Against Copenhagen
Why we need to 'lose' at this week's climate summit if we are to win the fight against global warming.
'Planetary eco-conversion' is what's really needed.
[Editor's note: University of Victoria Environmental Law Professor Michael M'Gonigle has many friends and students going to Copenhagen, leaving him (like the rest of us) to watch from a distance. This is the first part of a "letter to a friend" who is going. More tomorrow. The Tyee will provide diverse coverage and discussion of the summit and has several bloggers there. Follow the posts from Copenhagen on The Hook.]
Hello JB,
So you've arrived in Copenhagen, and the "Be-In" of the 21st century has started. It would be great to be there, though the trip would probably double my carbon footprint for the year.
But I wouldn't be much help anyway. Who needs a naysayer? Who wants to hear doubts about the whole exercise? Who would listen to the suggestion that, without a transformative outcome, the best result would be a complete failure?
Read Tyee Reports from Copenhagen
The Tyee has several bloggers in Copenhagen. Follow their posts on The Hook.
They'd all ask, "Does this guy work for Exxon?"
Before you left, you wanted to discuss my justification for what seems to be a contradictory position. Like you, I am terrified and saddened at what climate change is doing to the Earth, and recognize that dramatic action is needed. But this is precisely why I take this position. We need to do it right, and Copenhagen is not on that track. We cannot afford to play still more games. It has been almost 20 years already since the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change treaty -- with only worsening conditions on the ground (and in the air). Why will this time be different? Sure, there's a lot more pressure, but it's still the same formula. And the same players.
We are in a tough spot. Environmentalists have done a phenomenal job at educating the public about climate change. We have cranked up a huge amount of political energy -- probably the greatest, most focused energy in the history of the movement. But we risk losing it on an agreement that is not just weak, but targeted on the wrong thing.
So here goes. I will do my best to lay out my contrarian position -- but be clear that I base it on strategy, not cynicism.
The only outcome that matters in the end is on how we can redirect this new energy to where it actually needs to be -- from the partial restraints of Copenhagen to full blown eco-conversion. Copenhagen is a story of many contradictions, but the need to "lose" at Copenhagen in order to expand the momentum for this conversion is the biggest of the bunch.
The problem with treaties
I am not pulling rank here, but my own (too long!) experience makes me very wary. As you know, I went to law school in the '70s with a goal of stopping whaling. When I graduated, and came back to Vancouver, the media was ablaze with photos of the Greenpeace zodiac between the Russian whaling ships and the whales. I soon found myself in the Greenpeace office on Fourth Avenue, where it was easy (in those early days) to convince a core group -- Bob Hunter, Pat Moore, and Paul Spong -- of my plan. Greenpeace had the world's attention -- but it wasn't where the decisions were being made at the International Whaling Commission. So, yes, they agreed, let's do it. And I had a job -- get us accredited at the IWC, be our delegate, and get a ban.
And so, I worked with Greenpeace (and others) over the next 20 years on a variety of international negotiations. I have also studied these treaties, and taught them, and I have learned a bit about what they can and cannot do.
For example, everyone today is freaked out about the leaked emails of last week that are throwing the climate science into question. (Interesting timing, eh?) Science is, they say, being politicized. Right. It has always been this way. The problem is that the real politics in science that I have experienced are on the other side. At the IWC, my biggest lesson came at my first meeting -- I was your age. A critical analysis of the reproductive rates of sperm whales in the North Pacific had shown that the proposed quota for the next summer should be slashed from 10,000 to 0. After a major struggle, and with only a handful of environmentalists in attendance, we got the cut! But with a caveat -- the science would be reviewed at a special follow-up meeting.
Sure enough, in Tokyo the following winter, the science was "revisited," and the quote was jacked back up. One variable was changed -- and the following summer, 10,000 whales were killed. But the effort that the whalers expended the next summer to find that dwindling population was so great that the hunt could no longer be justified, however much you fiddled the variables. The result was that the recovery of the sperm whales in the South Pacific was set back for many, many decades to come.
Now the upside is that we did get a moratorium -- one on long distance whaling in 1979, and a full commercial moratorium in 1982. So treaties can work, even though Japanese whalers are still whaling, operating under a phony "scientific" exemption (there it is again). Meanwhile, Japan repeatedly threatens to leave the International Whaling Commission.
But enough history. Here are some lessons that I have learned.
More problems with treaties
One is that our individual governments operate at these levels only in their perceived "national interest." This is the "collective action" problem. Canada, by the way, was one of the worst pro-whalers right up until the 1982 moratorium. So its bad reputation today has long preceded it, despite federal green-washing.
