Here’s the second of three posts on the shifting ethics of climate change, timed with recent events in Durban. The first, about the changing facts of cumulative emissions, and what this means for historical arguments for action, is here. This post considers arguments for action that employ talk of emissions rights or the call for equal per capita shares.
Some moral arguments for action on climate change depend not on the past but the present. They get us past a certain sort of recrimination – an objection to historical arguments on the grounds of a lack of foreknowledge on the part of the West – and move us all in the direction of equality with a clear and green conscience.
You might think, for example, that however we got to where we are, the benefits and burdens associated with using fossil fuels ought now be shared out equally. That’s what human beings ought to do with a limited, scarce and common resource. Maybe this is something you think follows from reflection on distributive justice or fairness. Maybe it has to do with emissions rights, which follow in a way from the rights that some argue all human beings have – rights to a secure and free life, for example.
If there are ‘safe’ emissions levels, if we can think clearly about the planet’s sinks as common resources to be divided up equally, then it follows pretty sharply that everyone on the planet has an equal right to emit within those safe limits. Perhaps you think in terms of a greenhouse budget, that some maximum concentration of greenhouses gasses in the atmosphere is acceptable, and we must divvy up the shares that remain equally, and take care to stay under that limit. (Here’s Peter Singer, arguing for a ‘fair deal on climate change’; you can read more details in ‘One Atmosphere’ in his book, One World.)
Whichever of these lines you choose to take, given the enormous levels of emission per capita in the West, it’s been argued on almost all sides that the West has an obligation to reign in its consumption, bringing it down and in line with others whose use of the planet’s common resources is less reckless. This, anyway, is part of the thinking behind such things as the contraction and convergence model, advocated with gusto by Aubrey Meyer and the Global Commons Institute and endorsed by a very large number of people and organizations, as a means to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions equitably. The idea is that some safe global emissions ceiling is set, everyone has an equal right to emit greenhouse gasses beneath that ceiling, and countries get emissions budgets based on population. High per capita emissions in the developed world contract, leaving room for the developing world to develop its way out of poverty, while levels converge beneath some safe threshold and, together, wind down and avoid the worst of climate change.
The plan has many supporters – these quotations are from the Global Commons Institute’s website.
“If we agree to per capita allowances for all by 2030 then assigned amounts for Annex One countries would be drastically reduced. However, because all countries would have assigned amounts, maximum use of global emissions trading would strongly reduce the cost of compliance. In such a scenario Industrial Countries would have to do more, but it would be cheaper and easier.”
Jan Pronk COP6 2000, Dutch Environment Minister
“Liberal Democrats argue for the principle of contraction and convergence with the long-term goal of equalising per capita emissions globally.”
Chris Huhne, now the UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
“When we ask the opinions of people from all circles, many people, in particular the scientists, think the emissions control standard should be formulated on a per capita basis. According to the UN Charter, everybody is born equal, and has inalienable rights to enjoy modern technological civilization.”
China State Counsellor Dr Song Jian, COP 3 1997
“We do not believe that the ethos of democracy can support any norm other than equal per capita rights to global environmental resources.”
Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Prime Minister of India, 2002
“The international climate regime should be based on legitimate principles of equity, such as long-term convergence of emission levels per capita in the various countries.”
Nicholas Sarkozy President of France 2008
“In the final analysis the per capita emissions in emerging economies will meet those of industrialised countries. I cannot imagine the emerging economies will one day be permitted to emit more CO2 per capita than we in the industrialised countries. With this proposal, emerging nations with rapidly expanding economies could be on board the global climate negotiations scheduled for 2009.”
Angela Merkel President of Germany 2008
But, again, the facts are changing. Around ten years ago, this was, and some places it still is, the model used for thinking about contraction and convergence:
The idea is that, fairly rapidly after 2000, developed countries have a steep drop in emissions to make, while China, India and the rest of the world can grow a bit, meeting us in 2030, where we all cruise downwards, eventually to nearly preindustrial levels in one hundred years or so. (EDIT: Note that the GCI has new models, updated for the current state of play, with new, challenging emissions reductions. You can see those, and the GCI’s dim view of the Durban platform, here.)
