Here's something novel: a well-informed and honest article from a significant British magazine (Prospect) that looks hard at the core political challenges of global climate stabilization and then draws some conclusions. And it's written by Simon Retallack, who knows his way around both the climate policy debate and the climate movement.
Retallack, now head of Climate Change at the UK's Institute for Public Policy Research, did not come blithely to the Greenhouse Development Rights perspective, which he here recommends. He's way too much of a realist for that. But he is an honest realist, one who rejects most of the goods currently being sold under that label as being long past their use-by dates.
Per-capita emissions come into his argument. How could they not when they're five times as high in the U.S. as they are in China, which is supposedly eating America's lunch? But the real issue, now absolutely clear, is not equalizing emissions but phasing them out. And quickly. The real issue is redefining prosperity, or at least development, in a climate-constrained world.
By the way, Retallack's take on emissions trading is particularly interesting, especially given that he has deep roots in the British climate movement. He's not an academic policy wonk, but neither is he an automatic enemy of emissions trading. And his contribution here is to focus on criticizing the alternatives to trading. It's not a definitive move, but it's an overdue one, and he deserves credit for making it.
So place Retallack within the swelling ranks of those who welcome the critique of "false solutions," but insist as well that it's time to take the next step, to propose financial mechanisms capable of supporting rapid global mitigation and adaptation; the ranks of those who recognize that, come what may, the climate end-game is going to be played out soon, within the institutions of this, our very capitalist world.
Which reminds me of Susan George, a long-time global justice leader and theorist who's also been staring into the climate abyss and drawing her own difficult conclusions. It's well worth your time to listen to those conclusions, which you can do here.
N.Y. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand answers Grist’s questions on the Kerry-Boxer bill
Ask Umbra on buying carbon offsets
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 9:04 am
09 Mar 2008
The amazing thing about America is that our population density (geographically) is so incredibly low. Of course we use more gas, because we build bigger houses, and have cleaner, greener exurban neighborhoods. For Greens who cry about "human rights" you'd think they'd be happy that at least some few millions of humans can enjoy the good life.
Contrast that with Belgium or India which rank near the top of scale. At the same time we're nosing around replacement rate -- whereas Africa is still producing something like 6 children per couple. Of course that will all normalize -- towards the high end.
Americans produce the world's goods. Even "globalized" companies like Honda produce 80% of their components here in America. So, to say that we some how "use more" is also to say we "do more".
Why is it these "all knowing, all seeing" Green intellectuals fail to follow the money?
Susan George
Susan George was(is) a swingin' 60s chick:
http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3280007.jpg?v=1&c=View ...
The Manhattan Declaration
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 9:56 am
09 Mar 2008
That's generally considered a bad thing, jabailo. Suburbs take up more resources and land than what is necessary, even for a fairly comfortable standard of living.
It's a large part why Europeans consume less resources than Americans do...yet their standard of living is usually equal, if not in excess, to ours.
Americans produce the world's goods.
I think ya have it the wrong way around. Most goods sold in America are made overseas. And most goods sold overseas are not made in America.
Just look at the labels on the stuff ya use everyday. Only a small fraction will say "Made in America".
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 11:37 am
09 Mar 2008
Africa's biggest contribution to climate change mitigation would be to improve her soils and increase the carbon storage in them. The first world could produce millions of wood-gas stoves and distribute them freely and that alone would reduce desertification in Africa.
I'm listening right now to NPR report that the price of grain has gone up 350% in the last year. I'm not sure how long that Africa's urban population can deal with that kind of pressure before they break by which I mean riot and die in mass numbers.
Climate change is very real, is right now and is killing people today. If you were on the verge of starvation before your yearly grain budget was just reduced to a quarterly grain budget. That's a death sentence.
"Look over there" is a death sentence for somebody.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
dissociated Posted 1:21 pm
09 Mar 2008
Permalink
bigTom Posted 1:42 pm
09 Mar 2008
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 2:30 pm
09 Mar 2008
Thanks for pointing out that the IFG Triple Threat videos are up on the site. What a treasure trove! I noticed Susan George used your a remark from your talk, you "reformist dweeb"! Enjoyed the George talk, BTW. (In time I'll give a listen to yours...)
