The University of Victoria in conjunction with the British Columbia government is releasing online a 4-part course on climate change. The programmes cut through the scientific jargon and present the facts in layman's language. The course was created for the BC public service and educators but is also available free to the public.
You can access it here. The course was created by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions which is hosted by U Vic in collaboration with UBC, Simon Fraser and the University of Northern British Columbia. The first module was unveiled Monday by BC EnviroMin Terry Lake at the Institute of Public Administration of Canada annual conference.
PICS director, Tom Pedersen, hopes the videos will go viral.
"I hope the public and policy-makers will understand when they are being duped by those segments of society that would rather we do nothing about acting on climate change," he said.
"Some sectors, driven by particular political ideologies, seem to think [that] if we continue to pollute the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, everything will be fine. Everything will not be fine."
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
The World Bank Weighs In On Global Warming
We're not to blame for it. It's what we do. It's human nature and it's also one of our greatest weaknesses.
Anthropologist Jared Diamond uses the term "landscape amnesia" to describe it. Imagine regularly driving across a near pristine Alpine meadow for forty years. Then, suddenly, there's a mega-shopping mall put in on each side of the road. It's a real shock at first but, within five or ten years, you come to accept it as normal, expected. It has all but erased the original view you had been so familiar with for decades.
Climate change works the same way. We forget about the past. We don't step outside in the morning and say, "wow, this is nothing like the 60's." We've largely erased what the 60's, the 70's, even the 80's were like and we've replaced all that with a new "normal," the climate of the second decade of the twenty first century. The thing is, if you don't remember how much it's all changed, you can't be alarmed by it, you can't respond to it. It's like boiling a frog.
The question is whether we're going to jump out of the pot before we're boiled alive. Vinod Thomas of the World Bank's Independent Evaluation Group has an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer warning that we have to act, and soon:
Flooding and windstorms in particular are linked with climate change, and the number of disastrous floods and storms reported globally has tripled over the past three decades. Very heavy precipitation increased sharply in the last half-century across the globe and in the United States, especially the Northeast and Midwest.
...New studies tie increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions with higher sea-level temperatures and changes in precipitation, indicating that human-caused climate change doubles the risk of extreme floods.
In the wake of the recent tornadoes that tore into seven Southern states, President Obama said, "We can't control when or where a terrible storm may strike, but we can control how we respond to it ." Indeed, the price of delayed response was brought home by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But water-related calamities have increased to the extent that rapid relief efforts won't be enough.
We must also take steps to prevent and mitigate such disasters. First and foremost, that means slowing the pace of climate change. This will take time, but as President John F. Kennedy said 50 years ago, "We must think and act not only for the moment, but for our time ."
...The key is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released, especially by shifting to a low-carbon economy. Energy prices must reflect the damage caused by emissions, especially in energy-intensive countries such as the United States. And promoting energy efficiency defers the need for more fossil-fuel plants, buying time for wind and solar power to become more competitive.
...Prevention also means environmental protection. Wetlands provide a buffer against flooding, but half of them worldwide - from Australia to the United States - have disappeared in the past century. Shrinking forests, meanwhile, have diminished protections against flooding and landslides. Examples of environmental solutions include the restoration of Vietnam's coastal wetlands to reduce erosion and the building of terraces in China's Loess Plateau to reduce flooding.
No longer can we respond to hazards of nature with cleanup and reconstruction alone. Climate change has introduced an unnatural dimension that calls for more preventive measures. Difficult as it is to muster the political will to do so, we must invest in slowing climate change, protecting the environment, controlling development, and improving warning systems. Only then can we lessen the fury and devastation of these events.
Of course Mr. Thomas is from that lefty, tree-hugger outfit, The World Bank. I'm slowly coming to appreciate that it may be the financial sector that finally sweeps the Tar Heads and Petro-Pols like Steve Harper off the porch and into the gutter where they belong.
Globally, the insurance sector is already being battered by the impacts of global warming and the essential fiscal safety net upon which our economies and societies are built is rapidly fraying. Throughout life - whether at home, on the road, in the boardroom - we take risks because we can buy protection to make potential loss bearable. What happens when that protection is no longer for sale, when we have to accept that risks are no longer economically survivable?