The trouble is that, in 2012, the world looks much different than it did just ten or even five years ago. The developed world has not undertaken a programme of rapid per capita emissions reduction, and China, India and the rest have not just grown a bit, with their emissions likely to flatten out and on course to meet us on the way down in 2030. While it is a mixed bag, with some countries taking steps to lower emissions rates, and indeed emissions dipping in places during the recession, the trend in global emissions has always been upwards – the global increase is now 45% on 1990 levels, coincidentally the date of the IPCC’s first assessment report.
According to a report published by the European Commission in September and another by the International Energy Agency this year, 2010 was a record year in terms of increasing emissions. The long term annual average increase in emissions from 1990 is 1.9%, but in 2010 the increase was 5.8%, the largest jump ever recorded. This was driven partly by increases in China of 10% and India of 9%, as well as rises in the developed world, notably the USA.
How far have we strayed from the lines on that graph? The USA’s emissions have not dropped sharply, but increased by 11% on 1990 levels. China did not slowly grow, but passed the US as the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide in 2006. Amazingly, again according to the European Commission, China’s per capita emissions could equal US levels by 2017 – it’s thought China has already overtaken France and Spain. China has promised not to let itself reach US levels, and its investment in renewables is huge, but it is astonishing to think that a country with a billion more people in it could match the United States in its bloated per capita emissions rates in just 5 years. It’s growth on an extraordinary scale.
The trouble with the moral equation and present emissions is not just this mess of facts, but the time we have left between now and 2030. It made sense at the start of this century to talk about emissions rights and equal per capita shares, which we might divvy up and keep under a safe emissions limit. As we move closer to the point of convergence, the 2030 deadline and the so called safe threshold, our ability to do the right thing, our room for moral manoeuvring, wanes. Emissions rates, on this model, should have begun falling rapidly in the West 5 or 10 years ago, but they have generally increased. Per capita emissions in the developing world had a bit of breathing room, but were not expected to rocket up past our own, already excessive levels.
Kant’s dictum, ought implies can, is something worth reflecting on in this connection. It makes sense to say that we ought to do something only if we actually can do it. It makes sense to call for climate justice, to demand that emissions be shared out equally among the people of the world beneath some safe threshold, only if this is something we in fact can do. There is now at least the possibility that it is now too late to do the right thing — it might already be too late for the LCDs and small island states, who are calling for an immediate deal and even tougher targets. As the space on the graph between us and 2030 compresses, and the lines we have to contemplate riding out become steeper and steeper and therefore further and further from the realm of the physically possible, the possibility that it’s too late is genuinely before us. Facts here intrude on morality, and sometimes the possibility of doing the right or just or equitable thing can slip beyond our grasp if we let it.
This kind of thing isn’t entirely outside our experience. Suppose you’re at an office party, your friend has been drinking, and you know he’s going to make a fool of himself as he walks towards the boss. You’ve got a few moments to grab his arm and save him from trouble he doesn’t deserve. But in that moment, at a certain point, it becomes too late for you to act, and in a single quiet breath, all your inner reflection about what you ought to do changes, passes from a live practical question to something theoretical, to a moot discussion of what you might have done or should have done. Maybe it becomes regret. We’ve all felt that, that sense of a chance slipping away. It’s possible to have that feeling about sharing out emissions rights. It’s possible to have that feeling about this part of the moral dimension of climate change.
We’ll turn to sustainability arguments, which depend on the future, not the past or present, in the next post. Meanwhile, I’d like to know what you think about arguments for equal emissions rights. What I’m contemplating is that calls for equal rights to emit will at some point bang up against so called ‘safe emissions thresholds’. What do we do when it’s too late to for ‘climate justice’? There are further thoughts to be had about morality in extremis. As it gets harder and harder to do the right thing, as ‘safe’ emissions pathways get more and more steep, is there room to excuse ourselves, and say that equal emissions rights are just beyond us? I’d say no, but it’s hard to square that with other things that seem true.
