It is largely agreed that the international conference in Copenhagen last month to address climate change was a failure, as no legally binding targets were agreed to, and there was too great a disagreement between what Europe wanted (stronger targets for all countries) and what less industrialized countries wanted (especially China, which is rapidly industrializing and wants as few constraints on its behavior as possible). An article I read in the U.K. newspaper The Guardian squarely blames China for the poor outcome.
Let's imagine that I'm the Chinese leader. What if I said the following to America and Europe:
"The climate crisis is the responsibility of those countries that caused it by putting large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere for the past 60+ years. When you ask us to cut down our emissions, you are asking us to help clean up the mess you made. So, the following is our position. Let's go back 60 years, and calculate the total GNP for all countries. Let's assume that a country's contribution to the CO2 problem is proportional to its GNP. For the next 15 years, there will be a global target each year for reducing emissions. Each country will have a share of that target assigned to it. Each country's share of the target will be the same percentage as was its contribution to global warming over the past 60 years. For example, America has over the past 60 years accounted for 25% of global GNP, and was therefore responsible for 25% of global warming. America must therefore cut its emissions enough to account for 25% of the global target. After 15 years, we'll agree to renegotiate based on GNP over the past twenty years."
So, what would be wrong with that?
To a fair-minded person, it seems eminently reasonable: is there anyone, especially who grew up with siblings, who as a child didn't protest against being made to clean up a mess someone else made? I think it can be very reasonably argued that to the extent that China, India, and other developing countries are asked to clean up more than they polluted, that is essentially what is being asked of them. Should it surprise us that they strongly resist it?
The opposing argument is, of course, obvious: we're all in this together, so unless we want the planet to go to hell, we'd all better get on board no matter who caused it. (I can't help but recall my favorite Monty Python movie: "This (wedding) is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not argue and bicker over who killed who...") This argument, of course, generally tends to be made by those who caused the problem. It's not utterly wrong, but it ignores the concept of fairness, and most people take that very seriously. Some psychology lectures I watched on the web gave the example of an experiment in which two volunteers were put together. One was given ten dollars, and he could give as much or as little to the other as he wanted, but for both to get the money, both had to approve of the final outcome. In many cases, the one with the ten dollars gave the other person five, which both approved. But in most cases in which the one with ten dollars gave the other only one dollar, the other disapproved–even though this meant neither got any money. It was clearly in the self-interest of the one who got one dollar to agree–after all, one dollar is better than none–but anger at the unfairness and greed overrode self-interest. It seems to me that on a much larger scale, that's what's happening here: the less-developed countries are angered at the obvious unfairness of the developed countries, and so don't cooperate.
As for the developed countries, many of them have majorities that want to do more, but the business interests (especially in America), in short-term self-interest, do everything they can to block progress, in willful disregard for the likely long-term consequences. (I love how they often say, when presented any legislation that will increase their costs, that the legislation is bad because it'll just force them to pass the costs along to the consumer. Clearly not, since if that was the case, they shouldn't care. Their profits might suffer, and that's all they care about.) The conservative politicians use China's intransigence as an excuse for inaction, but if there wasn't that, they'd find another. Those who want to start cleaning up the planet are going to have to do it regardless of whether anyone else does or not, and some are. Will it be enough to avert catastrophe? I'm 47; will I be around long enough to find out? All I can say is that there's more than enough evidence that we're in great danger, so no one can say we weren't warned. If we don't get it done in time... it would be very human.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
It's that old and super-frustrating problem again, isn't it - the right thing to do versus short-term self-interest. As most horribly/obviously exemplified by those big-name business interests.
ReplyDeleteSigh.
> After 15 years, we'll agree to renegotiate based on GNP over the past twenty years."
After fifteen years those two and a half billion Chinese and Indians would have poured more pollutants into the air than the USA ever did, I'd warrant.
Human nature being what it is, you can bet your boots that China and India would be going all-out to 'use up' their fifteen years of grace as much as possible.
> America has over the past 60 years accounted for 25% of global GNP, and was therefore responsible for 25% of global warming.
Something makes me think that you're letting the USA off lightly. For decades the Americans had the reputation of having the big petrol-guzzler cars and so forth. Being more extravagant in their energy use than any other western country.
Still, the fasts may be otherwise.
> there's more than enough evidence that we're in great danger, so no one can say we weren't warned.
It's frightening.
>After fifteen years those two and a half billion Chinese and Indians would have poured more pollutants into the air than the USA ever did, I'd warrant.
ReplyDeleteInteresting question. The numbers suggest they could, but while almost all U.S. citizens were driving cars and otherwise consuming, the vast majority of those two countries don't have the means to do it now, and while their capacity will grow over the next 15 years, I think it won't get high enough to rival the U.S. Only recently did China pass Japan in total GNP, and Japan has less than 1/10 of China's population. Japan's population is only about 40% of the U.S.'s, so China has quite a ways to go. My rough guess is that growing at 10% a year, China could catch the U.S. in total GNP by the end of the 15 years. And I'm pretty sure India isn't as far along as China.
>Human nature being what it is, you can bet your boots that China and India would be going all-out to 'use up' their fifteen years of grace as much as possible.
Absolutely.
>> America has over the past 60 years accounted for 25% of global GNP, and was therefore responsible for 25% of global warming.
>Something makes me think that you're letting the USA off lightly. For decades the Americans had the reputation of having the big petrol-guzzler cars and so forth. Being more extravagant in their energy use than any other western country.
That was a guess, based on something I read not too long ago that said that America uses 25% of the world's resources while constituting only 4% of the world's population. It certainly may have used a higher proportion in the past.
>It's frightening.
It certainly is. Thinking about this, I try to take the long view: not all humans would die, so the civilization would continue, and maybe the catastrophe would cause a basic change in human character, get people to take the long view rather than selfish short-term interest. How's that for optimism? :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
ReplyDeleteThinking about this, I try to take the long view: not all humans would die, so the civilization would continue, and maybe the catastrophe would cause a basic change in human character, get people to take the long view rather than selfish short-term interest. How's that for optimism? :-)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It's a very pessimistic sort of optimism! :-(
I know there's one class of people whom, when I speak to them about this, classify as 'optimistic'; they shrug and say "well, someone will invent something to get us out of this mess". Hoping some you-beaut invention will materialise that will absorb all those pesky carbons, or provide cheap free energy, or *something*.
It's akin to hoping that someone - not them - will wave a magic wand and wish it all away. :-)
Where's super!Luna when we need her? :-)
But that's risky 'planning', of the "I can't be bothered, someone else will hopefully solve it" variety.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That was a guess, based on something I read not too long ago that said that America uses 25% of the world's resources while constituting only 4% of the world's population.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The only statistic resembling that form which I *do* remember properly is that the USA has 75% of the world's lawyers. Which is something else that's very frightening (if you're an American).
(I'm pretty sure I recall that you're not a lawyer! :-))