Home » Posts tagged 'Climate Change'
Tag Archives: Climate Change
“We must take action. We have spoken a long time, at least 20 years, more than 20 years, and the science has made it plainly clear. The leaders must show their leadership. They have been elected, they have been mandated by the people.” — UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon
The educated citizens of this planet know we need a strong COP 21 agreement, the politicians know they need some sort of agreement to appease their constituents, and although the other species on the planet are unaware of it, they need this agreement too.
Only continued strong global support will make a viable COP 21 deal happen, and let’s remember, it was powerful support from the public that started the environmental movement in the first place.
Without sustained high levels of public support for a viable COP 21 agreement, we ourselves will become the ‘Enablers of Low Climate Ambition’ for today’s politicians.
Climate Default Mode
Because in their heart of hearts, politicians don’t want a strong COP 21 agreement, and won’t sign on to any of it unless it is absolutely forced on them by unprecedented public pressure. (To be fair, there are a few notable exceptions)
Of course, the COP 21 confab will be a nice place for politicians to visit, and will provide a forum for 30-second sound bytes carefully crafted by their staff that politicians don’t see until a few seconds before airtime. Looking smart while standing beside visual cues and spouting high-sounding rhetoric — that’s the life!
Recently, a few articles have appeared in the media casting doubt on the chances for success at COP 21 — which I’ve criticized those media outlets for doing, simply because the last thing that we want to do is ‘give the politicians a way out’ by helping them ‘to go where they want to go anyway’ to their ‘default mode’ which is best termed; ‘Low Ambition’.
I can say this because, so far, whenever anything important comes up politicians look impotent — unless of course, an opportunity appears to bomb brown-skinned people somewhere in the world — then they’re all over it.
EXHIBIT A: Since 2000, some 135 million people have died from starvation and a lack of clean drinking water.
Another 2 million have died in war, or the after-effects of war, mainly in the Middle East/Levant and Afghanistan. And what did they all have in common besides the colour of their skin? Except for the fact that they’re now dead, nothing else in common.
For those of you counting at home, that’s 137 million deaths since the year 2000.
EXHIBIT B: How many viable climate agreements have we signed since 2000? None.
So far, nothing but rhetoric and platitudes
Since 2000, 137 million deaths due to starvation and war AND no climate agreement. By any standard whatsoever, that has to count as a gross failure of our politicians.
On those two counts, the ‘world leaders’ deserve an F grade. Utter failure. A dismal performance by any standard. Whatsoever.
Hardly a word about either in the world media
I’ll bet you didn’t know that 9 million people per year die of starvation and a lack of clean drinking water, and is a constant number that has been with us for decades with no end in sight. Why don’t you know this? Because it doesn’t ever make the last page of any newspaper.
Imagine if 25,000 white people were dying of starvation and war every day (totalling 9 million per year, or 135 million over 15 years) it would immediately be termed ‘terrorism’ and there would be a war-to-end-all-wars to put a stop to it! No amount of spending would be considered too high to solve such a crisis.
In every seven-year period since the year 2000, more people die of starvation and a lack of clean drinking water than the sum total of all deaths in WWII.
Talking themselves into irrelevancy
Maybe such low ambition is a part of a wider plan to make politicians even more irrelevant than they are now, so that corporations (the only entities that seem capable of making decisions these days) can complete their relatively silent takeover of the world, and then we can all work for corporate America, corporate Europe, and so on…
For peanuts, of course
That way, corporate profits should remain high and corporations can sell their wares to other corporations (because, after a while, nobody will have any disposable income) and it will all be self-financed by a high tariff (import and export taxation) economy.
People will no longer matter. Consumers will no longer matter. Corporations and taxation will rule the world. And no more pesky climate agreements. Won’t that be nice?
by John Brian Shannon | June 18, 2015
The incompetence thus far displayed by politicians and corporate leaders is directly proportional to the size of the Tragedy of the Commons problem.