Article above said: – “You can see GCI’s dim view of the Durban platform at gci.org.uk ”
Best look for this here: –
http://www.gci.org.uk/COP-17.html
For links to resources GCI has created over the past 20 years on ‘the appropriate *rates* of C&C’ look here: – http://www.gci.org.uk/rates.html
‘C&C is inevitably required for UNFCCC-compliance’ UNFCCC Exec 2004 – http://www.gci.org.uk/Pasztor.png
Feeling its ‘too late for C&C’ says its ‘too late for all of us’.
The islands obviously feel that already: – http://www.gci.org.uk/COP-17.html
Aubrey — many thanks for those links. The one about rates looks particularly helpful, and I’ll have a look now.
The idea of equal emission rights seems fair to me.
If it’s too late and it well be may, since given the current economic crisis, I doubt that world leaders are willing to sacrifice any measures that stimulate economic growth (and their possibilities of being re-elected) for the sake of combating climate change, there’s what you call morality in extremis.
It’s hard to predict what one would do in extremis.
It’s even harder to say what one should do in extremis, especially if it’s a situation that is only going to get worse. It’s like one of those questions about what ethics on the train to Auschwitz is about.
It’s not that just the gloves come off in extremis, but also that the masks come off and the social identities fail, which may convert some of us into enlightened Buddhas and many of us into wolves, I would expect.
Amos – that is painful because it is very sharply observed. The linking of this situation to Nazi Germany hurts. Many denied Auschwitz per se, let-alone that there even were trains to it.
This wasn’t because it wasn’t there, and it wasn’t because people didn’t know it was there. It seems this denial was because not to deny it created an unbearable moral crisis and people didn’t know what to do about the situation – oppose it and die?
Its not the whole story, but it is an important part of it.
The only difference now is that if we lose the islands because of settling for too-little too-late, that response ensures that the body-count extends well beyond the islands, probably eventually to all of us.
Do we oppse that or just go along with it?
GHU
It’s difficult for me to get past the unresolved scientific questions, but since we seem to be (according to the alarmists) past the point of no return, I wonder if the appeals to the human emotion of fear have begun to work against the agenda of the alarmists.
The thought of “rights to a secure and free life” boggle my mind, but wouldn’t that be nice. I wonder who or what government agency will provide that?
The UNFCCC Exec said in 2004 “C&C is inevitably required to achieve the objective of the Convention.” http://www.gci.org.uk/Pasztor.png
Bill – truly, we’re all boggled – but what rates of C&C would you suggest for UNFCCC-compliance? http://www.gci.org.uk/rates.html
Aubrey,
I suppose that since we may want to try to do something if the “alarmists” prove to be correct, we could start thinking about what we may be able to do, but I admit that I have no answers for you.
Dammit Aubry, I’m an amateur philosopher not a C&C scientist!
Bill – there’s no shame in admitting that and it has the virtue of being honest.
The real crisis is ‘epistemological’ – it is nigh impossible to make sense, let alone moral-sense, of the crisis-of-meaning ‘globalization of everything’ puts us all in.
One UN Exec says C&C inevitably required. Another says its “too logical.” A voice close by whispers ‘At its heart lurks an ideologically contestable assumption” . . . [whoo . . . ] . . .
Other silly things said are here: – http://www.gci.org.uk/support.html
What a mess.
I am just a dumb-ass mus and for me C&C is just ‘logical’ like this: – http://www.gci.org.uk/animations/vibrating-strings.swf
http://www.gci.org.uk/music.html
Bill – I mentioned rights here as this comes from a series on human rights and the environment. The government agency meant to ‘provide that’ is the UN, I suppose, and countires that have signed legally binding human rights treaties and laws.
This is turning into a bit of a links fest, but it’s all interesting stuff — primer here: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
James I don’t see my response to Bill.
Is there a problem?
“John Reilly, co-director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s program on climate change, told the AP that scientists have generally found the IPCC predictions to be too conservative… Reilly reported that the IPCC’s worst-case scenario was about in the middle of the MIT scientists’ estimates of likely outcomes.”