In these negotiations, what’s right for planetary health counts for almost nothing in comparison with what counts politically (and economically) at home. Why do you think there isn’t any global forests convention, though God knows, we need one. All forests are national, and all the negotiations even to discuss a treaty have produced more smoke and mirror than you will ever see over the next couple of weeks. Again, Canada is no supporter here; its concern for national sovereignty trumps its planetary responsibilities hands down.
As any international environmental lawyer will tell you, the results of treaty negotiations reflect the "lowest common denominator" of the states involved. (That denominator is economic.) The necessity of Copenhagen is to redefine that denominator, and push it way up. But such a goal is not on the table, because it is state delegates, not environmentalists, who draft the treaties, sign them and implement them (or not).
Yes, treaties can be effective, but there's another irony here. Their effectiveness is greatest when there is the least at stake. Like where there are only a few bad guys to control, or a low-cost solution at hand. At the Whaling Commission, there were only two long distance whalers -- Japan and Russia -- and it was still a huge battle.
And we were able to "solve" the problem of ozone depletion from CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) only because we could easily replace CFCs with a different refrigerant.
But in Copenhagen, these conditions don't exist. Everyone is more or less a bad guy because everyone contributes to climate change, and controlling it goes to the heart of every national economy.
'Well it's a first step' and other fallacies
There is another lesson that should cause real caution if it looks like something minimal is coming out of Copenhagen. Targets that are set as minimums end up becoming maximums. If science later points to the need for more aggressive action (as it has a habit of doing), no matter. It takes years, decades, a whole generation to bump up the targets. In other words, a weak treaty itself becomes an immovable object, so that overcoming it becomes a massive energy sink for the whole movement. Time is wasted.
If one were to be cynical, or realistic, this would help explain why so many world leaders support a treaty. It will provide a shield against more demanding political commitments, and sheathe the sword that might actually slay climate change. Given the minimal positions of the U.S., China, India and a host of other states (not to mention Canada), nothing more can be expected. Even Dr. Climate Science himself, James Hansen of NASA, is now saying that Copenhagen should fail. This is why.
So, when you start hearing "Well, it's a first step," it's time to shout "Fire!" and race for the exits. And take the voting delegates with you!
One last lesson: even minimal targets are meant to be missed. We have seen this with the Kyoto Protocol. But there is an even more telling example that is not yet big news. When the Framework Convention was agreed to in Rio in 1992, the other big achievement was the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). The parties to the CBD -- the same governments at Copenhagen -- later set a fixed date and formally agreed to "achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level." In their upcoming meeting next April, these parties will announce that they have been unable to meet these targets, and that there is no hope for doing so.
The elephant that is not even in the room
Speaking of the CBD, there's another big problem too -- biodiversity loss. And this unfolding global catastrophe is not related historically to climate change. And it's not the only one such problem.
You know the whole debate about the "hockey stick" -- the proposition that when you plot the increase over time in atmospheric greenhouse gases on a graph, the shape of the trajectory looks like a hockey stick, rising gradually over the decades then shooting up like a rocket in recent years. Well, the real issue here is not whether science supports this hockey stick graph. That whole debate is really a minor skirmish, and a diversion, because we are not talking about a single hockey stick, but a whole locker room full of hockey sticks!
If you were to pass around a single piece of information at Copenhagen, it should be the two pages of graphs at the beginning of an interesting book written by Gus Speth, this generation's leading environmental bureaucrat in Washington D.C. The book is The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability. Speth sets out 16 hockey stick graphs that portray increases in water use, in the damning of rivers, in CO2 concentrations, ozone depletion (hopefully now slowing down), rates of increase in average surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere, the rising frequency of great floods, depletion of ocean ecosystems, loss of rainforests, biodiversity decline, increases in fertilizer and paper consumption, and the explosion in the number of motor vehicles.
And three others: growth in the size of the global economy (GDP), foreign direct investment, and population.
Together, these graphs -- all hockey sticks -- provide a single message. We are killing the earth in every way imaginable, getting rich in the process, and providing a model for a growing world population to join in on.
In short, the message is that we have a system problem, not just a climate problem. And, for me, this leads to two questions. First, can we solve a system problem by solving one aspect of it? Clearly not. But, you will say that climate change is hugely urgent (yes, it is), and it is going to make all those other problems worse (yes, it is). So we have to act on it now, and fast. This is understandable; this is the mantra.