History has shown that the bigger the civilizational problem, the less likely it is to be dealt with by human beings.
And the inexorable destruction of our biosphere, (the only part of the planet in which we live) is the biggest problem we’ve yet faced as a species.
But, big as that challenge is, we will likely continue to fail in preventing catastrophic damage to our biosphere due to the built-in mediocrity factor present in human beings.
“It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.” — Albert Einstein
If the status quo continues, there will be no major adjustment to the ongoing destruction of the planet.
Yes, there will continue to be major talk, talk, and more talk. But little action. We will ride the bus right over the edge of the cliff, talking all the way to crunch time. And if there are any survivors, they’ll still be talking.
Because that’s who we are as a species. We solve small and medium-sized problems, and we talk, talk, talk, about solving large problems — but never succeed.
And it may well end in the demise of our civilization. If not from the climate, then from something else.
Meanwhile, some very dedicated people (Hi! Christiana Figueres, et al) are working on it and have proposed very workable solutions (which for the most part are being ignored) none of it requires any technology or economic models that we don’t already have.
We have it all, except the will to act!
From: ‘On Care for Our Common Home’ — the encyclical written by Pope Francis.
“Humanity has entered a new era in which our technical prowess has brought us to a crossroads.
“We are the beneficiaries of two centuries of enormous waves of change: steam engines, railways, the telegraph, electricity, automobiles, aeroplanes, chemical industries, modern medicine, information technology and, more recently, the digital revolution, robotics, biotechnologies and nanotechnologies.
“It is right to rejoice in these advances and to be excited by the immense possibilities which they continue to open up before us, for “science and technology are wonderful products of God-given human creativity.”
“Our freedom fades when it is handed over to the blind forces of the unconscious, of immediate needs, of self-interest, and of violence. In this sense, we stand naked and exposed in the face of our ever-increasing power, lacking the wherewithal to control it.
“We have certain superficial mechanisms, but we cannot claim to have a sound ethics, a culture and spirituality genuinely capable of setting limits and teaching clear-minded self-restraint.” — Encyclical by Pope Francis 2015
Read: The Pope’s Memo on Climate Change Is a Mind-Blower (Wired)
Taking all of the above into account, we have the wherewithal to solve the problem, just not the will to act. Therefore, we will fail. It is inevitable. Unless we change the nature of the problem
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” — Buckminster Fuller
One way to do that, is to get rid of all fossil fuel subisidies, which hit $583 billion dollars last year. (That’s over $1 trillion dollars of subsidy every 2 years)
That’s the direct subsidy… the externality subsidy might be as high as $2 trillion dollars per year globally for fossil fuels.
On the externality subsidy… according to a highly-regarded Harvard study the burning of coal in the United States causes $500 billion of health, crop, and infrastructure damage annually, within the U.S.A. alone. That’s just coal.
Read: Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal (Harvard)
A better way, is by matching fossil fuel subsidies to renewable energy subsidies based on energy output — for example, by Barrel of Oil Equivalent (BOE)
In that way, a level playing field will allow renewable energy to flourish in regions where it is viable and it would receive the same level of subsidies that fossil fuels are already receiving — and have received every year since the 1930’s.
A third way, although likely to be unpopular would be the most effective; Using the ‘command and control’ model — where each nation legislates that coal burning is thenceforth illegal (that would solve the largest part of the atmospheric pollution problem right there) and that half of all new cars sold in each country must be electric (EV) or hydrogen fueled vehicles
We all ‘get’ that manufacturing electric vehicles causes some amount of pollution at the time of manufacture (just like any car manufacturing process) but it is the daily exhaust fumes from millions of cars that pollute the air, which is orders of magnitude greater than the amount of pollution generated by the initial manufacture of any car, whether electric or gasoline powered.
My entire case rests on this; If we continue bumbling along the status quo path, we won’t ever properly address the problem.
We need to; ‘build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.’ Just like Buckminster Fuller said.
- The Tragedy of the Climate Commons (Project Syndicate)