Noam Chomsky:
“The consensus is only “near-unanimous” because it doesn’t include the many experts who feel that climate-change warnings don’t go far enough, and the marginal group that deny the threat’s validity altogether. The standard “he says/she says” coverage of the issue keeps to what is called “balance”: the overwhelming majority of scientists on one side, the denialists on the other. The scientists who issue the more dire warnings are largely ignored.”
Marching Off the Cliff
http://www.truth-out.org/marching-cliff/1323195281
Aubrey,
With all due respect, C&C could be a logical solution to fix the world (save the planet), if it needs fixing or if we can fix it.
May I suggest that we are thinking and going about this in the wrong way? Perhaps we should stop trying to keep the world from doing what it does best (change) and try to do what life on this world does best (adapt to the changing world).
James,
Thanks for the link. I will read it and try to understand it, but my first instinct is to reject it because it is difficult for me to think that more and bigger government could ever be the best solution to any problem. I was afraid that big government was what you were leading to.
Bill, if you feel sanguine about doing that and adapting to what is becoming climate-genocide, who I am to say how you should feel?
Aubrey,
Genocide? How am I to take you seriously after that?
Bill
IF, just for the sake of argument, you accept the scientific predictions, that small nations will disappear beneath the oceans, that many many people will die as a result of the environmentally destructive processes we are all complicit in, would you still maintain that talk of ‘genocide’ is totally out of place?
It may seem (even be) a big IF but can you at least see why it might seem the appropraite language to use if you are truly convinced by the science?
Jim,
I think we need to keep our wits about us and not give in to fear. Is it really so hard to think that we can adapt when we always have. Can’t we find places for the people of small islands to live?
Bill:
I suppose that at the last moment they’ll evacuate people from small islands to dry land, but their way of life, which undoubtedly means as much to them as our way of life means to us, will disappear.
The disappearance of one’s way of life may not be technically “genocide”, but it’s not a pleasant fate.
By the way, Holland is highly populated and in some places, below current sea level. What will happen to Holland if the sea level rises?
Would the Dutch, with their distinctive, often liberal customs, want to be evacuated to
Texas? Or to the Argentinian pampa? Or to
Siberia?
Amos,
I don’t know that Texas is where to send the Dutch – what with it turning into a dust bowl, ravaged by drought, forest fires and dust storms. Along with much of the rest of the it will be incapbale of growing crops to feed its own population. Its also not known for welcoming immigrants.
As for Siberia, presently their land is turning to mud, the trees are falling over, the roads are being destroyed and the houses are falling down or being demolished, and the thawing is ruining their food supply. But it may well be quite nice in the long run.
As for the Argentinian Pampas I don’t know.
How about Mato Grosso?
I’m sure the Dutch would love the climate.
“By the way, Holland is highly populated and in some places, below current sea level. What will happen to Holland if the sea level rises?”
Build the barriers higher, or move to higher ground; as they did in the past.
One fundamental difficulty I have with all the “end is nigh” wailing is that both Homo sapiens, and other living things, have survived far greater changes in the past. There is very strong evidence, in hundreds of records, that the Medieval Warm Period is as warm as it is now, or warmer. The Medieval Warm Period is also sometimes called the Medieval Climate Optimum: that should tell you something.
And there was the Holocene Climate Optimum (via Wikipedia):
Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites. At 16 sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than present. Northwestern North America had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, while the Laurentide ice sheet still chilled the continent. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later. Along the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska, there are indications of summer temperatures 2–3C warmer than present.[5] Research indicates that the Arctic had substantially less sea ice during this period compared to present.[6]
“I suppose that at the last moment they’ll evacuate people from small islands to dry land, but their way of life, which undoubtedly means as much to them as our way of life means to us, will disappear.”
And now for a bit of reality:
“Auckland University’s Associate Professor Paul Kench, a member of the team of scientists, says the results challenge the view that Pacific islands are sinking due to rising sea levels associated with climate change.
“Eighty per cent of the islands we’ve looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, gotten larger,” he said. “Some of those islands have gotten dramatically larger, by 20 or 30 per cent. We’ve now got evidence the physical foundations of these islands will still be there in 100 years.” Dr Kench says the growth of the islands can keep pace with rising sea levels.
