Spatial analysis of climate change

We all know David Harvey’s concept of ‘spatial fix” (Harvey, 2001). Globalisation is rather a reconfiguration of space, a geographical relocation of capitalist activity (i.e. deindustrialisation in Europe leads to deindustrialization in Asia Pacific) across different spaces around the world, creating a new epoch of development and income inequality and recalibrating world political power. It provides an endless “spatial fixes” for capitalism to solve its unresolvable inner contradiction, that is, any built landscape (through capital accumulation) is deemed to be destroyed at a certain point (over accumulation of capital leads to devaluation) in order to search for a new ‘spatial fix’ where the capital accumulation cycle continues (accumulation by dispossession) (Harvey, 2004). 

As I have constantly repeated in many of my posts, economic growth (the supply side in particular) greatly depends on the stability of the environment, that is, its resource/raw material security to sustain further economic development. The built space may become underproduce if capitalists fail to renew or maintain the production conditions (social, ecological and environmental), whilst cost-minimisation behaviour drives capitalists to accumulate in order to reduce costs like labour welfare and environmental costs (Foster, 2002), which ultimately leads to supply-side crises. Failure of profit strategies entails in deeper crisis, which causes deterioration of previous production condition, including urban decay and irreversible ecological degradation such as air pollution and soil degradation. This is the ecological Marxist theory, or the second contradiction of capitalism according to James R. O’Connor, which destruction of production conditions is often triggered by capitalists’ response to a crisis of over-accumulation (p.158-86, O’Connor, 1998). As such, capitalists may search for another ‘spatial fix’ to start over again. 

Cartoonist:  Mike Adams

Source: www.NaturalNews.com

So what does it mean to climate change? Regarding the catastrophic ecological (air) condition and sluggish economic growth in China, economic restructuring to a more balanced economy (developing servicing sector) is possible under the the pressure from the market and emission cuts. Yet, world demand for manufacturing products maintains while their production in China reduces. Capitalists will start searching for new spatial fix, potentially in Southeast Asia or Africa, and repeat the accumulation processes. Air pollution problem in China may be improved, but in fact it is ‘geographically relocated’ to spaces where the new world manufacturing hub is centred. As such, world emission has never been reduced. Technological fix such as investing in greener production and energy sources would help to improve the condition, yet it depends on the accessibility of these potentially industrialised countries to these technologies. 

The Clean Development Mechanism is another example of the ecological Marxism theory. The mechanism is simply a spatial fix to climate change led by the strongest economies in the world. The carbon permit trading for instance, has created ‘an external space for production of carbon sink capacity in the South and an internal space for the consumption of carbon sink capacity in the North’ (Bryant, 2009), which leads to arising ecological costs (land degradation caused by deforestation and pollution) and climate crisis (relocation of production line raises pollution issues) in the South. Additionally, such fix only transfers the ecological crisis to the South, leaving an social impression that carbon emission in the North is reduced, and thereby recirculates the problem of air pollution and intensifies future climate change.

I agree shifting to greener energy sources and production would help ease the problem of global warming. Low oil prices may push the world economy to renewable sources and foster green technology development, moving the mode of consumption and production away from unsustainable fossil fuels. The way to decarbonisation is ideal yet challenging, especially in times of global economy downturn. Although the developed nations have agreed to raise $100 billion a year from 2020 in the Paris Agreement to help development in developing countries, the latter request more of it (BBC news). How these assistance should be spent is questionable — to increase social resilience against changing climate or to invest in greener energy sources; whether the richer nations are willing to provide assistance in the times of austerity is another issue to sort out. We might have celebrated a historical climate accord at the Paris Conference 2015, but the consensus did not make the challenge of climate change mitigation more straightforward.

What a world of contradictions. 

The path of decarbonisation

Source: Fotolia

After all the analyses I have made in my previous posts, it is clear that climate change imposes great impacts on global economic stability and political secureness. Estimations given in Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change suggests failure to slow down impacts of climate change will result in an overall costs comparable to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, greater risks and impacts may push the estimates even higher to 20% of GDP or more. This makes global effort to reduce impacts of climate change immensely crucial and imminent. Unlike previous UN Climate Conferences which attempted to resolve the problem through incremental change, the COP 21 has assured a serious transformation that is “good enough to tip the world decisively towards rapid decarbonisation” (Johan Rockström, 2015).

The Paris Agreement 2015, agreed by all participating 195 countries, sets the goal of keeping global warming well-below 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels by cutting greenhouse gas emissions though all kinds of decarbonisation methods. Additionally, the agreement recognises the importance of adaptation and resilience capabilities of societies to the changing climates, as damages were done and reversing the current climate condition is simply impossible. While these capabilities can be enhanced through provision of implementation resources such as access to clean energy technologies and financing, the effectiveness of the proposal is highly depended on how it is implemented and enforced at the national level (Helgesom and Ellis, 2015).

Despite the historic climate accord, the effectiveness of the “ambitious and balanced” agreement is still questionable.

