December 19, 2009
The Truths Copenhagen Ignored
Johann Hari in CommonDreams.org:
Discarded Idea Three: Climate debt. The rich world has been responsible for 70 per cent of the warming gases in the atmosphere – yet 70 per cent of the effects are being felt in the developing world. Holland can build vast dykes to prevent its land flooding; Bangladesh can only drown. There is a cruel inverse relationship between cause and effect: the polluter doesn't pay.
So we have racked up a climate debt. We broke it; they paid. At this summit, for the first time, the poor countries rose in disgust. Their chief negotiator pointed out that the compensation offered "won't even pay for the coffins". The cliché that environmentalism is a rich person's ideology just gasped its final CO2-rich breath. As Naomi Klein put it: "At this summit, the pole of environmentalism has moved south."
When we are dividing up who has the right to emit the few remaining warming gases that the atmosphere can absorb, we need to realise that we are badly overdrawn. We have used up our share of warming gases, and then some. Yet the US and EU have dismissed the idea of climate debt out of hand. How can we get a lasting deal that every country agrees to if we ignore this basic principle of justice? Why should the poorest restrain themselves when the rich refuse to?
A deal based on these real ideas would actually cool the atmosphere. The alternatives championed at Copenhagen by the rich world – carbon offsetting, carbon trading, carbon capture – won't. They are a global placebo.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 10:54 AM | Permalink




















Comments
I guess I ought to feel guilty, but I've begun to look upon this whole climate change controversy as a superior form of comedy.
Consider, for example, this amusing flame-war cum law suit for libel which I stumbled upon:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:LKfp8dYJ30AJ:utsl.gen.nz/media/air-con-blog-wars.pdf+Rapp+wegman+sue+%22deep+climate%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=opera
How about this ludicrous accusation-of-plagiarism cum defamation-of-character flame war over at Deep Climate:
http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/17/wegman-report-ghostwriter-revealed/
The best writers in the world couldn't make them any funnier.
Posted by: Luke Lea | Dec 19, 2009 12:17:05 PM
OLIGOPOLIES
at copenhagen
the dictators prevail
leafless trees!
Posted by: jim sharp | Dec 19, 2009 4:34:24 PM
How accountable for this debt can we be if there was no intent? Certainly nations emerging now know(from historical evidence) they're sealing their own fate by dumping more co2 into the atmosphere. How clear was this relationship of temperature and co2 to the leadership of developed countries over a century ago? Perhaps it is unfair that a retroactive debt be imposed on people who had no idea what they were doing. It certainly seems less fair to me that a government should be allowed to knowingly and deliberately cause more damage to the atmosphere while those who had no idea what damage they did are punished.
Posted by: electric | Dec 19, 2009 5:17:19 PM
electric: "Perhaps it is unfair that a retroactive debt be imposed on people who had no idea what they were doing."
I thought that way too until I thought about the nature of inheritance in a community. When born into a wealthy western community, we inherit the wealth of that community -- the infrastructure, the industry, the life support systems. We can't take all that for granted, and then deny the inheritance of the debt that was unwittingly accumulated in producing the wealth.
It's unfair to inherit a retroactive debt, just as it is unfair to inherit a retroactive prosperity. Life isn't bound by rules of fairness, but in this case, having wealthy nations pay for their current prosperity (built on previous ignorant resource consumption) seems like a fair deal.
Posted by: Virge | Dec 19, 2009 8:17:22 PM
If you want to know what is going to happen, think of a small island, over populated, with no way for anyone to leave, alive.
Posted by: eric | Dec 19, 2009 9:28:55 PM
What Hari is saying is: Let the developing countries pump out as much carbon as they like, because thats what we did. Atmospheric chemistry doesn't care about Justice. The path should be to shape development along "greener" lines. In some ways this is easier to do because developing countries have less of a fossil fuel infrastructure to replace and (in most cases) a lot more sunshine.
Posted by: aguy109 | Dec 21, 2009 5:54:00 AM
Seems that China veto'd the Copenhagen summit. Is anybody surprised?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas
Posted by: electric | Dec 23, 2009 9:03:36 PM
Post a comment