What happens when the US eastern seaboard or the Mississippi basin become off limits for flood or storm insurance? If the insurance companies won't carry the loss people expect governments to step in with disaster relief. Today's governments? The governments that are broke because they don't have the courage to levy taxes? Hell, my dog can do that much math.
As I read Mr. Thomas' op-ed I was struck that the only thing new in his remarks was that someone was actually saying these things. We shouldn't need someone like a World Bank guy to tell us this. We should already know it, all of us. Our governments all along should have kept us educated and well informed of these "inconvenient truths." That's their job, that's their duty. They owe us that much. Yet they stand mute about these things and they do that quite deliberately.
Floods and other severe storm events have tripled in just the past three decades! How can we possibly justify massively expanding production of the filthiest, high-carbon fossil fuel on the planet? How can we elect politicians from all parties content with doing just that?
Anthropologist Jared Diamond uses the term "landscape amnesia" to describe it. Imagine regularly driving across a near pristine Alpine meadow for forty years. Then, suddenly, there's a mega-shopping mall put in on each side of the road. It's a real shock at first but, within five or ten years, you come to accept it as normal, expected. It has all but erased the original view you had been so familiar with for decades.
Climate change works the same way. We forget about the past. We don't step outside in the morning and say, "wow, this is nothing like the 60's." We've largely erased what the 60's, the 70's, even the 80's were like and we've replaced all that with a new "normal," the climate of the second decade of the twenty first century. The thing is, if you don't remember how much it's all changed, you can't be alarmed by it, you can't respond to it. It's like boiling a frog.
The question is whether we're going to jump out of the pot before we're boiled alive. Vinod Thomas of the World Bank's Independent Evaluation Group has an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer warning that we have to act, and soon:
Flooding and windstorms in particular are linked with climate change, and the number of disastrous floods and storms reported globally has tripled over the past three decades. Very heavy precipitation increased sharply in the last half-century across the globe and in the United States, especially the Northeast and Midwest.
...New studies tie increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions with higher sea-level temperatures and changes in precipitation, indicating that human-caused climate change doubles the risk of extreme floods.
In the wake of the recent tornadoes that tore into seven Southern states, President Obama said, "We can't control when or where a terrible storm may strike, but we can control how we respond to it ." Indeed, the price of delayed response was brought home by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But water-related calamities have increased to the extent that rapid relief efforts won't be enough.
We must also take steps to prevent and mitigate such disasters. First and foremost, that means slowing the pace of climate change. This will take time, but as President John F. Kennedy said 50 years ago, "We must think and act not only for the moment, but for our time ."
...The key is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being released, especially by shifting to a low-carbon economy. Energy prices must reflect the damage caused by emissions, especially in energy-intensive countries such as the United States. And promoting energy efficiency defers the need for more fossil-fuel plants, buying time for wind and solar power to become more competitive.
...Prevention also means environmental protection. Wetlands provide a buffer against flooding, but half of them worldwide - from Australia to the United States - have disappeared in the past century. Shrinking forests, meanwhile, have diminished protections against flooding and landslides. Examples of environmental solutions include the restoration of Vietnam's coastal wetlands to reduce erosion and the building of terraces in China's Loess Plateau to reduce flooding.
No longer can we respond to hazards of nature with cleanup and reconstruction alone. Climate change has introduced an unnatural dimension that calls for more preventive measures. Difficult as it is to muster the political will to do so, we must invest in slowing climate change, protecting the environment, controlling development, and improving warning systems. Only then can we lessen the fury and devastation of these events.
Of course Mr. Thomas is from that lefty, tree-hugger outfit, The World Bank. I'm slowly coming to appreciate that it may be the financial sector that finally sweeps the Tar Heads and Petro-Pols like Steve Harper off the porch and into the gutter where they belong.
Globally, the insurance sector is already being battered by the impacts of global warming and the essential fiscal safety net upon which our economies and societies are built is rapidly fraying. Throughout life - whether at home, on the road, in the boardroom - we take risks because we can buy protection to make potential loss bearable. What happens when that protection is no longer for sale, when we have to accept that risks are no longer economically survivable?
What happens when the US eastern seaboard or the Mississippi basin become off limits for flood or storm insurance? If the insurance companies won't carry the loss people expect governments to step in with disaster relief. Today's governments? The governments that are broke because they don't have the courage to levy taxes? Hell, my dog can do that much math.