But I would then ask you a second question -- can you solve one problem (climate) without addressing the underlying system problems driving it and all the others? Few, if anyone, with the power to make a difference in the hard negotiations is addressing this question, because the whole conference is premised on that answer being "Yes, we can." Unfortunately, the correct answer is "No, we can't."
Tomorrow: Bring in the elephants. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
crankypants
07-12-2009
Hypocracy
If CO2 is such a big problem with respect to climate change, then why are we having meetings such as the one in Copenhagen? What will be the carbon footprint created by all those that make appearances? We've got the oficial delegations from various countries, provinces or states, media from a majority of these areas, and activists all making their way to Copenhagen. I doubt too many of them are walking or cycling to get there.
Has anyone ever heard of video-conferencing? If you want people to buy-in to something then it may be prudent to lead by example. The do as I say, not as I do concept will do little to convert the non-believers.
superjudge
07-12-2009
brrrr
A little doubtful of Global Warming this morning as it's -16 here in Kelowna. But on the serious side, be careful of the wolves in sheep's clothing in Copenhagen...
Fiat lux
07-12-2009
The main cause of
The main cause of environmental degradation is the presently used, fraudulent definition of economic efficiency, basically as "the biggest monetary profits for the smallest monetary inputs", overruling the definition of physical efficiency as "the most work done with the smallest resource/energy inputs"
We can not have two contradicting definitions of the same principle within the same system and get away with it.
Of course, humanity has been practicing the same contradictions since the beginning of history. E.g. "Do not kill" in all religious and civil laws, then overruled by all societies always preparing for war and the mass murder of others to steal their resources.
The long and short of it is that as long we have imaginary monetary values governing our economies, we'll continue on our road to self destruction.
Especially now, when imaginary money, created from the air by a special interest sector has become the licence for the dictatorial control of the world's resources, taught in our universities as "economics".
As long as this racket is permitted to go on, there's no hope for any change for the better.
Money is an important economic factor we can not live without, but what goes on in the present, with the present monetary system licencing violence, crime and the destruction of the environment and humanity by the priesthood of economists in service of the Money God, is completely unacceptable and has to be stopped if we want to survive as a civilization
Ed Deak, Big Lake.
Van Isle
07-12-2009
Well said Ed. As I commented
Well said Ed. As I commented last week, the psyco-paths are in charge and they don't care about the enviroment, pollution or any of the stuff; just making money and having power.
jwishart
07-12-2009
I have read M'Gonigle in the
I have read M'Gonigle in the past and liked what I saw. This piece, however, was extremely unpalatable to me.
One can either be a purist or a realist, and M'Gonigle chooses to be the former here. If he thinks that there is a chance of a systemic change of our entire economic system, and that this change can occur in the timeframe that the upward trend in GHG concentrations demands, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to have him take a look at.
The Copenhagen summit is the only game in town, and to join forces with people like U.S. Senator James Inhofe in hoping that it fails is probably the worst thing that an "environmentalist" can do. We need to start reducing our emissions (now!), and negotiations at Copenhagen are an important step in this process. I absolutely agree that the targets are very unlikely to as strong as the science warrants; however, it's not an all-or-nothing problem and so every reduction we can make is a point to the good. It's just naive to think that a failure in Copenhagen will cause everyone to take a step back and say,"Ok, since we couldn't agree on how to limit GHG emissions, let's tackle the fundamental way that our economies work--I am sure we will all be able to agree on how this will be done." I am getting sick of hearing the much over-used adage to "not let the perfect be the enemy of the good," but it most certainly applies here.
I think that M'Gonigle is doing something both dangerous and dumb by writing this article. His authority is likely to divide the people who want action just when we need solidarity and provide fuel and cover for the delayers and deniers. His experience with negotiations and seeing how the real world actually works should have helped him see that academic wishful thinking is at best counter-productive and at worst disastrous (he decries at once the negotiations to end whaling before acknowledging that they worked in the end!) I hope that he sees this before writing his next piece, but I won't hold my breath (even if it would reduce my carbon footprint)...
Oh, and M'Gonigle is wrong about the "hockey stick": it's about the surface temperature record of the past 1000 years, not the level of GHG emissions.
KWD
07-12-2009
"Everyone is more or less a bad guy ..."
Finally we get some much needed insight into the pschology around the issue of climate change rather than mindnumbing focus on on the legitamacy and value of statistics … an unwinnable debate … and the straw men start gathering.
Soon we will see yet another march down the streets of Obfuscatia, leaving a trail of annoying detritus and the attention will turn once again to the plight of the hollow men rather than the behmouth marching into Bethlehem.
"Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At [nine] o’clock in the morning."
