By Dr. Heather Plumpton, Walker Institute at the University of Reading, UK
The recent OECD workshop on approaches to reduce and manage the risks of losses and damages from climate change was fascinating. Not only due to the interesting and novel insights from the diverse panellists, but the challenging and inspiring interventions from discussants and participants that really questioned some of the core concepts and assumptions upon which adaptation research and policy rest.
From the start there was a common acknowledgement that more climate science is not in itself sufficient to reduce climate risk. That in trying to reduce and manage the risks of losses and damages from climate change, we are moving beyond the realm of science and into the realm of value-based decision making. The theme of values has been cropping up everywhere recently in policy and economic discussion – from previous governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney’s Reith Lectures on the BBC, to Professor Mariana Mazzucato’s work on public value, and to the Dasgupta Review commissioned by the UK Treasury which suggested valuing nature as a form of wealth. The search for values and value-based decision making is an important shift in the public policy debate, but it also applies to the science we base our policy decisions on.Read More
By Enrico Botta, OECD Environment Directorate
Over the past decade, inequalities in income and opportunities have increased. The income of the top 10% is over ten times larger than the bottom 10% while traditional opportunities for social mobility have withered. While official income inequality data for 2020 will be available only in two years time and the impact of government measures on disposable income will need to be carefully examined, it is reasonable to think that low-educated and lower income households have been affected the most by the pandemic. This is primarily because they have less wealth in the first place, and hence less of a “cushion” to weather financial disruptions, and are less likely to be able to telework.
The pandemic is a stark reminder that disadvantaged households are also the most affected by environmental degradation. Unstainable production and consumption patterns are contributing to climate change, air pollution, and increase the risk of the emergence of new zoonoses due to contact between wildlife, livestock, pathogens and people. Each of these impacts are stronger for disadvantaged households, and their effects compound each other. For instance, air pollution is often higher in poorer neighbourhoods, and this increases the risk of developing comorbidities (i.e. cardiovascular and respiratory diseases) that are associated with the most severe consequences from COVID-19 infection.Read More
By Marta Arbinolo and Catherine Gamper, OECD Environment Directorate
Coastal zones have always been one of the most attractive settlement areas because of their access to the ocean, their richness in natural resources, and the high quality of life they offer. As our new policy paper shows, today coastal zones are home to 2.4 billion people, or 40% of the world’s population, with a density three times higher than the global average. Many of the world’s largest cities lie along the coast, including Tokyo, New York and Mumbai.
Coastal zones are also global economic hubs: maritime transport is responsible for 80% of all goods traded globally, and a large share of global tourism flows depends on the coasts. In the United States, for example, 85% of tourism revenues are generated by coastal areas. Coastal zones also harbour some of the world’s richest ecosystems, such as mangroves and coral reefs, which sustain many economic activities and provide natural protection against natural hazards such as storm surges. At the same time, coastal ecosystems, such as mangroves, store up to five times more carbon (per km2) than mainland tropical forests, thus contributing to mitigate climate change.Read More
By Rob Dellink, OECD Environment Directorate
The Covid-19 pandemic continues to dominate headlines with distressing messages about the negative effects on health and the economy. But sometimes a positive message creeps through.
The long months of lockdown and reduced economic activity have reduced emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants. In many areas, improved air quality has been hailed as a key side benefit of the crisis.
But as economic activity picks up again, are lower pollution levels really the silver lining of the Covid pandemic?
The short answer is no, and there are at least three reasons for this.Read More
By Michael Mullan, OECD Environment Directorate
At the start of the 2000s, consumers were surprised to discover that some of their “beef” lasagne was instead made out of horsemeat. Several years later, the global financial system was brought to its knees by the discovery that some triple-A securities were made out of distinctly subprime ingredients.
These are clearly very different situations, but the underlying point is that people need to know what they are getting for their money. With what we know – and what we are already seeing – about climate change, we need to know if people’s savings for the future are being invested in ways that are undermining that future. This is no longer viewed as a purely environmental issue: it is now firmly within the mainstream of discussions about the financial system.
A central focus of these discussions is on the financial system’s role in enabling the transition to net zero emissions, but it is also essential to prepare for the climate impacts that are already being felt. We need to become more resilient – better able to plan, prepare, absorb and adapt – to the growing physical impacts of climate change.Read More
De Michael Mullan, Direction de l’environnement de l’OCDE
Au début des années 2000, les consommateurs ont eu la surprise de découvrir que leurs lasagnes “au boeuf” étaient parfois faites avec de la viande de cheval. Des années après, le système financier global s’est retrouvé à genoux après qu’on ait découvert que certains titres notés triple A contenaient des ingrédients clairement spéculatifs (« sub-prime »).