The Maldives are also “sinking” beneath the waves. In fact, it is happening so fast that they are busy building 11 new airports to ferry people off. What?
Links
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growing-not-sinking/851738
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/7438683/rising-credulity.thtml
Holocene Climate Optimum
‘In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns)’ accroding to the paragraph directly above.
RE: Mid-Holocene Warm Period
“the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html
Keith,
I’m not going to engage in bunk and debunk ping-pong with you here but as a final response to you, here’s some details you didn’t see fit to mention:
Professor Paul Kench, of Auckland University… said the study suggested the islands had a natural ability to respond to rising seas by accumulating coral debris from the outlying reefs that surround them….
But the two scientists warn that people living on the islands still face serious challenges from climate change, particularly if the pace of sea level rises were to overtake that of sediment build-up.
The fresh groundwater that sustains villagers and their crops could be destroyed.
“The land may be there but will they still be able to support human habitation?” he said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/tuvalu/7799503/Pacific-islands-growing-not-shrinking-due-to-climate-change.html
JPH: “I’m not going to engage in bunk and debunk ping-pong with you here but as a final response to you, here’s some details you didn’t see fit to mention:”
But the point I was making is that many of these islands are not sinking, and this is one central claim about the problems of climate change for these societies.
The “details” you add concern hypothetical future threats, and we can come up with as many of those as we want.
And I did put in the link so everyone could read the article for themselves.
“the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven “astronomical” climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.”
The point is not whether that mechanism is operating now. The point is that there is much natural climate variability — with the planet being both warmer and colder than now — and catastrophes did not occur.
“Meanwhile, I’d like to know what you think about arguments for equal emissions rights. What I’m contemplating is that calls for equal rights to emit will at some point bang up against so called ’safe emissions thresholds’. What do we do when it’s too late to for ‘climate justice’? There are further thoughts to be had about morality in extremis. As it gets harder and harder to do the right thing, as ’safe’ emissions pathways get more and more steep, is there room to excuse ourselves, and say that equal emissions rights are just beyond us? I’d say no, but it’s hard to square that with other things that seem true.”
This, ultimately, boils down to an argument about what “equal emissions rights” would mean in practice and how we would get there. For instance, although China is now the largest emitter of CO2, its emissions per capita are far below those of, say, the US or Australia.
On the other hand, I have no doubt that there are individuals in China, and other developing countries, whose personal emissions are far higher than mine (I live close to where I work and shop and very rarely fly, for instance).
Further, as the aim is to reduce emissions overall, then — somehow — everyone’s emissions will have to go down: we can’t get to equal emissions by raising emissions in developing countries.
In the absence of some energy revolution, this means massively scaling back energy consumption in most places, especially, of course, in developed countries. Doing so in the near future would entail taking away most of what makes “modern society” modern. Even massive increases in renewable energy sources would not be sufficient as these sources of energy are inefficient and unreliable.
This would necessarily result in a huge reduction in the standard of living and would, inevitably, result in the death of many people. Even now in the UK, there are many who live in “fuel poverty” and are unable to afford to adequately heat their homes in winter.
The environmental effects of this would, arguably, be worse than the supposed effects of climate change. Already, wind and solar farms are challenged by many environmentalists who argue that they disturb natural habitats and kill wildlife.
Even without those problems, you have the — I would argue insolvable — problem of deciding how much CO2 each individual was allowed to emit. Some have suggested ration schemes but giving everyone an equal ration of CO2 to emit would be inherently unfair. While those of us in warmer climates could possibly reduce our use of air conditioning, turning off the heat in colder areas would be suicidal. And what of the sick? Any scheme would be ripe for rorting, so the poor would end up worse off but the rich and influential would be unaffected. (In this context, we might take note of the climate catastrophe prophets who clock up more air miles in a week than I have in my entire life.)
It has become almost customary these for us to exchange insights derived from various positions on the ‘climate-incredulity-scale’ . . . [I can't believe that/this etc] . . .
