http://www.reason.com/news/show/134832.html
Global Warming: White Man's Problem
Why poor countries won't commit to binding emissions cuts
Shikha Dalmia
Reason
July 17, 2009
If I were an environmental activist, I would be despairing right around now about ever getting meaningful action on global warming. Over the last eight years, eco-warriors had managed to convince themselves that the main obstacle to their grand designs to recalibrate the Earth's thermostat was a stupid and callow U.S. president unwilling to lead the rest of the world.
But with Barack Obama in office they no longer have that problem. In fact, they have a charismatic and savvy spokesman who combines a deep commitment to their cause with considerable powers of persuasion. Yet his call to action at last week's G-8 summit in Italy yielded little more than polite applause, and that only when he issued a mea culpa. "I know that in the past, the United States has sometimes fallen short of meeting our responsibilities," he said amid cheers. "So let me be clear: Those days are over."
What did this brave self-flagellation yield? To be sure, he got the attendees to collectively declare that they would never ever let the Earth's temperature rise two degrees centigrade from pre-industrial levels. This is supposedly a prelude to the real horse-trading over emissions cuts that will begin in a Copenhagen, Denmark, meeting this December.
But the depressing thing for climate warriors was that Obama could not get developing countries, without whose cooperation there is simply no way to avert climate change, to accept—even just in theory—the idea of binding emissions cuts. India's prime minister took the occasion to position his country as a major victim of a problem not of its making. "What we are witnessing today is the consequence [of] over two centuries of industrial activity and high-consumption lifestyles in the developed world," he lectured. "They have to bear this historical responsibility." And even before the summit began, China declared the West had "no right" to ask it to limit its economic growth.
Rather than engage with the issues, eco-pundits are grasping for all kinds of fanciful pseudo-scientific theories to explain why Obama's sweet-talking ways are leaving the rest of the world cold. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, for instance, recently blamed the lack of progress on the faulty circuitry evolution has wired into the human brain. According to Kristof, evolution has programmed us to be alert to immediate threats, such as snakes, or enemies with clubs, but not for vastly greater but less imminent dangers that require forethought. If this sounds like a warmed-over, 21st-century version of the Calvinistic crooked-timber view of human nature, that's because it is.
Not to be outdone, Kristof's Nobel Prize-winning colleague at the Times, Paul Krugman, pulled out the folk story about the frog and the boiling pot in his latest column to explain our collective torpor over climate change. Just as the proverbial frog wasn't able to feel the gradually rising temperature before he boiled to death, so too, in Krugman's telling, human beings are not equipped to comprehend the dangers of an overheating planet before they fry to death.
But this psychologizing only exposes the inability of climate activists to take seriously the rational case for inaction. In fact, there is a perfectly good reason developing countries are unwilling to act on climate change: What they are being asked to do is more awful than climate change's implications--even if one accepts all the alarmist predictions.
Consider what would be necessary to slash global greenhouse-gas emissions just 50% below 2000 levels by 2050—a far less aggressive goal than what the enviros say is necessary to avert climate catastrophe. According to U.S. Chamber of Commerce calculations, even if the West reduced its emissions by 80% below 2000 levels, developing countries would still have to return their emissions to 2000 levels to meet the 50% target. However, Indians currently consume roughly 15 times less energy per capita than Americans—and Chinese consume seven times less. Asking them, along with the rest of the developing world, to go back to 2000 emission levels with a 2050 population would mean putting them on a very drastic energy diet.
The human toll of this is unfathomable: It would require these countries to abandon plans to ever conquer poverty, of course. But beyond that it would require a major scaling back of living standards under which their middle classes—for whom three square meals, cars and air-conditioning are only now beginning to come within reach—would have to go back to subsistence living, and the hundreds of millions who are at subsistence would have to accept starvation.
In short, the choice for developing countries is between mass death due to the consequences of an overheated planet sometime in the distant future, and mass suicide due to imposed instant starvation right now. Is it any surprise that they are reluctant to jump on the global-warming bandwagon?
