TalkClimateChange

The biggest problem with global warming comes from buildings - the making, heating, cooling,lighting, furnishing… that means that country by country isn’t the solution - company by company is.

Start looking at sustainable standards like SMART. That’s what Wall Street is doing. They are looking at legislation.

Mary,

Yes, buildings emit e.g. 47% of CO2 in the UK. But to say that they are “the biggest problem with global warming” is a touch misleading.

Per capita, food consumption is the “biggest problem with global warming” (if you equate CO2 emissions with global warming). It’s all about how you jig the numbers. Which is where most of the debate on this blog / forum lies, so come join in!

I think we would agree (?) that refurbishment is far more effective than demolish and rebuild. Are you in the UK or US?

On India’s suggestion of pegging, this must be similar to or compatible with the GCI’s “contraction and convergence” model. CH, have you done your analysis of C&C yet? I’m still interested to know your opinion. (ok I should probably visit your site…)

Blue Team leader,

Your comment, “Having the second largest population on Earth should come with some level of responsibility for the impact of such a mass of people” scares me. The assumption that the state should take responsibility for individuals emissions is VERY dangerous. This issue must NOT be forced by governments, and the public should NOT force governments to take responsibility. We are heading for dangerous times if we take this route.

I will email Mark a presentation that illustrates my point. I don’t know how to make it more widely available to your readers. Actually I’ll summarise on the Forum, under “Blue Team News Discussion”.

M.

I think the point is not that the state should take responsibility, it is the fact that the state is the representation of the people. What’s worrying about India is that the minority of the population who are wealthy use the fact that there are a large number of people in extreme poverty as an offset for their emissions.

Governments have the possibility to make it easier for people to take personal responsibility. This is the happy medium that I would be most comfortable with.

I tend to agree, but I also think governments have the power to make life very hard for people. The minority are not suddenly going to start caring about the majority just because a few UN scientists says they should do.

To most Indians, I should think, it is extremely annoying to have westerners preach to them about taking responsibility and to do our bit. While the west has polluted its way to prosperity after plundering countries like India during colonial rule, I find it funny that we are now required to reduce our emissions so that you can continue polluting. We have a shortage of power (the population in general - not particular groups) and generating this power through fossil fuels is the cheapest alternative. Its not for you to pass judgment on how our country’s distribution of emissions amongst our populace - we are one country.

With national CO2 caps/limits, aren’t people asking governments to take responsbility?

Living in an apparently affluent, United States, i note individual reticence to comply to a national model.
consumers are not going to give up comfort and pleasures for the sake of a distant planet–distant? Yes, the common perception on the ground is that immediate surroundings look fine, feel fine–and the world is something in print and on-screen.

shifting trends to smarter ecology is primarily a commercial responsibility. The more consumer demand for sustainable buildings and products, the more consumers will understand the personal correlation.

Metyu, Thanks for the reminder! I promptly published my review of contraction and convergence up on the personal blog of my site. I will add to it as I refine my thoughts.

So here we go on the CO2 tango.

Metyu rightly states the governmental regulation of individuals is not acceptable. Yet that is the exact stance of the C&C plan to the point of saying any population growth after the convergence level would be born without “emission rights”. Actually their emissions would nave to be factored into the country’s emissions and further reductions made.

Population and emissions.

Lets be fair, something the world really is not but we can be for the purpose of this conversation, we need to realize that because the developed world is a legacy emitter it has certain responsibilities, new emitters with large populations also have a whole different set of responsibilities.

Developed Countries
- Maintain Quality of Life for all Citizens

Developing Countries
- Increase the Quality of life for all Citizens

These responsibilities are in direct contradiction with the religious tenants of CO2 emission reduction. Ok do not spazz out! I am assuming for now that the reductions must happen, mostly because the billions of euros you poured into environmental lobbyists pockets are getting through the system. ( off topic, sorry ) Sorry I can take a shot at AGW proponents if I want.

The reality is it takes energy and economic output, construction and transportation, agriculture and resource extraction, manufacturing and refining to achieve these goals.

Unless we can radically alter how we do all those things in a very short (5 years) time frame to replace all these currently used technologies and globally accepted methods of operation we cannot expect to actually stop CO2 emission growth from developing countries, and second reduce CO2 output in developed countries anywhere enough to reach a parity point.

I wish I could say we have 40 or 50 years but at current global economic growth rates we do not. So unless some AGW proponent has a bag of magic technology beans, we are going to have accept all the agreements in the world will never stop CO2 emission rates and concentration levels increasing before 2050.

China and India wave the per capita flag, so even if we reduced our western numbers to almost zero, their huge populations would still allow them to surpass our current level of emissions.

This per capita nonesense has to stop, it is the least important indicator of what really needs to be done.

Karan,

I was quite aware of your points as I wrote this post, so thanks for flagging them up – they are certainly important and worthy of discussion.

We don’t say anywhere that India should have to reduce its current emissions, and we also don’t say that the West shouldn’t have to reduce their emissions either.

What we do say is that it would be unfortunate indeed if countries like India don’t learn from the West’s experience and find themselves with the same problem in 25 years – that of decarbonising their current infrastructure, which is costly and painful.

What’s also been said in the comments of this blog is that ultimately we need to measure and control emissions on a global average basis. Ultimately this would be the only true method of managing a global problem, although from a practical negotiations perspective we need to take it one country at a time. India is somewhat in focus because it contains a large proportion of that global average.

#5 Karan

I do not even believe in AGW but since I cannot stop government from running my life ( Mark and Metyu discussion )this is what I say to you.

Why does India feel because of global inequity that it has no responsibility?

If AGW is global, then why should you India (and China) get carte blanc to surpass what are the dangerous levels of emissions of right now. We in the west will reduce but you cannot grow because you are growing faster than we can reduce, sorry but it is true, fair compromise is you stop.. we reduce then we see where we are in 2030, you can in the mean time produce all the emission neutral stuff you want, envy gets you nowhere in this new AGW aware planet. You agree, the US, Canada and Japan will sign up for deep reductions today.

Then of course all governments and people will actually have to do it.

Ok that last post #10, for transparency, does not actually convey my position on this subject but was intended to illustrate the issue.

I do not want you to stop growing and raising your quaility of life, I admire and welcome your country onto the the global economic stage. I was merely illustrating the problem.

Please do not be offended, this was to spur discussion and see where it leads.

Mark, the new format looks great!

As an Indian, I feel we must stop whining about poverty every time pollution comes up and take the lead unilaterally. Never mind what the west did/continues to do. We have the brains and the will to take care of the earth. Provided the US does not now divert our prosperity by instigating a border war (in Arunachal) with China. I can well see the State Dept saying kill 2 birds etc. before they become our economic rivals. Every time the US has encouraged Pakistan to start a war, often by proving arms, money, etc. because of US interests in Kashmir.

Any efforts to reduce CO2 emissions are nullified by war.

Nice points Bharati. Personally I feel that the climate issue will resolve itself along with issues of poverty though (to an extent; poverty is rife in my own “first world” UK city).

The key is not to force it. Too often we rush into things without considering the impacts of our actions. E.g. the destruction of he environment caused during colonial times (like the 70s, 80s and 90s) by Western agriculture experts telling locals how it is done.

[…] in comparison to the Western world nations such as India are far more gentle on the planet. As we reported earlier this year: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh unveiled India’s national plan for tackling climate change, […]