As I read Mr. Thomas' op-ed I was struck that the only thing new in his remarks was that someone was actually saying these things. We shouldn't need someone like a World Bank guy to tell us this. We should already know it, all of us. Our governments all along should have kept us educated and well informed of these "inconvenient truths." That's their job, that's their duty. They owe us that much. Yet they stand mute about these things and they do that quite deliberately.
Floods and other severe storm events have tripled in just the past three decades! How can we possibly justify massively expanding production of the filthiest, high-carbon fossil fuel on the planet? How can we elect politicians from all parties content with doing just that?
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Why Do We Trust In Those Who Fail Us?
This one is directed to you Libs but it might just as well be you Dippers too. Why, with the climatic devastation that's already impacting our world, our one and only biosphere, do we support leaders intent on steering Canada into runaway global warming? Why do we support people who, for their own political advancement, would condemn our grandkids to live in a Canada far worse than anything we have ever known?
In case you're in any doubt, I'm referring to Michael Ignatieff and, yes, Jack Layton too. In fact the reference sticks to any of the gaggle of Fossil Fuelers, the inveterate Tar Sanders of Parliament Hill.
Canada is not alone. Most Western pols talk up their committment to environmentalism while pimping for Big Carbon. In a recent opinion piece in The Guardian, NOAA's James Hansen relates his lamentable exchange with that most enviro-friendly nation of them all, Norway:
"I hoped that Norway, because of its history of environmentalism, might be able to take real action to address climate change, drawing attention to the hypocrisy in the words and pseudo-actions of other nations.
So I wrote a letter to the prime minister suggesting that Norway, as majority owner of Statoil, should intervene in its plans to develop the tar sands of Canada. I received a polite response, by letter, from the deputy minister of petroleum and energy. The government position is that the tar sands investment is "a commercial decision", that the government should not interfere, and that a "vast majority in the Norwegian parliament" agree that this constitutes "good corporate governance". The deputy minister concluded his letter: "I can however assure you that we will continue our offensive stance on climate change issues both at home and abroad."
A Norwegian grandfather, upon reading the deputy minister's letter, quoted Saint Augustine: "Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue."
The Norwegian position is a staggering reaffirmation of the global situation: even the greenest governments find it too inconvenient to address the implication of scientific facts.
Hansen makes clear that we have to act and time is running out:
"...our planet is close to climate tipping points. Ice is melting in the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica, and on mountain glaciers worldwide. Many species are stressed by environmental destruction and climate change. Continuing fossil fuel emissions, if unabated, will cause sea levels to rise and species to become extinct beyond our control. Increasing atmospheric water vapour is already magnifying climate extremes, increasing overall precipitation, causing greater floods and stronger storms.
Stabilising climate requires restoring our planet's energy balance. The physics is straightforward. The effect of increasing carbon dioxide on Earth's energy imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of ocean heat gain. The principal implication is defined by the geophysics, by the size of fossil fuel reservoirs. Simply put, there is a limit on how much carbon dioxide we can pour into the atmosphere. We cannot burn all fossil fuels. Specifically, we must (1) phase out coal use rapidly, (2) leave tar sands in the ground, and (3) not go after the last drops of oil.
On this point, the Athabasca Tar Sands, Hansen is emphatic. That bitumen sludge must be left in the ground. It is the planet's filthiest fossil fuel and promises of new, clean technologies - the same nonsense we've heard for about two decades now - are greenwash. Likewise, when the Liberal leader makes passing, vague references to dealing with Athabasca's CO2 and water issues, it's more of the same - greenwash, enviro-bullshit.
"...fossil fuel addiction can be solved only when we recognise an economic law as certain as the law of gravity: as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy they will be used. Solution therefore requires a rising fee on oil, gas and coal – a carbon fee collected from fossil fuel companies at the domestic mine or port of entry. All funds collected should be distributed to the public on a per capita basis to allow lifestyle adjustments and spur clean energy innovations. As the fee rises, fossil fuels will be phased out, replaced by carbon-free energy and efficiency.
A carbon fee is the only realistic path to global action. China and India will not accept caps, but they need a carbon fee to spur clean energy and avoid fossil fuel addiction.
Governments today, instead, talk of "cap-and-trade with offsets", a system rigged by big banks and fossil fuel interests. Cap-and-trade invites corruption. Worse, it is ineffectual, assuring continued fossil fuel addiction to the last drop and environmental catastrophe.
