![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mahnmut.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticshttp://unfccc.int/meetings/doha_nov_2012/meeting/6815.php
Come November, the same old same old will repeat once again. Several thousand environmentally concerned dudes and dudettes will convene on a summit to bicker on a possible agreement on the issue of global climate. From time to time, the occasional politician will give a nice speech. The end result? Zero. Nada.
This time the saviors of Earth will meet in Qatar. Shrug. I can tell you from now that no decisions will be taken about countering climate change. Why? Because the main players will never come to a common ground. Still, various populist politicians and pundits will score a few cheap points from the whole thing, while exercising their verbal acrobatics in front of eager ears. Some of us will rant a bit that those fuckers are totally inept, while others will remain content that nothing has changed and no one will be coming to seize their property and freedoms (read: taxes) in the following year. At least not for pouring it into some bottomless bucket that is the issue of climate change. If it ever existed. I mean... if it were ever caused by humans. Sun spots, I mean. Um, just God probably, maybe. The tides - we've never been able to explain them. Whatever.
And the politicians will probably whine that we're not seeing the REAL advances that they're making FOR REALZ. Except, how could we possibly see it? The fact of the matter is that when you look at the bigger picture, there is little advance to boast about, if any. Since the 70s the global CO2 emissions have risen by 75%. For the last decade alone the increase was more than 30%, in 2010 alone it was 5% (record increase so far), and last year, another 3%. Almost 9/10 of the emissions are from burning fossil fuels. The IAEA data shows that last year the atmosphere "enjoyed" an unprecedented influx of 31 billion tons of CO2 from fossils. That's a staggering amount.
All of this shows that doing anything meaningful about climate change is an illusion. The goals set in Cancun'2010 and confirmed in Durban'2011 were a 2-degree decrease of global temperatures compared to the pre-industrial age. That's bullshit.
But why do climate summits fail, despite all the glamor and nice talk? Why do the industrialized countries and the developing countries never come to an agreement? Why are they so immovable in their positions?
Let's first take a look at the biggest players, USA and China. The two camps. Last year the two had vomited over 40% of all the CO2 vomit into the Earth's atmosphere. And yet, they both keep refusing to even look at possible plans for reduction that would suit all. The Americans believe China should do the first step, since it's the biggest polluter in the world. If China doesn't make such a commitment, the US, who in turn had been the leader in the global CO2 emissions for a loooong time, wouldn't move a finger. Do as we say, so to speak. Because China is really the #1 carbons emitter, even according to their own records. But still, the Chinese can't agree with the American logic. And they're not likely to do it any time soon.
Why? Well, because the old industrialized countries cannot be trusted to act out of principle, that's for starters. There are three reasons for that.
First, because of their (our?) lifestyle. The per capita CO2 emissions (no no, not the total emissions, don't be tricked like that) are the REAL measure for our wastefulness. In 2010 the average American dude or dudette had 18 tons of CO2 on their record. The OSCE peeps had 10 tons, and the world on average, 4 tons. The average Chinese would burden the atmosphere with 6 tons, the Indian with 2 tons. China fast catching up with the EU levels. In their nice official speeches the politicians often say that all people have equal rights in this respect. But in reality, that's bullshit too.
Second. Historic responsibility. Any conclusions based on "scientific" stats from just a few years of prior research, is bullshit. Because CO2 remains trapped in the atmosphere for decades, and the climate reacts to emissions that've been accumulated over many years. Today's climate change is a result of all the CO2 emissions from the last century or so. In the 20th century the US and Europe used to vomit 30% of all the world's emissions on a regular basis, while China was practically off the map in this respect. Industrialization in the modern sense began there only recently. But this isn't mentioned very often in the media.
Third reason, and here we're digging deeper into the issue: the "grey emissions". The industrialized economies are responsible for them by a huge margin. It's easy to boast that the US has cut its carbon emissions for the last year and complain that China has erased these gains in the meantime, but what's the real story behind this claim? Why do the emissions of developing countries like China and India grow so fast these days? Simple. And no, it's not just because the US may've cut its industrial production due to the financial crisis or anything like that. It's mostly because those developing countries now produce goods by the industrialized countries, and for the industrialized countries. The printers, computers and cellphones that you use in America, Europe or Australia are now being made in Asia. But they're still products that are meant to be consumed in the developed world. It's just that the developed world has outsourced its vomit elsewhere, because it's more politically expedient and economically beneficial this way.
The industrialized countries have started this process of transferring their vomit, read: CO2 emissions (and not only), to the developing countries, a long time ago. While it may be bringing economic benefits for the host economies, let's keep focused on the environmental side of the issue if you please. The fact is that these emissions are now being written on the record of the host countries where the factories are located. But the REAL source of all this pollution, is again, us. A more correct national emission balance should have contained data about ALL the global emissions caused by the production of goods that are used in a particular market. But none of this is being done - and no surprise. The industrialized countries ought to be able to face-lift their ecological balance and keep a clean face, of course. What's worse is that they're then asuming the moral high ground to lecture in their typical paternalistic manner.
