most tangible manifestation of government priorities. So we have increased our expenditure for climate mitigation and expense by about 40% from 2008. And we're increasing that about 57 billion pesos for this one. A big chunk of which will go to just relocating informal settlers from the cities away from the areas where the floods would come.

Moving to another part of the world, sub-Saharan Africa. We see that countries are already experiencing the serious impacts of climate change. One of the most vulnerable sectors is agriculture. In Zambia, this has been evident for a long time. And this is why the government has decided to reallocate resources that can help stall these effects now. By channeling resources, especially in the agriculture sector to climate change and adaptation programs, we are really trying to forestall the inevitable. In fact what has happened over the decade, in fact 50 years, has been that for Zambia will have lost in GDP terms over $10.8 billion through climate drought, and floods. And this accounts for about 4% of annual growth of over the year. If we do not put in these countermeasures, we are seeing, over the next decade, we'll be losing another $4 billion in GDP growth, which is 0.9% annual growth. Then we're seeing another 300,000 of our people being thrust down into the poverty trap. So rather than forestall, enjoy now, it is better that we realign ourselves, position ourselves in the long-term by assigning resources to long-term programs that our going to reposition ourselves and create wealth, employment among our people. Due to the effects on key sectors such as agriculture, there is a strong case for acting together across sectors and across government entities. What are examples of how countries can work together to mainstream adaptation and mitigation into development planning? It's not just an environmental program. It's actually a developmental program. And this is how we're dealing with it in Zambia. So what we've done to institutionalize varied systems that would deal with this issue besides the budget has been to set up a [FOREIGN]. An Inter-Ministerial Climate Change Committee that then has a secretary, the National Secretariat on Climate Change. Both committees of which we chair, they're both resident in the Ministry of Finance. And then we do also have the Zambia Climate Change Committee, which is also a structure from civil society. So these basically are the people that play oversight functions, in terms of pressure groups out there in the rural areas to highlight some of these issues. The National Committee on Climate really coordinates the activities, because the implementation aspect is really by sector ministries. So with this structure, then we will have done has been to mainstream the climate change adaptation and mitigation processes into the budgeting. In fact, the national development planning and budgeting process. Having a vision in mind is also important. What can these kinds of actions bring? What is the vision for Zambia when implementing such efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change? So our commitment currently has been that within the decade we are committing 25% of the budget towards climate change and adaptation activities. These positive examples show that action can be taken on a national level now. While a broad range of policy options are available, there is no one size fits all solution. Every country is facing a different dynamic as it looks at what climate change is going to bring to the economic growth that the country hopes for the next 20 years. For the Philippines, they have a particular situation, Zambia has a different situation. The poles of growth in those countries are different, as well. The agriculture sector is important in some countries, mining, services. And how climate will impact all of those has to be properly understood as you plot your way forward. As we have seen throughout this module, much of the discussions on climate action focus on what governments can do. Could you describe other stakeholders who can and should take action on climate change? None of the global issues, climate being the central one, is going to be solved merely by a top-down approach. And from the perspective of climate means certainly that all countries are affected. That all countries have a responsibility. That all countries can contribute very differently from each other. But also, that it is not just the responsibility of governments. That it is the responsibility of the global community. So it's not just governments, it's subnationals, it's private sector, it's students, it's consumers, it's the financial sector, it's the insurance sector. Honestly there is barely a sector that cannot contribute in some way to solving climate. Take care of your own footprint. Make an extra effort and do your best to reduce it. If everyone does it, it'll make a difference. Be creative and proactive. Tell your friends, neighbors and politicians. I hope this write up provided you with ideas, tools and resources to act now, act together, and act differently to respond to the climate change challenges of today. We know we can do it, we need to start now.