I believe Hansen is right. The only way we'll tackle global warming is to levy a carbon tax on the fossil fuel companies - oil, bitumen, coal and gas - at the point of production. Better yet, we should make the fossil fuel companies, Tar Sands included, financially responsible for every environmental impact including non-carbon air pollution and groundwater contamination. Of course that would reveal the truth about all the Fossil Fuelers - the Athabasca Tar Sands are completely unviable without the very real and immense subsidy realized from government complicity in looking the other way.
Hansen is also right when he warns that we're wasting our time trusting hypocritical politicians who deliberately mislead the public by claiming they're serious about the gathering environmental calamity while, in the same breath, praising Athabasca as Canada's path to fossil fuel superpowerdom.
In case you're in any doubt, I'm referring to Michael Ignatieff and, yes, Jack Layton too. In fact the reference sticks to any of the gaggle of Fossil Fuelers, the inveterate Tar Sanders of Parliament Hill.
Canada is not alone. Most Western pols talk up their committment to environmentalism while pimping for Big Carbon. In a recent opinion piece in The Guardian, NOAA's James Hansen relates his lamentable exchange with that most enviro-friendly nation of them all, Norway:
"I hoped that Norway, because of its history of environmentalism, might be able to take real action to address climate change, drawing attention to the hypocrisy in the words and pseudo-actions of other nations.
So I wrote a letter to the prime minister suggesting that Norway, as majority owner of Statoil, should intervene in its plans to develop the tar sands of Canada. I received a polite response, by letter, from the deputy minister of petroleum and energy. The government position is that the tar sands investment is "a commercial decision", that the government should not interfere, and that a "vast majority in the Norwegian parliament" agree that this constitutes "good corporate governance". The deputy minister concluded his letter: "I can however assure you that we will continue our offensive stance on climate change issues both at home and abroad."
A Norwegian grandfather, upon reading the deputy minister's letter, quoted Saint Augustine: "Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue."
The Norwegian position is a staggering reaffirmation of the global situation: even the greenest governments find it too inconvenient to address the implication of scientific facts.
Hansen makes clear that we have to act and time is running out:
"...our planet is close to climate tipping points. Ice is melting in the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica, and on mountain glaciers worldwide. Many species are stressed by environmental destruction and climate change. Continuing fossil fuel emissions, if unabated, will cause sea levels to rise and species to become extinct beyond our control. Increasing atmospheric water vapour is already magnifying climate extremes, increasing overall precipitation, causing greater floods and stronger storms.
Stabilising climate requires restoring our planet's energy balance. The physics is straightforward. The effect of increasing carbon dioxide on Earth's energy imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of ocean heat gain. The principal implication is defined by the geophysics, by the size of fossil fuel reservoirs. Simply put, there is a limit on how much carbon dioxide we can pour into the atmosphere. We cannot burn all fossil fuels. Specifically, we must (1) phase out coal use rapidly, (2) leave tar sands in the ground, and (3) not go after the last drops of oil.
On this point, the Athabasca Tar Sands, Hansen is emphatic. That bitumen sludge must be left in the ground. It is the planet's filthiest fossil fuel and promises of new, clean technologies - the same nonsense we've heard for about two decades now - are greenwash. Likewise, when the Liberal leader makes passing, vague references to dealing with Athabasca's CO2 and water issues, it's more of the same - greenwash, enviro-bullshit.
"...fossil fuel addiction can be solved only when we recognise an economic law as certain as the law of gravity: as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy they will be used. Solution therefore requires a rising fee on oil, gas and coal – a carbon fee collected from fossil fuel companies at the domestic mine or port of entry. All funds collected should be distributed to the public on a per capita basis to allow lifestyle adjustments and spur clean energy innovations. As the fee rises, fossil fuels will be phased out, replaced by carbon-free energy and efficiency.
A carbon fee is the only realistic path to global action. China and India will not accept caps, but they need a carbon fee to spur clean energy and avoid fossil fuel addiction.
Governments today, instead, talk of "cap-and-trade with offsets", a system rigged by big banks and fossil fuel interests. Cap-and-trade invites corruption. Worse, it is ineffectual, assuring continued fossil fuel addiction to the last drop and environmental catastrophe.