The Waxman-Markey climate change bill that just passed the U.S. House of Representatives wants to force developing countries to accept this fate by resorting to the old and tired method of protectionism. Should this monstrosity become law, starting in 2020 the United States will impose carbon tariffs on goods from any country that does not accept binding reductions. But this is a path to mutually assured economic destruction—not to combating climate change.
For starters, by 2020, when these tariffs go into effect, India and China—with GDPs projected to grow anywhere from 6% to 10% annually—will have much bigger economies with huge domestic markets that they are increasingly opening to each other. Thus they might well be better off forgoing access to the U.S. market than accepting crippling restrictions on their growth.
Also, by then they will have more economic clout on the world stage to enforce their own ideas of who ought to take moral responsibility for climate change. The West's case for restricting Indian and Chinese exports rests on the claim that these countries' total emissions will exceed those from the West within the next few decades. (China's emissions are already at par with those of the U.S., the biggest emitter).
But these countries have, and will continue to have, far lower emissions on a per-capita basis, given that China's are now around one-fifth those of the United States and India's one-twentieth. Thus they would have an equally valid case for imposing countervailing restrictions on American exports based on per-capita emissions. The West might well be the bigger loser in this economic warfare if it is barred from accessing new, growing markets.
Obama obviously understands this—which is why he has condemned the House's turn down the protectionist path. So what should climate warriors do? Right now the only certain way to save lives is by calling off this misguided war on climate change. If and when climate change promises to claim more casualties than poverty and starvation, the world will begin heeding their calls. If, however, these climate-change casualties don't materialize, there would have been no need to act in the first place. Either way, the world has far more immediate and scarier problems than climate change to address right now.
Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation and a columnist for Forbes. This article originally appeared at Forbes.
They're damned right. Industrialization is dirty, and we accomplished it largely without regulatory guidelines on emissions."What we are witnessing today is the consequence [of] over two centuries of industrial activity and high-consumption lifestyles in the developed world," he lectured. "They have to bear this historical responsibility." And even before the summit began, China declared the West had "no right" to ask it to limit its economic growth.
ers are going to have to pry my air conditioner from my cold dead hands...
Brilliant article. Thanks for posting it.
Good article. The frog example was particularly meaningful. It would be even more accurate if you added in that all of his frog friends were telling him that he was slowly dying, and the frog replied "nah. it's all a sham." I am especially interested with Kristof's evolutionary theory. However, I ask this: the move of ergaster from Africa to other parts of the world could have very well been brought on by a notable decrease in food that moves (aka meat). I doubt our early human ancestors were reluctant to move until a few days passed where there was no food - they had realized early that food was becoming more scarce each day and finally decided to do something about it. Of course, that's assuming following food is the reason for the Out of Africa hypothesis.
People have no problem investing. Portfolios, stocks, education. You would think the survival of our planet would galvanize people into doing the same. China and India's response to the resolution was sickening, but the problem starts at home. I have friends who leave lights on, never turn off their computers and leave the showers running for 10 minutes before they even get in. Disgusting
Does anyone think vegetarianism could be a potent partial solution to the earth vs starvation now debate? I have been a vegetarian for a year now, and I find the benefits to be outstanding for my personal health and for the world. Wikipedia has some good information on it. I didn't believe going vegetarian for a year could possibly be greener than driving a Prius for a year.
Here's a video you'd probably enjoy.
Do something good for yourself and the earth. Haha, hilarious.
...and not for the poor.
Therein lies the problem. Global warming is a rich man's concern; the man who views more people on this Earth not as a blessing, but rather a curse.
Going vegetarian helps out a great deal, because you're lowering yourself on the food chain, thereby saving resources. Alot more people could be fed on algae than on beef. Every step up the food chain energy gets wasted.
Additionally, there are moral benefits, as many animals bred for food are raised in pretty horrific conditions.
