Here's a profoundly misleading article in the NYT about the crucial fissures that will emerge in Copenhagen. The first?
RICH NATIONS VS. POOR NATIONS
Who should pay whom for what — and how much?
The Bolivias and Chads and Mauritanias of the world argue that they are more vulnerable to changes in temperature, and have little or no resources to adapt to changes in the growing seasons or increased rainfall or — worst case — to relocate large numbers of people. They want the rich world to commit to far deeper emissions cuts than they already have, and to provide them with cash and technology so they can prepare for the worst and develop a clean energy infrastructure for themselves.
The rich world, meanwhile, is busy trying to figure out just how to calculate the cost of all this (estimates run into the trillions of dollars), and how to divvy up the bill.
The rich world is not "trying to figure out just how to calculate" the cost of "all this." The "rich world," its own term of propaganda that blurs the differences in carbon-output between a slum-dweller in Harlem and Bill Gates, is ignoring the cost of "all this," because it will require far too much distribution down the gradient of inequality, far more than the system is designed to handle, far more than an immensely class-conscious ruling class would possible want to give to labor and the poor in the Western world, or to the global South. Distribution to the poor in the developed countries would doubtless take the form of a a green New Deal that would create good, clean jobs and decentralized energy sources, or an Apollo Project. Would it stabilize the ecology and capitalism, anyway? Oddly, yes, but might empower the population--too dangerous to contemplate. Far better to simply ignore ecological breakdown until the Atlantic is lapping at coastal metropolitan cities.
Distribution to the global South would mean massive capital grants and technology transfers, estimated at minimally 300 billion dollars a year, a fraction of the liquid assets that flow in and out of the world's bourses and bond markets on a daily basis. But why bother when you can just shift the burden onto Brown people and fortify your borders to keep them out?
The second?
DEVELOPED VS. DEVELOPING ECONOMIES
This is where postindustrial economies like the United States and Europe, which became prosperous by burning carbon-dioxide-spewing fossil fuels, face off against industrializing economies like China, Brazil and India, which resent pressure to decarbonize their energy systems now that they are growing.
The standoff between China and the United States underscores the issues. The global trade rivals were reluctant to commit to emissions targets until each had an idea of what the other planned. The two countries together are responsible for 40 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. But all players have been eyeing each other warily.
In recent weeks, bidding has begun, with Brazil, then the United States, followed by China and, last week, India, offering up individual emissions goals. But they have used different baselines against which to measure their reductions, making it difficult to determine whether there is parity.
It is not at all clear if it's even meaningful to announce that China, Brazil, and India "resent pressure to de-carbonize" their energy systems, at least if one picks a bit at the word "de-carbonize," and if one is fair-minded enough to assume that they can't and shouldn't be required to do so immediately. China is already taking more steps than, oh, the US, for example, while India "has been successful in reducing the energy intensity of its industrial production over the past 20 years," according to the EIA. 46 percent of Brazilian energy comes from what the Copenhagen talks will doubtless call "renewables" (Dams and sugar-cane ethanol production are dubiously "renewable," but I stick to convention). But sure, the BRIC [Brazil, Russia, India, China] countries are a bit recalcitrant. But should they really be counter-posed to the US, with per-capita emissions between six and twenty times those of China and India, respectively? Particularly when the developed world shifts CO2 production onto China, outsourcing commodity production there, while profits accrue here? Is this really a "fissure" that just deserves quiet, antiseptic analysis, and no blaming, no identification of agency, or responsibility? Compare to Walden Bello:
The climate negotiations have their own share of problems, even without the WTO threat. In the lead-up to Copenhagen, the focus of the climate discussions has been on two issues: mitigation and adaptation. Both are stymied, largely owing to the positions of the industrialized (Annex 1) countries. On mitigation, pivotal developed countries have so far resisted offering legally binding cuts. And what voluntary cuts they have offered are slight. In the case of the United States, President Obama's nonbinding commitment is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 17% from 2005 levels. This translates into an insignificant 4% reduction from 1990 levels, which serve as the benchmark for serious cuts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has asserted that a 25-40% cut in GHG by 2020 is the minimum figure that would keep global mean temperature from rising above two degrees centigrade during this century. And, already, the latter is said to be an underestimate.
The question is, if climate change is a crime against humanity, where do you hold the trials when the affected parties' homes are underwater or have become wastelands? Submarines?
Related posts:
- Climate Change as a War on Development? Yup A clunky rewording of Joan Robinson’s quip that the “United...
- Climate Change, Class War I was not even remotely surprised to read that the...
- Friedman Fantasizes about Green Capitalism Climate change is class war, extended to future generations. Capitalist...
- Very Insightful, Zizek So Zizek is warning the Left [thus, an empty room]...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
