Forget climate treaties and help the world instead?


The results of poll were announced yesterday, revealing that two thirds of the UK population have no confidence that world leaders can agree on future solutions to climate change at the Bali summit.

But forget future solutions - the world has proven that we can’t even execute previous solutions; Despite the rhetoric of various national leaders, worldwide emissions have risen 20% since the foundation of the Kyoto agreement due to emissions increases in developing nations and industrialised nations, including those nations signatory to the agreement.

Current plans for renewable energy are fanciful at best with no real hope of meeting additional energy needs over the coming years, let alone replacing existing carbon energy sources.

And with the US refusing to agree to binding commitments, and China claiming that climate change is not their problem it seems the remaining third of the British public that were polled are highly deluded.

So shouldn’t we ignore the distraction of pointless talks, gave up on the fantasy of reducing emissions and concentrate on preparing for a warmer world instead? There are many advantages to this approach;

  • Developing nations will have a chance to grow without restriction and generate strong economies that can finance climate adaptation projects. A wealthier world will be a healthier and stronger world.
  • Free from the distraction of pointless climate talks we can focus on helping to resolve the issues that continue to blight the Third World. The most unfortunate people in our world today will benefit more from an end to corruption and poverty than they will from a reduction in Co2.
  • The world can focus on projects which will have immediate benefits, such as improved water supplies and crop management, rather than projects that will have no measurable benefit for several generations.
  • We can concentrate on taking advantage of the benefits that a warmer world may bring, including new opportunities for crop production, tourism and shipping routes.
  • Finally, we can focus on some of the more serious underlying issues, such as population growth, poor education and lack of equality.

Of course, another poll would show that we have little hope of achieving these things as well, but the difference is that we are less likely to be distracted from the real issues of today by a group of do-good diplomats, negotiators, politicians and environmentalists trying to justify an all expenses paid holiday in Bali.

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.


Other Posts
The way ahead
China Says West Should Deal With Global Warming

Tags


Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word

Reader Comments

I agree with this mindset. Twenty years ago we were told that if we waited five years, it would be too late to save the planet. Then fifteen years ago, we were told if we waited five years, it would be too late. For two decades we have been in danger of immenent destruction if we didn’t do something immediately.

Let us get on with life. We should be building coal and nuclear power stations. We should be drilling for deep oil. We should use whatever energy it takes to bring the entire world up to the same high standard of living. Once we have done that, then we can worry about alternate energy, and we will also have the funds to finance it (since it is quite a bit more expensive than conventional energy sources).

You haven’t come up with any suggestions for all the people who are displaced from their homes due to rising water levels.

A creative and simple solution to that would be appreciated by both those with million dollars waterfronts and the millions of poor living on low lying lands.

You are right, we haven’t come up with any suggestions for displacement in our article, and displacement will be a serious issue.

But we would argue that nobody else has come up with a any workable suggestions either - believing that politicians will successfully decarbonise our economy to the extent that any sea level rise will be reversed is akin to King Canute commanding the tide to roll back.

Sorry we can’t be more constructive - today we are cynical on this issue. Later this week we will try to explore some more radical approaches to the problem.

Considering that sea level has been rising for millenium, why is it such a big deal now?

Because now it disturbs populations. One million years ago it did not.

If you live so close to sea level that 2mm per year is impacting you, you are far too close to begin with. ex. New Orleans, who the h-e-(double hockey sticks) thought building a city under sea-level is a good idea, then re-building it again.

Phil for you I have a solution, I call it the MB-10 plan or “move back 10M above sea level” plan. You should have at minimum 100 Years to implement this intricate solution to your dilemma.

Also if by studying the geology of the coastal area you determine that this area was under water in the past, “Red Flag” my friend.

People insist on living places that are not safe in regards to natural disasters. My favorite is flooding, been our bane for all time, yet we built on flood plains and river deltas because these places had all the things we needed in the early days and in undeveloped countries, constant source of water, good soil, access to water transport. Then we all seem shocked when it floods and then act like it is unusual?!?!?

Wow, this is awesome. I love this site. It says what I believe. Thanks.

Phil, sea level has been rising, very slowly, for the last 5000 years, which has to have impacted people living along coastlines. It hasn’t been a problem until about 20 years ago, when it became a political issue.

When I was growing up in California, many years ago, there were always a few houses every year that fell into the ocean because of a big storm. That is the problem for anyone who lives on a beach, is that the terrain is always changing. People have always lived with that, and adapted as best they could.

This is a terrible argument; data simply do not support it. How do you explain the phasing out of ozone-depleting CFC’s? CFC’s were absolutely vital to industrial countries — they were used in everything from refrigeration to foam. Yet they were almost entirely phased out in 10 years, even against the resistance of world powers (like France). That was hard, required action by the entire world, and was accomplished. Plus the science behind ozone depletion was much, much worse at the time those agreements were made than the science about climate change is today.

Thanks for you comment Stefan. I agree with you to the extent that we can always make big changes when we put our minds to it, but it’s not very often that the human race manages to really put its mind to a common problem.

And the difference with CFCs is that they are limited to certain types of economic activity, whereas Co2 is pretty much universal – it is used to heat out homes, cook our food, power our cars and power our industry. Our dependence on Co2 emitting technologies is much more widespread that that of CFCs and will require changes of a different magnitude.

The CTV (Canadian TV News) just showed a picture of Stephen Dion (the current leader of Canada’s official opposition party) shaking Al Gore’s hand at the Bali Climate Change Conference. I wonder if Al Gore knows that Dion was the former Canadian Environment Minister (under the previous Liberal Government) at a time when emissions in Canada (post Kyoto) went through the roof. If Al Gore knew Dion’s past I doubt he would be publicly embracing him.

How can the Liberal Party of Canada claim ownership of the environment when it was their government that ratified Kyoto and did nothing during their tenure in power to reduce emissions. It was under the Liberals that Canadian emissions are now some of the worst in the world and place Canada as the second largest per capita emitter after the US. The world should know that the Liberal Party of Canada under Stephen Dion is merely playing lip service to the issue of climate change just to get back into power.