Here's the surest way to "help out":
I'm not up for radically changing my lifestyle just because some nut feels guilty about being a human and wanting to live in something other than a hut. Plus spare me the ing sanctimony. You ers are worse than if Falwell could've ed Swaggart in the ass and produced a child, though, yeah, you jump on any sign of intolerant fundamentalism...save for your own.
Pull the trigger or shut up.
Who are you talking to here Marcus? I don't think any of the posters said YOU had to go vegetarian.Here's the surest way to "help out":
I'm not up for radically changing my lifestyle just because some nut feels guilty about being a human and wanting to live in something other than a hut. Plus spare me the ing sanctimony. You ers are worse than if Falwell could've ed Swaggart in the ass and produced a child, though, yeah, you jump on any sign of intolerant fundamentalism...save for your own.
Pull the trigger or shut up.
You're going to have to pry my filet mignon from my cold dead hands...
You should put Michael Pollan on your *to read* list if you haven't already, v2freak.
This is going to offend a lot of people, but if you had to choose the life of a human and a cow, which would you choose?
First, determine which is undisputably more destructive to its surroundings. Cows fart for sure; they contribute to the nitrogen cycle too but a lot of that flatulence can't be good for the environment.
However, a random human probably eats meat, drives a car that gets under 40 mpg and uses energy to power his or her house.
I'm majoring in anthropology right now (or misanthropology if you prefer) and one thing anthropologists stress is that one should not be ethnocentric, that is, one should not assume that a culture is superior to another's. It would be kind of hypocritical to be species-centric too, from that point of view, and that's what a load of humans are. There was a flood not too long ago in Houston in which 10,000 species of animals died in the basement. They were put there by humans.
On a side note, I don't believe eating meat is evolutionary. Early man actually had very little of it and was a scavenger. We have evolved to choose for ourselves, even if our instincts seek to force our hand.
No one has to become vegetarian. I'm presenting a side of the argument that is often overlooked, but in the end, I know the best thing for me to do is state my case and let people decide for themselves. But I do honestly believe going vegetarian could help out so much. For anyone with time, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ..._vegetarianism. There is a criticism section as well, to be fair.
Anyway, I didn't mean to make a public service announcement. For the record, I'm not PETA member and I don't agree with a lot of their beliefs. I don't equate havings pets to slavery, and I think they go about their marketing incorrectly. But I have very little sympathy for people who are starving and won't make the switch. What was the saying? "Beggars can't be choosers."
Global warming is a serious problem, but it's not our only threat. Nuclear weapons (designed by man), sentient technology, chemical warfare and last but not least, overpopulation are ever-present threats. Valenzetti equation, anyone?
for sure
Winehole, I will be sure to look into it. Thank you. I have about a month left of freedom, so this should be more than a worthy endeavor.
The US just feels too engaged in the global issues, as she always does. Sometimes her sense of responsibility may even drive her to do some extreme fulfillment like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which led to the down-turn of the reputation US has in the world. The world is a whole body and no country lives separate from the rest, so it's the job of all the 300+ countries to keep our earth a livable place. US cannot and shouldn't take the whole burden onto her own shoulder.
However, the critics are not totally political tricks. Most American car producers haven't ever given enough care to the market demand or the climate change, consequently seldom of the cars they have been producing are energy-economical. With fuel prize sky-high and our pockets shriveled, we have no other choice but to purchase those Japanese cars which run almost double distance with the same amount of fuel cost as American cars do. Therefore, it's not a big surprise, in fact it's actually an inevitable result for GM and Crysler to fall into bankruptcy.
From an evolutionary standpoint, no species has the right to exist.
And while eating vegetables may be more energy efficient, vegetables are much harder to raise for developing countries than raising meat animals. A cow is more likely to survive a drought or storm than a plant crop, and the cow, even if it dies, will still provide food, unlike a crop.
This is going to offend a lot of people, but if you had to choose the life of a human and a cow, which would you choose?