Ces situations sont bien sûr très différentes, mais l’idée sous-jacente est que les gens ont besoin de savoir ce qu’ils achètent avec leur argent. Compte tenu des connaissances sur le changement climatique, et de ce qui en est déjà visible, nous avons besoin de savoir si l’épargne accumulée pour le futur est investie d’une manière qui met ce futur en danger. Aujourd’hui, cette question ne se limite plus au domaine de l’environnement : elle est désormais bien présente dans le cadre général des discussions sur le système financier.
L’un des points focaux de ces discussions concerne le rôle du système financier pour rendre possible la transition vers un monde à zéro émissions nettes ; il est néanmoins tout aussi indispensable de préparer le monde aux impacts climatiques que l’on peut déjà ressentir. Le monde doit devenir plus résilient – davantage capable de prévoir, de préparer, d’absorber et de s’adapter aux impacts physiques croissants du changement climatique.Read More
By Andrew Prag, OECD Environment Directorate
When COVID-19 began to spread around the world, it brought with it many uncertainties. But one thing was quickly clear: the depth of the economic and social crisis was going to require massive government intervention to rescue jobs and livelihoods, and to reinvigorate economic growth.
A wide chorus of voices, including the OECD, quickly began to call on governments to think beyond a pure economic recovery as they prepared these interventions. Study after study pointed to the opportunities for investing in greener technologies and infrastructure as a way to not only create jobs and reignite growth, but also to finally shift us onto a more sustainable path: an opportunity to combat climate change, biodiversity loss and other environmental crises head-on. And as the pandemic had brutally reminded us of our fragile relationship with, and dependence on nature, the case had never seemed clearer.
Encouragingly, many governments appeared to heed the call, with leaders lining up to commit to a “green recovery” and to “building back better” through the national and sub-national stimulus packages under preparation.Read More
By Nachilala Nkombo, WWF-Zambia Country Director, Kathleen Dominique, OECD Programme Lead Financing Water, and Andre Fourie, Global Director Water Sustainability, AB InBev
Last month, the theme of World Water Day — “valuing water” — encouraged everyone to take a moment to consider what water means to each of us. The result was revealing – a kaleidoscope of diverse responses reflecting how the value of water manifests differently for different people and different communities from home and family life to cultural practices, businesses, health and well-being. These are incredibly important facets of the value of water. But, it also raises the question about whether all these individual reflections are sufficient to illuminate a broader collective understanding of the centrality of water systems to economies, communities and ecosystems.
Water presents a paradox of the essential. It is a critical resource for societies and economies – even a life sustaining one for people and nature. Nevertheless, it is chronically under-valued. Water usually only garners attention and investment when it is running out or has caused a disaster. Fortunately, we are starting to see a shift in how water is appreciated, with companies starting to move beyond a focus on water efficiency behind their own fence lines to a broader focus on watershed health. Similarly, investors are beginning to channel capital towards water-related investments and understanding how water risks can impact their portfolios. And governments are working to improve water policies, infrastructure and management.Read More
By Catherine Gamper and Mikaela Rambali, OECD Environment Directorate
Even if global average temperature increases are limited to below 2°C, there will still be serious climate impacts. Since pre-industrial times, we have witnessed a global average temperature increase of 1.1°C, while ocean acidity has increased by 26%. An increasing number of destructive weather-related extreme events are taking place. The intensity and scale of the wildfires that affected Australia and California in 2019-20, for example, were attributed to climate change.
Until now, efforts to mitigate and to adapt to climate change have been led by distinct policy communities, building on specific knowledge and information, and mobilising different stakeholders to address distinct technological and distributional challenges. However, the issues of mitigation and adaptation are linked and when addressed jointly, their impact and effectiveness can be reinforced. The G20 leaders recently acknowledged “the importance of fostering synergies between adaptation and mitigation, including through nature-based solutions and ecosystem based approaches”. National climate policies also reflect this synergy, such as in the UK’s Adaptation Communication issued in December 2020, which highlights the allocation of EUR 700 million from the Nature for Climate Fund to nature-based solutions that promote synergies between mitigation and adaptation.Read More