Art the Green
07-12-2009
patrick moore
I'd be skeptical too if I'd worked with patrick moore:
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Moore
seth
07-12-2009
Easy Peasy
The world outside of Greenpeace is starting to realize that nuclear power is the only possible in time answer to our less than ten years away civilization ending peak oil and climate crisis.
A worldwide build of 10000 mass produced reactors would be payed for and would end fossil fuel use, air pollution, peak oil and global warming all at once. The worldwide build would be an excellent investment with less than three year paybacks financed by ending the use of fossil fuels. The industrial effort required would be only a small portion of current excess capacity.
Because of nuclear's financial benefits and air pollution elimination even Deniers would embrace the nuclear solution.
Because Greenpeace was so successful at replacing nukes with Big Coal power, they are responsible for the deaths of hundred of millions of people worldwide from lung disease. Suzuki in a paper a few weeks ago actually recommended we continue with radioactive toxic waste spewing coal plants killing hundreds of millions more as long the carbon is sequestered - a thoroughly discredited impractical and ultra expensive solution to GHG's.
Greenies with their renewable nonsense are working hard at Copenhagen against nuclear power to ensure nothing is done about Global warming or peak oil until billions are dead and civilization is shattered.
Chris Keam
07-12-2009
yeah, about that word controlling thing
Soleprobe:
You keep suggesting world government is the aim of climate change activism. That purported aim is going to be a bit hard to achieve though isn't it? Since most proponents of action against climate change actually support more self-sufficiency, more input and decision making at the regional level, and a return to locally-based economies wherever possible. In fact, it's quite obvious that action against climate change will for the most part decentralize the power structure, since the biggest impediment to local action for the environment is usually some globe-spanning corporation or WTO-type legislation.
Bruce Elkin
07-12-2009
So, what do you propose, Michael?
Interesting and challenging piece, Michael. I agree with you that it is a "systems" challenge. But you shoot down the validity of COP15 without suggesting another way to approach the multiple hockey sticks. Where in the system do you propose to intervene? And how?
There is an immense amount of energy, especially in young people, growing around the climate change issue. They are often visionary, but not grounded firmly in the whole reality, and thus take actions that either merely bring them relief from the "problem" or are doomed to fail, and lead to depression, cynicism, and lack of energy.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on how to take on - or transcend - this systemic, multiple hockey stick challenge.
dorothy
07-12-2009
There will more to riding than saying 'giddyup'.
“Environmentalists have done a phenomenal job at educating the public about climate change.”
Have they? News to me. There is a lot of panicky unsubstantiated claims; a lot of fancy graphs, where half of the information is missing to make them valid statistical statements, and then there is the blaming game, which to any sensitive person comes clearly out as thinly veiled misanthropy.
It is a fact that the Earth in the past has undergone climate changes up and down far more radical than what we have seen recently, for reasons no one has yet understood. There is lack of solid proof, or even any proof, that the present climate change – if it is there, is man-made, and that we can do anything to change it. Yet, the climate-change thing is fast turning into a really ugly religion, with all kinds of desires sticking out for severe punishments for heresy, as illustrated in the e-mails leaked. No, I’m not ‘freaked out. I am hearing no more than I suspected I would, were I a fly on the wall. But I’m not happy that I was right about that.
George Monbiot in the Guardian mentions “…the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them..”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response
I’m sorry, but I don’t have any patience with people who try to excuse wrongdoing and cheating with the difficulty of their job. When things are going well, they enjoy all the prestige and power and privilege their academic standing gives them. Their community supported them in achieving it, with the understanding that they would hold up their end of the deal by presenting things in an honest and accountable fashion. Then they cannot whine about how hard it is in the moments where they must pay their dues.
All I can say is: I have never met an ‘environmentalist’ I liked, simply as a human being, one who showed respect for others instead of disgust, impatience, arrogance. If there really is climate change that we have made, and we fail to address it, and we perish together as a consequence, I will lay the blame squarely on the doorstep of the ‘environmental’ movement. No one can present a concern to fellow human beings in the style they’re doing it, and expect to be heard.