First, determine which is undisputably more destructive to its surroundings. Cows fart for sure; they contribute to the nitrogen cycle too but a lot of that flatulence can't be good for the environment.
However, a random human probably eats meat, drives a car that gets under 40 mpg and uses energy to power his or her house.
I'm majoring in anthropology right now (or misanthropology if you prefer) and one thing anthropologists stress is that one should not be ethnocentric, that is, one should not assume that a culture is superior to another's. It would be kind of hypocritical to be species-centric too, from that point of view, and that's what a load of humans are. There was a flood not too long ago in Houston in which 10,000 species of animals died in the basement. They were put there by humans.
On a side note, I don't believe eating meat is evolutionary. Early man actually had very little of it and was a scavenger. We have evolved to choose for ourselves, even if our instincts seek to force our hand.
No one has to become vegetarian. I'm presenting a side of the argument that is often overlooked, but in the end, I know the best thing for me to do is state my case and let people decide for themselves. But I do honestly believe going vegetarian could help out so much. For anyone with time, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ..._vegetarianism. There is a criticism section as well, to be fair.
Anyway, I didn't mean to make a public service announcement. For the record, I'm not PETA member and I don't agree with a lot of their beliefs. I don't equate havings pets to slavery, and I think they go about their marketing incorrectly. But I have very little sympathy for people who are starving and won't make the switch. What was the saying? "Beggars can't be choosers."
Global warming is a serious problem, but it's not our only threat. Nuclear weapons (designed by man), sentient technology, chemical warfare and last but not least, overpopulation are ever-present threats. Valenzetti equation, anyone?
Winehole, I will be sure to look into it. Thank you. I have about a month left of freedom, so this should be more than a worthy endeavor.
^ Great example of what's "wrong" with the far left.
Answer me this? Do you get upset when animals are killed by other animals for food? Or only when humans kill animals for food? Do you get upset when animals die because of natural disasters? Or only when domesticated animals die in natural disasters?
Do you think other omnivorous animals should go vegan? Or just humans?
By the way, you stated that you don't think eating meat is evolutionary. Why do we have incisors and canines?
Lets not go there...
He is clearly wrong in his entire position. To value animal life over human life is grounds for a complete dismissal of his argument.
Oblige me.
While I think he is wrong too, he is looking at this from a ultra high level. As a student of anthropology, you are taught to not be biased towards behaviors or cultures, as you shouldn't let it color your study, and he was extending this to include animals (I don't know why).
My contention is, at that level, who the cares? If we are all animals, then you can't complain when I behave poorly. Unlike his arguement, which seems to say that since we are animals, we should feel empathy with them, and from that empathy, treat them like we treat ourselves (which in reality, is pretty ty anyways).
When life reflects the same reality of an anthropology class, we will have already lost.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-animal or anti-environment. I'm just pro-human.
In the mind of your typical environmental zealot, there exists a mythical utopia called "the balance of nature". They seem to believe that there is some optimal state of climate, flora, fauna, etc. which CLEARLY doesn't exist. Species of animals have come and gone LONG before the existence of humans. We've had wildly changing climates, extreme hot and cold, long before humans were driving pickups and SUVs.
The alarmist AGW community will tell you we have to do something now before we hit the so-called "tipping point". I'm always a bit puzzled by these mythical "tipping points". If there was a period of time in the geologic history that was much hotter and when the atmosphere contained much higher levels of CO2, why didn't the Earth reach a tipping point then? Hmmm.
Life feeds on life.
/debate really
I wouldn't flat-out say he's 'wrong'. I mean, he has the freedom to value what he wishes, doesn't he?
I wuld agree that I definitely value human life over the lives of animals. (Well... most, anyways.)
As long as he's not demanding I value the same things he values, or that I change my lifestyle to his beliefs, he can choose to live however he wants.
Well, it was assumed that I always respect someone's right to express their opinion.
But when youre wrong, youre wrong.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