I believe Hansen is right. The only way we'll tackle global warming is to levy a carbon tax on the fossil fuel companies - oil, bitumen, coal and gas - at the point of production. Better yet, we should make the fossil fuel companies, Tar Sands included, financially responsible for every environmental impact including non-carbon air pollution and groundwater contamination. Of course that would reveal the truth about all the Fossil Fuelers - the Athabasca Tar Sands are completely unviable without the very real and immense subsidy realized from government complicity in looking the other way.
Hansen is also right when he warns that we're wasting our time trusting hypocritical politicians who deliberately mislead the public by claiming they're serious about the gathering environmental calamity while, in the same breath, praising Athabasca as Canada's path to fossil fuel superpowerdom.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The EU Turns Its Back on Bush
Poor little Georgie Bush can't get no respect anymore. Folks just aren't at the Clown Prince's beck and call today.
Shrub got bitchslapped in Bali today by the European Union whose reps sent a message to the little peckerhead that they won't be showing up for his "Major Economies Meeting" in Hawaii next month unless the US gets with the programme at the Bali climate summit.
Germany's enviromin, Sigmar Gabriel, put the EU position bluntly, “No result in Bali means no Major Economies Meeting.”
“The best we hoped for was that the U.S. would not hobble the rest of the world from moving forward,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a non-profit American organization. “Our delegation here from the States has not been able to meet that low level of expectation.”
The head of the American delegation, levitating over the facts, said America is working very hard to achieve consensus - there's no question there. Unfortunately by consensus she means capitulation and by climate plan she means stay the course.
Shrub got bitchslapped in Bali today by the European Union whose reps sent a message to the little peckerhead that they won't be showing up for his "Major Economies Meeting" in Hawaii next month unless the US gets with the programme at the Bali climate summit.
Germany's enviromin, Sigmar Gabriel, put the EU position bluntly, “No result in Bali means no Major Economies Meeting.”
“The best we hoped for was that the U.S. would not hobble the rest of the world from moving forward,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a non-profit American organization. “Our delegation here from the States has not been able to meet that low level of expectation.”
The head of the American delegation, levitating over the facts, said America is working very hard to achieve consensus - there's no question there. Unfortunately by consensus she means capitulation and by climate plan she means stay the course.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
No Caps for Washington/Ottawa
The United States has said it will not accept mandatory carbon caps at the Bali summit. It says it will come up with its own plan instead, some time around mid-2008. Yeah, right. Our sunken eyed, knuckle-dragging Enviromin, John Baird, then jumped in on cue to say that Canada wouldn't sign any pact that didn't include the US. Baird compared a binding carbon deal without the US to unilateral nuclear disarmament. He said it would amount to "environmental Armageddon" to ink a deal that didn't impose binding targets on China and India.
My question. The intransigence of Washington and Ottawa is so transparent and disingenuous why did Baird and his American counterpart, Harlan Watson, even go to Bali at all? Oh yeah, I forgot, they needed to be there to torpedo any chance that the rest of the world might reach a deal without them.
Scumbags. They really are scumbags.
My question. The intransigence of Washington and Ottawa is so transparent and disingenuous why did Baird and his American counterpart, Harlan Watson, even go to Bali at all? Oh yeah, I forgot, they needed to be there to torpedo any chance that the rest of the world might reach a deal without them.
Scumbags. They really are scumbags.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
What Harper and Rex Murphy Can't Grasp
I watched the clip of Rex Murphy endorsing Stephen Harper's policy on cutting carbon emissions. The policy, as I've heard Harper explain it, is that all nations must commit to binding cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
On its face it has the same appeal as the flat tax proposals that get bandied about. From our perspective in the advantaged, industrialized world, Harper's carbon policy makes plain sense.
What we don't want to consider is how this policy is seen by the emerging economies and the Third World and we certainly don't want to consider how it makes them see us. Only once we look at it from their perspective does the manifest inequity of the Harper proposal become apparent. From their perspective the policy looks patently racist.
The Harper policy embraced so warmly by Rex Murphy is a policy considered in a void. Completely left out are some unfortunate realities these people would rather not have mentioned. For example, North Americans create so much greenhouse gas because we use a disproportionate amount of fossil fuels.
It's easiest to look at the American example. Our numbers are pretty close so we can fall under the US example. Americans represent about 5% of the world's population. Americans consume more than 25% of the world's fossil fuels. That means Americans use five times the world average in fossil fuels and produce five times the world average in greenhouse gases.