1. Ratification from high-emission nations
   The Agreement will only become legally obligatory when the high-emission nations including the US and China, which contribute over 55% world’s greenhouse gas emissions, have ratified the Agreement. 
2. The “nationally determined contribution” lacks enforcement mechanism
   The bottom-up approach of the agreement allows countries to set their own goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These goals are voluntary and vary significant depending the country’s reliance on the carbon economy. Not surprisingly, you will not be punished or sanctioned if the targets set are not met. 
3. The equity issues
   It is not fair to those nations, which have contribute almost nothing to climate change yet suffering from irreplaceable environmental damages and economic losses, to reduce that tiny bit of greenhouse gas emission. Although the agreement urges the at least $100 billion financial assistance annually to developing countries, there is doubt on the activeness of developed countries in helping other nations, considering their own internal economic and environmental affairs aroused by the determination to reduce GHG emissions. 

There is still optimism in this agreement though. In a classical economic perspective, high oil price helps accelerate decarbonisation as it increases costs and reduce efficiency. Yet the current persisted low oil price seems to be more effective in redirecting the world economy from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources. 

WYI crude oil price in past 1 year. 

Source: Nasdaq market data

Brent crude oil price in past 1 year. 

Source: Nasdaq market data

The ambition of the agreement in accelerating decarbonisation has given a clear signal to world economy that the global political leadership is entering a new sustainable epoch. This should encourages more investments and business confidence in new energy and sustainable technology researches and developments. 

Increasing trend in global investment in renewable energy. 

Source: UNEP, Bloomberg New Energy Finance

Profit-maximising energy companies will also see an urgent need to reorient their business plan to renewable energy systems as profits from conventional fossil fuels are becoming economically unsustainable and politically inconsistent. We shall expect a global shift towards low-carbon economy in the coming years. 

Climate change and geopolitics

Source: Joy of Cartoon Pictures

Just wanted to express how astonished I was when I looked out of the window and realised it was raining cats and dogs, on a normally cool and dry December day in Hong Kong. While heavy rains are normally recorded during the monsoon season, some districts received over 40mm rainfall in an hour this afternoon. The Amber rainstorm signal (rainfall > 30mm in an hour) was held for 45 minutes, the first time for the Hong Kong Observatory to flag such a signal in January since 1998. 

Hong Kong hourly isohyet map on 5 Jan 2016. 

Source: The Hong Kong Observatory

Hong Kong rainfall and temperature average in December. According to past rainfall records, the monthly mean rainfall for December is 26.8mm.  

Source: The Hong Kong Observatory

But I guess I’m not the only one who is surprised by last month’s weather, as part of the world has experienced a much wetter and warmer December, thanks to El Nino, or in fact, climate change?

Of course, this December had been extraordinary to most of the world. It does not only arouse our attention, again, to the possible devastating impacts of climate change including droughts, floods and other potential natural hazards, but also bringing up the unaware socioeconomics issues such as food and water scarcity intensified by reduced resource availability caused by climate change. It’s not hard to realise climate change is in fact a cross-disciplinary problem and would have knock-on effects on social lives and public health, the economies, and even geopolitics. 

Devin C Bowles et al. have elaborated well in the review on Climate change, conflict and health on how climate change is recognised as a fundamental source of conflict and health risk. Climate change alters global temperature and precipitation and thus has the effect on reducing natural resource availability (food crops and water in particular), which ultimately increases the probability of conflicts. Take Syria as an example, where the persisted half-decade drought is proved to be worsened by climate change, which led to food insecurity and rupture of social fabric and resilience. Effects of the drought were amplified by long existed government corruption, inappropriate government policies such as poor natural resource management, over-reliant on agriculture (including unsustainable extraction of groundwater) and high demographic growth. Food insecurity and government incompetence to alleviate poverty and increase social resilience forced its citizens to emigrate to nearby countries and thus, created a ground for discontent and rebel, which strived to become the ‘guarantors of security’. 

 I am sharing this from a different perspective suggested by the Chinese Geographer, but we are down to the same conclusion that climate change will cause knock-on effects on poverty, resource insecurities and health issues, which impacts will resonate across over the world politics and economy. 

Source: 8Fact twitter

Although the review possesses an environmentalist preference, conflicts are often a result of a mix of complex issues varying from economics, geopolitics, state capacity and government policy, and other social elements. However, all conflicts are fundamentally fuelled by poverty or the fear of falling into poverty, including reduced availability of natural resources or other resource insecurities. This makes climate change the most plausible explanation for tipping the world’s political and economic instability. 

Despite scholars have insisted that the wet and warm December (for some regions) won’t be the norm for decades, we shall expect more extreme weather next year when El Nino is predicted to be at its strongest. Mitigating climate change is imminent, yet it would be more effective if the problem is known to have greater impacts to the economies, security and health. Governments would only know how to prioritise when their national interests is loss. 

El Niño and the economy

Source: Bloomberg Business

We had the strongest El Niño in 2015 and is likely to grow stronger estimated by the scientists, leading to more weather extremes and hazards and associated casualties and property damages. What's more is that increased occurrence of extreme weather condition brings significant economic and political impacts, which resonates all over the world. Here are some examples:

• Reduced monsoon rains in southeastern Asia parts of Africa brings negative impacts on crop yields. For instance, Thailand is expecting a 20% reduction in rice yield as a result of drier monsoon weather. Fall in supply leads to rise in food and commodity prices, making it more difficult for these developing countries to curb inflation. 

• Increased food insecurity and persistent low oil prices are likely to worsen economic pressure and political stability in the Middle East, which may lead to more political unrests and social instability. In regards to Syria condition, this encourages more immigration to Europe, setting greater social and political pressure on national security and resource allocation in European countries.