But it still comes back to the original question implicit in this whole thread: if the UNFCCC-Executive say that ‘C&C is inevitably needed for UNFCCC-Compliance’, what rates of C&C would you advocate? http://www.gci.org.uk/rates.html
You did indeed link to a reputable article. I concede the point in good grace.
James
“But it still comes back to the original question implicit in this whole thread: if the UNFCCC-Executive say that ‘C&C is inevitably needed for UNFCCC-Compliance’, what rates of C&C would you advocate? http://www.gci.org.uk/rates.html”
First, this question assumes that governments will agree to C&C. Given the outcomes at Copenhagen, and now Durban, this seems unlikely in the near future. The agreement at Durban was to work towards an agreement to be signed in 2015 and to take effect from 2020.
Second, my response to the question is this: Only such a rate as arises naturally from increases in energy efficiency and changes in populations and the ways in which they use energy.
I will contact Jeremy and try to have it removed.
“I’m sorry I was simply being formal and respectful in conceding the point. You have used your full name on this site before. There was no intent to cause you any profesional embarssment.”
Fine. I accept that. And appreciate your prompt response. Unfortunately, because the internet never forgets, and there are some strange people on it (not referring to you), I think it sensible to be a little cautious, particularly with respect to some issues.
Further, I appreciate your graciousness, in conceding the point, given that this is so frequently absent on the internet; although not, of course, here.
Having said that, there is no need to be more formal or respectful to me than I am to myself!
Keith,
I quite understand and again apologise.
It had occurred to me that trying to engage with yourself and other more considered members of your ‘camp’ in a more measured and ‘respectful’ manner might be more appropriate and productive. These discussions can become heated – and that’s fine up to a point – but I thought I’d rather not see, and help cause, yet another one to descend into shambolic point-scoring where nobody learns anything from the encounter.
“It had occurred to me that trying to engage with yourself and other more considered members of your ‘camp’ in a more measured and ‘respectful’ manner might be more appropriate and productive.”
Fair enough but I’m not in any particular “camp” and the opinions I express, to the extent that they make any sense, are mine alone. On the issue of catastrophic climate change, I believe that most people with this particular view, hold it sincerely, based on their considered view of what they have seen and heard.
And, of course, I accept that my views may be mistaken, in part or full. I certainly do not regard myself as infallible on this, or any other, issue. But, if I am to express an opinion at all, it has to be based on what I believe to be correct at the time.
Also, I do not think that everything done in the name of catastrophic climate change is necessarily wrong. It is perfectly sensible to try to use energy more efficiently. It is also perfectly sensible to try to preserve natural ecosystems.
Unfortunately, I think some things done in the name of sustainability and preventing climate change do more harm to the environment than good: biofuels is a case in point.
Further, some of the more dramatic claims about climate change seem to me to be attempts to scare people into doing things they would not otherwise do: the politics of fear. I believe this to be wrong.
Keith – the rates of C&C proposed at COP-15 were as in the UK Climate Act were as follows: – http://www.gci.org.uk/public/COP_15_C&C.swf
Contraction over 100 years with convergence by 2050. China/G-77 rejected this, having said they proposed immediate convergence: – http://www.gci.org.uk/Chinese_Government.html
I have been involved in these negotiations for 21 years so GC/I doesn’t assume Governments will do anything one way or another. All C&C assumes is that since UNFCCC-compliance is ‘legally binding’ and C&C is inevitably needed for that, the rates of C&C is the issue: – http://www.gci.org.uk/images/C1_C2_C3.pdf
I see that you are reluctant to really engage with that, most people are. After 20 years and some success with this: – http://www.gci.org.uk/awards.html the Guardian has now taken to denouncing C&C: – http://www.gci.org.uk/support.html
That said, climate change is the problem not C&C, which is potentially the frame-worked solution to that problem and this is recognized by many parties: – http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements.html
Keith, you say that the environmental and maybe economic effects of scaling back emissions would, arguably, be worse than the effects of climate change.
Depends how we do it, of course, but there are economists like Stern who argue that cuts now, shifts to renewables now, are in our economic interest. The longer we leave it the more difficult the changes will be.