Soc
07-12-2009
Get over it. Hypocrisy is an
Get over it. Hypocrisy is an unfortunate but undeniable part of the human condition. For example, why does Michael continue to work at a University whose policies he apparently loathes? Lots of good reasons, I assume. Some probably financial. Others probably not. The point is, if we're going to deal with this crisis (ahem, these crises...), we must look deeper into the root causes of why there is so much resistance to change. Many of them are due to vested, powerful interest (ie. money). Others, however, speak to what many people desire in life: job security, comfort, economic and political freedom. This is what keeps electing conservative and liberal governments in Canada. As soon as you start trying to redirect jobs, reduce consumption, slap a tax here and a regulation there, people get kinda pissed, because it gets in the way of these freedoms they've learned to expect from modern, first world life. That's where summits like Copenhagen may be beneficial; to show the public that, yeah, even the major power brokers are looking a little concerned, not just all the environmentalist lawyers, students, and activists out there. Of course, I agree with M'Gonigle that the complex, many-faceted nature of the ecological crisis has the potential of being swept under the rug by events likes Copenhagen. However, I disagree with him in calling for a complex, many-faceted solution to these crises, moral quips aside.
Hook
07-12-2009
The arrogant elephant
I couldn't agree more. The underlying systemic problem is the arrogant elephant. The elephant??? Too many humans on the planet. This is where all topics concerning environmental degradation lead. I hope this will be addressed in your next installment.
bakoonin_mik
07-12-2009
Dorothy serves as a perfect case
Dorothy serves as a classic example of how the climate denial PR machine is winning over science. I don't blame Dorothy, she is a layperson caught in the mucky mire of PR confusion being spread by big oil and friends.
The reason scientists have stopped engaging deniers (i.e., appearing to have stopped educating the public), is because they've made a calculated, scientific decision that when there is no debate, there is no sense in debating. Here's Dr. Andrew Weaver's take:
"We, as a community of international scientists, are refusing to continue to engage anymore in these false debates, because there isn't one. If we do, then they say there is a debate and they've won the PR game."
Scientists are not in the business of PR, nor should we expect them to be in that business, but the need to better communicate the science is clearly pressing.
Here's what PR guru James Hoggan says:
"In 35 years of public relations, I have never seen anything close to the magnitude of this current manipulation of the media. It is my view that the climate denial PR machine is working extremely well and we need to stop it. We cannot have the energy industry shaping the policy on climate change."
Hoggan is not a scientist, and even says he's not even an environmentalist, but he knows slick, effective PR when he sees it.
A lot of people, like Dorothy, say they don't buy the climate change science because they don't "see it." As Weaver notes, this misconception relates to confusing weather and climate. Not the same things at all. The big oil/energy PR machine has done just this, led us into such nonsense that has us saying, "it's so cold this winter, how could there possibly be climate change?"
patrickC
07-12-2009
Depressing
Its really depressing to read most of these angry comments, especially when in nominal response to Michael M'Gonigle and his thoughtful, and grounded in deep experience, article. Michael is a man who has A plus street cred for walking the talk. For a whole lifetime now. Its bleak. Very bleak.
Dr Alexander
07-12-2009
Chris, soleprobe is not far off.
World taxation based on carbon usage is probably more to the mark.
If you control tax money, and you are not elected, you control everything.
Urbanismo
07-12-2009
Against Copenhagen
Well Crankypants you certainly have that right: hypocrisy!
Environmental Law Professor Michael M'Gonigle has written a measured and responsible assessment to behavior that is anything but measured and responsible.
He is right to be against Copenhagen, although multiple hockey sticks do not contribute to the conversation: all will "photoshopped" as is the Mann version.
With a Greenpeace pedigree he must know the futility of confronting "big business" of any logo: Irvin Stowe and Bob Hunter will be turning in their graves. The Phyllis McCormack is long gone Michael . . .
Now we have Copenhagen and money. I will not be there because I am not interested in making money off our woes.
Cap-and-trade is just another ponzi.
Evidently we now know Obama is heavily invested in the Chicago Climate Exchange: he's got it right, for "himself".
And that is the ethos we face "for self".
Locally we must disabuse Mayor Gregor of his "Green" sustainable fantasy. Nothing is sustainable and his green region dream, Portland/Seattle/Vancouver is, at best, another excuse to junket first class at our expense. At worst a sleazy power grab.
Watching the mayor so far the latter is unlikely but we all know, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
"Like you, I am terrified and saddened at what climate change is doing to the Earth, and recognize that dramatic action is needed."
Unlike you I am not terrifed " at what climate change is doing to the Earth . . . " I am terrified by what we are allowing the power/money psychotics to do in our name . . .
And that is why Professor James Hansen is right to call for Copenhagen to be cancelled.
Rex Weyler
07-12-2009
M'Gonigle nails it
M'Gonigle nails it
Sorry, for those who feel hope is shattered by this reality, but ecology -- earth, energy, sun, water, biology -- has its own rules. One of these rules is that things and groups of things cannot grow forever. Our underlying system -- as M'Gonigle points out -- requires that we believe the impossible: endless growth.