So, as it turns out, China does have a point in questioning the official stats - no, not the correctness of the numbers, they're just fine. They're questioning what really stands BEHIND the numbers. Even a cursory attempt at digging somewhat under the surface of "grey emissions" reveals the real picture. For instance, a rare 2009 research published by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reviews data from 2004, but this time, oh blasphemy, what it takes into account is the emissions for the production of a certain product that's consumed in the client market. And then what happens? Suddenly, the emission balance of the US sees another 700 million tons of CO2 being added to its record, including 400 billion tons coming directly from products made in China by US companies and consumed by US customers on the US market. Thus, the US total emissions rise by almost 10%. Funny, isn't it?
And conversely, if we take the "grey emissions" into account, China's balance loses another 1100 billion tons. Which is more than 22%. Thus, in stark contradiction to the official data, China and USA begin to look very similar in terms of burderning the atmosphere with CO2, contrary to the now dominant narrative in the West. And what's more important, the emissions PER CAPITA tilt even more drastically to USA's disadvantage.
And it's not just about the US. In fact the picture looks even worse if we look at Germany: a 26% increase. Which means that Germany would fare much worse even than the US in the per-capita department. And that's the same Germany which so much likes to pose as the paragon of climate-friendly policy. They'd be completely unable to meet the Kyoto requirements, but for their practice of outsourcing their polluting production.
All of this means that the US and the other industrialized countries clearly have no right to criticize the developing countries at the coming climate summit. Which of course doesn't mean they won't.
As it turns out, we've bought our wealth and prosperity by vomiting all that CO2 and causing a climate change as a result of processes spanning decades back, and what's worse, we continue doing it at an ever accelerating rate. The industrialized countries have the obligation to acknowledge the TRUE causes for the problem and take the historic responsibility for solving it, and start doing a REAL change by giving an example. Otherwise we'll never untie this knot and things will be fast approaching the point where all of these quibbles will have become totally pointless. Which doesn't necessarily mean this will have become a non-issue.
But of course, you shouldn't bet on any of that happening in Qatar, come November.
Come November, the same old same old will repeat once again. Several thousand environmentally concerned dudes and dudettes will convene on a summit to bicker on a possible agreement on the issue of global climate. From time to time, the occasional politician will give a nice speech. The end result? Zero. Nada.
This time the saviors of Earth will meet in Qatar. Shrug. I can tell you from now that no decisions will be taken about countering climate change. Why? Because the main players will never come to a common ground. Still, various populist politicians and pundits will score a few cheap points from the whole thing, while exercising their verbal acrobatics in front of eager ears. Some of us will rant a bit that those fuckers are totally inept, while others will remain content that nothing has changed and no one will be coming to seize their property and freedoms (read: taxes) in the following year. At least not for pouring it into some bottomless bucket that is the issue of climate change. If it ever existed. I mean... if it were ever caused by humans. Sun spots, I mean. Um, just God probably, maybe. The tides - we've never been able to explain them. Whatever.
And the politicians will probably whine that we're not seeing the REAL advances that they're making FOR REALZ. Except, how could we possibly see it? The fact of the matter is that when you look at the bigger picture, there is little advance to boast about, if any. Since the 70s the global CO2 emissions have risen by 75%. For the last decade alone the increase was more than 30%, in 2010 alone it was 5% (record increase so far), and last year, another 3%. Almost 9/10 of the emissions are from burning fossil fuels. The IAEA data shows that last year the atmosphere "enjoyed" an unprecedented influx of 31 billion tons of CO2 from fossils. That's a staggering amount.
All of this shows that doing anything meaningful about climate change is an illusion. The goals set in Cancun'2010 and confirmed in Durban'2011 were a 2-degree decrease of global temperatures compared to the pre-industrial age. That's bullshit.
But why do climate summits fail, despite all the glamor and nice talk? Why do the industrialized countries and the developing countries never come to an agreement? Why are they so immovable in their positions?
Let's first take a look at the biggest players, USA and China. The two camps. Last year the two had vomited over 40% of all the CO2 vomit into the Earth's atmosphere. And yet, they both keep refusing to even look at possible plans for reduction that would suit all. The Americans believe China should do the first step, since it's the biggest polluter in the world. If China doesn't make such a commitment, the US, who in turn had been the leader in the global CO2 emissions for a loooong time, wouldn't move a finger. Do as we say, so to speak. Because China is really the #1 carbons emitter, even according to their own records. But still, the Chinese can't agree with the American logic. And they're not likely to do it any time soon.
Why? Well, because the old industrialized countries cannot be trusted to act out of principle, that's for starters. There are three reasons for that.
First, because of their (our?) lifestyle. The per capita CO2 emissions (no no, not the total emissions, don't be tricked like that) are the REAL measure for our wastefulness. In 2010 the average American dude or dudette had 18 tons of CO2 on their record. The OSCE peeps had 10 tons, and the world on average, 4 tons. The average Chinese would burden the atmosphere with 6 tons, the Indian with 2 tons. China fast catching up with the EU levels. In their nice official speeches the politicians often say that all people have equal rights in this respect. But in reality, that's bullshit too.