I don’t think I can agree, if that’s what your’re saying, that a measured shift away from growth could be worse than the effects of climate change, particularly the changes in the pipe past two degrees — some of those prospects are pretty awful. We’ll come on to that in the next post, so I’ll leave it for now.
Aubrey, I have to say I’m very glad you’re taking the time to take part in this disucssion.
You say C&C is a framework solution, but I wonder what you think about our actual prospects, particularly since you’ve been around and involved in this debate for so long.
Do the cuts required for us to stand a better than average chance of staying under 2 degrees (much less 1.5) seem genuinely possible to you? Interpret possible as you wish, but I was thinking physically possible. I know Clive Hamilton goes on about the percentage drops in emissions required, comparing them to smaller drops associated with upheavals like the break up of the former Soviet Union. Even if we had the political will, given how very late we’ve left it, is it still possible for us to do the right thing?
Amos,
I think the Dutch are a good example of how man has adapted to his environment in the past. I wonder how many new or modern methods of adaptation are possible within our current and future means.
If AGW is happening, adaptation is probably inevitable.
Dear James
Thank you for your kind comments. Life *is* a long road [riff] and then you die.
The will to succeed is great and the will to survive is why we [humanity] are still here.
Decide what to do and the universe will move with you.
The defining issue now is ‘third-party-discards’: they may be us – the will to survive says we can’t afford that . . .
C&C is only a way of suggesting to the warring factions at the UNFCCC how to resolve what has now become their endless and incredibly stupid argument.
Warm regards
Aubrey
How adapt do we think, is the current human thought and life? Don’t we still see residue of deterministic principles lingering around in the so-called evolved human mind? If that is combined with progress bound tendency of our today’s global civilization, i.e., tireless marching towards more dividends from converting the knowledge of the earth and universe, betterment of human life by means of new electronic gadgets, and longevity due to sophisticated medical care or sophisticated corrective measures, do we think, can we find a solution? (or should we call it salvation for humankind?) As a whole, we assume there will be an end to everything, to the world and to the self as well. We strive for better and better of everything, we suffer to be better. This line of thought seems spiritual philosophy (bear with me and read a little more). I think it is understandable from a simple analytical thinking. Any spiritual philosophy (pardon my generalization) slices and dices the problem and reduces it to an individual self. If one and all attains the greater ‘sense’ of everything, he/she loses interest in everything (read progress). No more pollution, no more corruption. Whether you think, this is b.s., or not, I suggest this funny and innovative idea to cool off the planet, we all can enjoy -> http://screen.yahoo.com/kristen-wiig-s-global-warming-solution-27452321.html. What you see in this video, is practiced in Hindu philosophy, it is called Pranayama -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pranayama
Pranayama
‘Ida, Pinglala’, come to where the two rivers meet ‘sushumna’.
Beloved.
“Texas is … not known for welcoming immigrants.”
The above statement is entirely false. In fact, in Texas there are thriving communities of German, Hispanic, and Vietnamese ancestry. Please come to Houston for a visit and witness the diversity. Our governor, conservative as he is, was blasted by outsiders for giving illegal Texas immigrants the right to attend Texas public colleges at subsidized rates. Our former governor, Bush, was in favor of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Perhaps you confuse Texas with Arizona or Alabama.
Oh, and I forgot to mention the 150,000 Louisiana residents welcomed to the Houston area after the Katrina disaster. 90,000 now live here permanently.
tanstaff,
It was a supid remark.
I withdraw it without reserve.
And I humbly apologise to the good people of Texas.
In the States, we say “don’t mess with Texas.”
The problem with “equal shares” as “fairness” is that people are not equal and an equal split is not always fair.
People are not equal – some are more productive that others. Why take resources from the productive and transfer them to the unproductive? That is not fairness – that is unfairness. The less productive already benefit greatly from the intelligence and labor of the more productive. To transfer resources from the productive would hurt everyone.
Here is another model of fairness: if you want resources, you need to *earn* them.
It’s often quoted that the USA consumes 25% of the world’s energy. It is not usually pointed out that the USA also produces 25% of the world’s output. And energy efficiency is increasing.