The under lying humanh global economic system of production and consumption and waste is indeed the problem and neither Copenhagen nor all the Corporate "Sustainability Managers" in the world won't change that.
Thanks for speaking the tough truth, Michael.
Rex Weyler.
PWB
07-12-2009
You all still don't really get it!
The real cause of our total environmental dilemma, and the hockey stick that no one cares to mention, is quite simply OVERPOPULATION!!!! That is precisely why Kyoto, Copenhagen and Timbuktu whatever, will have no appreciable effect on reducing global warming or the decline in biodiversity or the consumptive demise of the planet as we now know it. Every one of the major problems that mankind faces today is directly attibutable to the fact that there are simply too many of us for the earth to support. Never before in the history of mankind have there been so many of us to feed, cloth and house. The last time I looked, there doesn't seem to be any shortage of 'us' on the horizon either.
It is my contention that unless we seriously and effectively deal with this issue in a non-religious and sensible manner, our future as a civilization on this planet looks exceedingly bleak.
caikman
07-12-2009
Isn't it simple, really?
Sure, the world has lots of other crises. But most of them relate back to our primary crisis: our use of energy. We can't solve ANY of the other crises without solving that one!
Is it that hard really? All we need to do is shift from fossil to sustainable (free) energy. We have most of the technology to do this already. What we need is politcal will.
anetaua
07-12-2009
I share in your scepticism
I share in your scepticism on Copenhagen. http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/2009/12/06/step-canada-climate-change-its-gettin-hot-here-students-foreign-policy-camp-say
Hook
07-12-2009
M'Gonigle nails it
Good to read an opinion without it being overly demonstrative with anger, accusation or assumtion. I look forward to M'Gonigle's next article.
record
07-12-2009
Right On Rex
Quote:
The under lying human global economic system of production and consumption and waste is indeed the problem and neither Copenhagen nor all the Corporate "Sustainability Managers" in the world won't change that.
--------------------
The problem in a nutshell. Copenhagen is a farce since it will not deal with this problem, and anthropogenic assisted climate change is only a symptom of a problem, not the problem.
The human population is currently consuming at a rate greater than the biosystem's ability to sustain it, so much so that if all of the greatest consumers were vaporized, about a billion, the rest would still be over consuming on average. Greener energy sources and other more ecofriendly practices will not help unless the overall demand on the system is reversed, and reversed considerably.
If we wish future generations to have anywhere near the average per capita rate of consumption currently enjoyed in the developed world, those generations will probably have to be a third or less in size than the present population. And, an economic system will have to be in place that values stasis, not growth.
dorothy
07-12-2009
Yeah, but...
"...an economic system will have to be in place that values stasis, not growth."
Well, now wouldn't that tend to put us in an adversarial relationship with those philosophies that have it on their agenda to win supremacy by out-breeding the rest of us?? Those that keep their women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen or some version thereof?
record
07-12-2009
It would
An adversarial relationship with any who think that they have a right to reproduce unconditionally, with any trying to dominate through reproduction, and with any economic system built on growth and the fantasy that wealth can be created.
Hook
07-12-2009
anetaua. Isn't it simple, really?
Actually no, it unfortunately is not. While our technology may help us shift from fossil fuels it will also promote the the underlying belief that the human species can continue to "grow" without limits.
For myself what is simple is it takes more food to sustain more humans and while the topic is about climate change, 6.8 billion humans - and counting -is related and often not recognized as inextricably from the issue. I think M'Gonigle is pointing this out when he poses "can you solve one problem (climate) without addressing the underlying system problems driving it and all the others?" I am sure there are many opinions as to what the underlying system problems are and I only proffer my own as it strikes me that it gets little recognition. I have little faith that global leadership can deal with the very real problem of convincing the world's cultures that humans must learn to drastically reduce procreation! Notwithstanding I believe it is possible to make systemic changes locally, and successful change at this level can lead...
lynn
07-12-2009
Ineffective Band-aids.
Great article.
It reveals how the world is operating at every level now....lurching from one ineffective so-called temporary solution to another....
No one seems to care a whit about real effectiveness.
Certainly not the cowardly, unimaginative, walking dead posing as leadership these days. KWD nails it when quoting TS Eliot of how obfuscation, the endless delay and muddle of it, now rules the day, yup, here we go....."round and round the prickly pear"...'til we all fall down.
As M'Gonigle writes
Quote:
"If one were to be cynical, or realistic, this would help explain why so many world leaders support a treaty. It will provide a shield against more demanding political commitments, and sheathe the sword that might actually slay climate change."