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:36 pm
09 Mar 2008
That's a bit of a fallacious argument...owning more land or having more land around my house does not in my opinion "use more resources".
Example, if you and I built two huts in the desert and you claimed all space within 5 feet of your hut, but I claimed all space in 5 miles of my home, you might claim I was "using more resources per capita" but the effect of both our lives would be the same.
It's a large part why Europeans consume less resources than Americans do...yet their standard of living is usually equal, if not in excess, to ours.
Europeans also produce almost nothing of worth to the world economy except luxury goods.
They piggyback on the American economy and defense umbrella so they can have relatively unhampered economies while Americans pay the burden of the military and the research costs needed to create a modern society.
Most goods sold in America are made overseas.
And yet GNP is far and away higher in America than any next nearest competitor. America produces almost all the software in the world. America produces almost all the advanced aerospace technology in the world. American produces almost all the most advanced computing, networking, computational hardware in the world. American science and scientists are still unmatched in productivity. Our consulting and corporations dominate in everything from retail to heavy industry.
Yes, we buy a lot of teflon coated pie pans from Shanghai...but we sell a lot of web application servers.
Did you say Susan George?
Oh, yes, I knew I forgot something:
http://www.posteritati.com/jpg/D2/DIRTY%20MARY%20CR%20LAR ...
The Manhattan Declaration
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 5:50 pm
09 Mar 2008
No...they use more resources 'cause they use more water, more energy, require more and longer roads, sewage systems, water pipes, drainage modifications, electrical lines, it takes longer and further to commute to work, thus usin' more gas and requiring more personal vehicles.
Also, when a yard is cut, watered, fenced in, fertilized, and pesticided on a regular basis as many suburban yards do, it pretty much ceases to become anything resemblimg "green" or any sorta natural or wildlife habitat...so therefore, you're usin' it and takin' it out of the natural environment...so yes, it is usin' more resources.
And yet GNP is far and away higher in America than any next nearest competitor.
So is our national debt.
Permalink
Angry African Posted 6:27 am
10 Mar 2008
The impact of climate change will be felt in Africa way more than other. Partly because we have no safety net to catch us.
How do we wlook after the climate change issue when we have so many things killing people today - war, health, poverty etc.
Africa is caught in a Catch 22 - can't afford to do anything and there are no solutions. And not doing anything will kill you anyway.
So, arguing why America should or should not be allowed to do more damage (jabailo) is futile from an African perspective. As is the idea that Africa will somehow cut its emmissions. With what money? With what capacity? Money and capacity that is needed to fight other more immediate challenges?
More in my blog on this at http://angryafrican.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/solving-the- ...
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 6:35 am
10 Mar 2008
They piggyback on the American economy and defense umbrella so they can have relatively unhampered economies while Americans pay the burden of the military and the research costs needed to create a modern society."
I hear this argument a lot in the States. It's when I realize I am dealing with a completely uninformed individual and all further discussion is cancelled.. This also explains how people like Bush ever got elected.
Permalink
Tom Athanasiou Posted 7:40 am
10 Mar 2008
Tom Athanasiou
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[23]='\"';l[24]=' 103';l[25]=' 114';l[26]=' 111';l[27]=' 46';l[28]=' 121';l[29]=' 116';l[30]=' 105';l[31]=' 117';l[32]=' 113';l[33]=' 101';l[34]=' 111';l[35]=' 99';l[36]=' 101';l[37]=' 64';l[38]=' 97';l[39]=' 109';l[40]=' 111';l[41]=' 116';l[42]=':';l[43]='o';l[44]='t';l[45]='l';l[46]='i';l[47]='a';l[48]='m';l[49]='\"';l[50]='=';l[51]='f';l[52]='e';l[53]='r';l[54]='h';l[55]='a ';l[56]='
Permalink