Now, let's take India. Indians use considerably less than the world average in fossil fuels and produce commensurately less greenhouse gas emissions. Ballpark it at about one-tenth of the American numbers.
The big difference is that there are 1,130,000,000 Indians, give or take a few million. The same source (the CIA) estimates America's population as of July, 2007 at 301,000,000. So, India is nearly four times as populous as the United States. China comes in at 1,322,000,000.
India and China are considered emerging economies and that means industrialization and that means fossil fuels and that means greenhouse gas emissions. Still, on a per capita basis, their fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions are a small fraction of our own.
Now, let's say we decide that everyone should agree to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 50%. Let's say an Indian, on a per capita basis, produces about 10% of the per capita American emissions figure. So, by cutting 50% across the board, we're in effect preserving our ratio discrepancies in perpetuity. We're locking in our right to continue consuming the lion's share of the world's energy and to continue pumping out the lion's share of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. What's more, we expect them to agree to that. If you were the little guy on the receiving end of that ultimatum, would you agree to it? You're lying if you said you would.
There has to be accommodation on this problem. We emit vastly more so we should have to cut at least somewhat more. Measures do need to be taken by India and China but we in the advantaged, industrialized world have to do more than we expect of them, a lot more.
Overall, what we need to do is determine, on the best scientific evidence available, a global emissions target. That'll be the pie. And then we have to work out how much of that pie each nation should be allocated based on a variety of factors including population. It's a form of global carbon rationing but there's no other way to make this work through international co-operation.
This is not some "off the wall" concept. It's actually the very basis of the Bali Communique of 150-major British and European corporations.
Harper can't hide behind his simplistic reasoning any longer, and there's no excuse for Rex Murphy following suit either.
On its face it has the same appeal as the flat tax proposals that get bandied about. From our perspective in the advantaged, industrialized world, Harper's carbon policy makes plain sense.
What we don't want to consider is how this policy is seen by the emerging economies and the Third World and we certainly don't want to consider how it makes them see us. Only once we look at it from their perspective does the manifest inequity of the Harper proposal become apparent. From their perspective the policy looks patently racist.
The Harper policy embraced so warmly by Rex Murphy is a policy considered in a void. Completely left out are some unfortunate realities these people would rather not have mentioned. For example, North Americans create so much greenhouse gas because we use a disproportionate amount of fossil fuels.
It's easiest to look at the American example. Our numbers are pretty close so we can fall under the US example. Americans represent about 5% of the world's population. Americans consume more than 25% of the world's fossil fuels. That means Americans use five times the world average in fossil fuels and produce five times the world average in greenhouse gases.
Now, let's take India. Indians use considerably less than the world average in fossil fuels and produce commensurately less greenhouse gas emissions. Ballpark it at about one-tenth of the American numbers.
The big difference is that there are 1,130,000,000 Indians, give or take a few million. The same source (the CIA) estimates America's population as of July, 2007 at 301,000,000. So, India is nearly four times as populous as the United States. China comes in at 1,322,000,000.
India and China are considered emerging economies and that means industrialization and that means fossil fuels and that means greenhouse gas emissions. Still, on a per capita basis, their fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions are a small fraction of our own.
Now, let's say we decide that everyone should agree to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 50%. Let's say an Indian, on a per capita basis, produces about 10% of the per capita American emissions figure. So, by cutting 50% across the board, we're in effect preserving our ratio discrepancies in perpetuity. We're locking in our right to continue consuming the lion's share of the world's energy and to continue pumping out the lion's share of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. What's more, we expect them to agree to that. If you were the little guy on the receiving end of that ultimatum, would you agree to it? You're lying if you said you would.
There has to be accommodation on this problem. We emit vastly more so we should have to cut at least somewhat more. Measures do need to be taken by India and China but we in the advantaged, industrialized world have to do more than we expect of them, a lot more.
Overall, what we need to do is determine, on the best scientific evidence available, a global emissions target. That'll be the pie. And then we have to work out how much of that pie each nation should be allocated based on a variety of factors including population. It's a form of global carbon rationing but there's no other way to make this work through international co-operation.
This is not some "off the wall" concept. It's actually the very basis of the Bali Communique of 150-major British and European corporations.
Harper can't hide behind his simplistic reasoning any longer, and there's no excuse for Rex Murphy following suit either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)