Ironically, it's "the shield" itself that has become effective.
Shielding ourselves from commitment we seem to do rather well.
At our tragic peril.
As M'Gonigle suggests when that happens real solutions don't then stand a chance.
And in that regard, my God, this is the best statement of all:
"But I would then ask you a second question -- can you solve one problem (climate) without addressing the underlying system problems driving it and all the others? "
Isn't this THE question that must be taken on in every arena of life that needs to be addressed of late.
Endlessly tinkering with the parts just doesn't cut it anymore.
The system is killing us. It's a lemon.
It must change. WE must change it....and ourselves.
steve.a.parr
07-12-2009
whats the strategy then? and my take:
didn't see much strategy in his article.
too much smart-sounding cynicism. i appreciate that it's well-earned by his amazing experiences and vastly more detailed knowledge of the subject area than most.
i don't believe that Copenhagen will fix anything or will necessarily be a "good first step" (which seems to imply that this is a linear process rather than the system, value and consciousness-shifting course that I simply must believe humanity is engaged in - I don't see how we'll make it otherwise).
i do believe that it is absolutely vital that we throw our energies into Copenhagen and all other opportunities to galvanize and deepen social engagement with climate change issues. not haphazardly and certainly with discernment, to be sure, but consistently and pnately. this is the defining issue of our age precisely because it's resolution depends upon big C cultural shifts, shifts that ultimately are in everyone's better interest and I am optimistic will profoundly serve our species and all life.
im probably around students too much, but seems like a lot of creativity and good ideas can come when a deadline is pending ...
thoughts prayers support and muffins to all those devoting their energies in Copenhagen to reshaping this world. don't despair if it doesn't work out like you think it does, your sustained passion matters a whole lot more than any outcome.
Soc
07-12-2009
Re: Speak for Yourself
I admire your steadfastness in pursuing the “proof and substance of the claims” as a prerequisite for change. Debate about anthropogenic climate change has been raging since the early 70’s, with persuasive claims on either side of the debate. Though, as an environmentalist I am evidently biased, I too am opposed to arrogant, fear-mongering, “religious-style” arguments on either side of the debate.
Uncertainty will always be part of any public policy decision. However, this is exactly why we should be doing something about climate change. As suggested by Elizabeth May and The Economist, strong climate policy is like putting insurance on the planet. At relatively minimal costs we can avert potential catastrophic costs, all the while reaping benefits to the health of our communities, ecologies, and economies.
Up until recently, American taxpayers have been paying more on the Iraq war yearly than it has been estimated to prevent climate change (as predicted by economist Nicholas Stern). This is excluding the un-renderable value associated with preserving natural ecologies and animal life (including humans). Meanwhile, the decision to enter the Iraq war was swift and absolute –hardly the 30 odd years of climate debate- and ultimately based upon faulty “intelligence.” Yet, the political will existed, arguably due to the “vested powerful interests (ie. Money)” that I spoke of before. These same vested interests are preventing a less costly (a bargain both in terms of money and human life) solution to an entirely more sinister problem, in the face of more convincing scientific evidence.
Contrary to what you suggest, I am not “assuming that I know how people think”; I am simply trying to make sense of what I observe in the world around me. As you have suggested, people are asking hard questions about what should be done about climate change. I feel that this is reflected in the resistance to change exhibited in the general public. This is at least partially tied to the fact that any policy aimed at resolving climate change will ultimately affect people's livelihoods. If it didn’t, we wouldn’t be having this debate at all (or am I assuming this too?). However, in the developed world we are also faced with the triple burden of deciding what is best for ourselves while also considering how these decisions will affect other human beings (including those in the developing world) and natural ecologies themselves.
As far as Hypocrisy goes, I was simply trying to illustrate that the problem goes deeper than the hypocrisy of the “political and economic elites”, as some have suggested, but is systematic, including the choices made by each and every one of us in our daily lives. The world is full of beautiful contradictions, of which I am apart, and only by recognizing our own occasional hypocrisies can we come to a deeper, more complex understanding of what it means to be human and deal with the problems we face.
KWD
07-12-2009
the hypocracy runs from top to bottom
Because oil and it’s countless derivatives … society’s foundation cornerstones … have become the lifeblood of modern industrialized society, any suggestions of drastically reducing, much less removing, oil from important god-appeasing sectors like the transportation sector, are viewed as somewhat heretical or treasonous. Those that plead for mercy are marched kicking and screaming to the denialist’s sacrificial altar.
Requesting leave to plead reason to higher levels not only threatens that which feeds the ‘gods’, it threatens the lifestyles of those that sharpen the knives and keep the ‘gods’ happy. But sadly, even the still throbing heart, held in the hands of those wishing to join the ‘enlightenment’, will not be enough to quell their ‘gods’ anger.
As a result, not only will very few people willingly release their grip on that which makes their lifestyles possible, and enjoyable, they will, in the face of any reasonable proposition that suggests we may be on the path to global calamity and much pain, deny that their behaviour … rounding up the heretics for slaughter … has anything to do with the problems.
It is because of this far reaching dependence on oil, and its inescapable and undeniable relationship to pleasure, and pain, that we see such a pronounced and profound level of denial in public opinion.
The truth is, the strength of the climate change denial cabal is a function of the enormity of individual complicity.
Cynic
07-12-2009
Absolutely, it's the
Absolutely, it's the underlying system that is the core problem, not climate change per se. And who chose the system? Not me. Not you. The power elite.
We can make all the personal psychological changes we want, all the personal lifestyle changes we want, and it matters not a whit. Power doesn't care, power doesn't even notice. No hope, no change. The only thing power notices is a threat to the status quo, to itself.
What would threaten the status quo? People talking about the underlying system, the system set up by the elite, the system that gives them the power: money and banking. Where does money come from? Can you imagine what would happen if this was the core topic of discussion, on the front pages and in the blogs? Very soon, the people would begin to assert their will against the psychopaths. That would bring genuine change.
Dr Alexander
07-12-2009
Actually, M'Gonigle hits in on the nose with this comment:
"They'd all ask, "Does this guy work for Exxon?"
And that is the problem. If you are not singing off the IPCC crib notes, if you are not parroting the Suzuki/Greenpeace/Gore/May line, if you are not in complete conformity with whatever the "Go Green" flavour of the week is, then:
"Does this guy work for Exxon?"
So, M'Gonigle recognizes that the AGW gang have their head buried so deep in carbon that any diversion from the Message cannot be tolerated.
BTW. It seems that Berman is going to Copenhagen, and Gore is canceling his trip to Copenhagen. I wonder if the two events are related.
RickW
07-12-2009
From the Monday edition of CBCs The Current:
The Voice sums it up quite nicely.
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2009/200912/20091207.html
It's Monday, December 7th.
Today marks the opening of the global climate-change summit in Copenhagen.
Currently, this means that countries around the world will soon learn what bold new proposals to save the earth they can ignore.
This is The Current.
North of Hope
07-12-2009
worldofplenty
You talk about the word "trick" used by one of the scientists. And you used "The National Post" as your source.
From “Climatologists under pressure” at
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
"One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results."
You should get some better sources.
andrewwood
07-12-2009
climate changre
Andrew Weaver's comments, quoted in one of the posts here, typifies the arrogant attitude found in the CRU emails, where his name also occurs. He can't debate the skeptics because that would mean there is a debate, and there isnt because the science is settled. Not being a member of the church of settled science, I find this attitude at odds with what I know of the basic principles of thee scientific method.
When an experiment is done, the raw data is published along with the results, so that experiment can be repeated by others, and thus verified. Real science is skeptical in nature, you say this is how the experiment went- I say , fine - I want to verify it independantly.But CRU has been withholding data, sometimes for years and years, so that no one else can repeat their work, which means its not science, just an opinion. I am proud to wear the label of 'skeptic' if this is what passes for science. And I dont want to see billions of dollars spent and millions of people suffer because of misdirected effort on the basis of these opinions
DavidM
09-12-2009
Against Copenhagen
I understand your sentiment. One of the problems with our society is that we look for and believe in quick fixes and usually these quick fixes don't require us to step out of our sociological or physological comfort zone.
So here we are, to solve the many 'Hockey Stick Graphs" we as a global community will have to find it in our communial hearts to want different things from life. Different values, different sources of joy and a differnt and inclusive spirituality.
Impossible you might say but how did we get to this point. how did we get from that careful generation that grew up during the Second World War (my father's generation) to the subsequent consumer oriented generations (mind is the worst, the baby boomers). We got here through the marketer's exploitation of the very human characteristics of greed and self interest.
Why can't we use the same method to create a society who's self interest is survival and the experience of joy through the experience of life and nature.
Over the last few decades societal attitudes to violence against women, drinking and driving, and now smoking were changed. Schools are working really hard to change their student's attitudes to nature and the environment, and are having sugnificant successes.
So the legislated control of Carbon Dioxide output is only a tiny part, a part that may buy us enough time for the real change to happen. The change that needs to happen in our societies, religions, communities and our relationship to nature.