Second. Historic responsibility. Any conclusions based on "scientific" stats from just a few years of prior research, is bullshit. Because CO2 remains trapped in the atmosphere for decades, and the climate reacts to emissions that've been accumulated over many years. Today's climate change is a result of all the CO2 emissions from the last century or so. In the 20th century the US and Europe used to vomit 30% of all the world's emissions on a regular basis, while China was practically off the map in this respect. Industrialization in the modern sense began there only recently. But this isn't mentioned very often in the media.
Third reason, and here we're digging deeper into the issue: the "grey emissions". The industrialized economies are responsible for them by a huge margin. It's easy to boast that the US has cut its carbon emissions for the last year and complain that China has erased these gains in the meantime, but what's the real story behind this claim? Why do the emissions of developing countries like China and India grow so fast these days? Simple. And no, it's not just because the US may've cut its industrial production due to the financial crisis or anything like that. It's mostly because those developing countries now produce goods by the industrialized countries, and for the industrialized countries. The printers, computers and cellphones that you use in America, Europe or Australia are now being made in Asia. But they're still products that are meant to be consumed in the developed world. It's just that the developed world has outsourced its vomit elsewhere, because it's more politically expedient and economically beneficial this way.
The industrialized countries have started this process of transferring their vomit, read: CO2 emissions (and not only), to the developing countries, a long time ago. While it may be bringing economic benefits for the host economies, let's keep focused on the environmental side of the issue if you please. The fact is that these emissions are now being written on the record of the host countries where the factories are located. But the REAL source of all this pollution, is again, us. A more correct national emission balance should have contained data about ALL the global emissions caused by the production of goods that are used in a particular market. But none of this is being done - and no surprise. The industrialized countries ought to be able to face-lift their ecological balance and keep a clean face, of course. What's worse is that they're then asuming the moral high ground to lecture in their typical paternalistic manner.
So, as it turns out, China does have a point in questioning the official stats - no, not the correctness of the numbers, they're just fine. They're questioning what really stands BEHIND the numbers. Even a cursory attempt at digging somewhat under the surface of "grey emissions" reveals the real picture. For instance, a rare 2009 research published by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reviews data from 2004, but this time, oh blasphemy, what it takes into account is the emissions for the production of a certain product that's consumed in the client market. And then what happens? Suddenly, the emission balance of the US sees another 700 million tons of CO2 being added to its record, including 400 billion tons coming directly from products made in China by US companies and consumed by US customers on the US market. Thus, the US total emissions rise by almost 10%. Funny, isn't it?
And conversely, if we take the "grey emissions" into account, China's balance loses another 1100 billion tons. Which is more than 22%. Thus, in stark contradiction to the official data, China and USA begin to look very similar in terms of burderning the atmosphere with CO2, contrary to the now dominant narrative in the West. And what's more important, the emissions PER CAPITA tilt even more drastically to USA's disadvantage.
And it's not just about the US. In fact the picture looks even worse if we look at Germany: a 26% increase. Which means that Germany would fare much worse even than the US in the per-capita department. And that's the same Germany which so much likes to pose as the paragon of climate-friendly policy. They'd be completely unable to meet the Kyoto requirements, but for their practice of outsourcing their polluting production.
All of this means that the US and the other industrialized countries clearly have no right to criticize the developing countries at the coming climate summit. Which of course doesn't mean they won't.
As it turns out, we've bought our wealth and prosperity by vomiting all that CO2 and causing a climate change as a result of processes spanning decades back, and what's worse, we continue doing it at an ever accelerating rate. The industrialized countries have the obligation to acknowledge the TRUE causes for the problem and take the historic responsibility for solving it, and start doing a REAL change by giving an example. Otherwise we'll never untie this knot and things will be fast approaching the point where all of these quibbles will have become totally pointless. Which doesn't necessarily mean this will have become a non-issue.
But of course, you shouldn't bet on any of that happening in Qatar, come November.
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/12 20:58 (UTC)I somehow doubt that'll happen though considering the extremely prevalent precedents of prejudice and bias in this community whereby people constantly pretend I'm incapable of making a point or being correct on something.
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/12 21:05 (UTC)You never fail to amuse me with your notion that "this community" is some special island universe existing outside the other one where you live.
You may well be able of making a point, only it tends to get drowned amidst all that rambling. If you tried to be more concise, I don't know...
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/12 21:17 (UTC)BTW, for the record I live on an island. Maybe not so far from the troof?
Rambling? Maybe! It just seems like such a waste to expend energy typing things that are so common sense all the time? I can't be bothered to make certain its coherent?
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/12 21:31 (UTC)"Don't have time to waste on this" is the lamest and laziest of all cop-outs.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/12 04:48 (UTC)And those who disagree with me lack the courtesy to acknowledge when I make a decent point.
Its not necessarily laziness on my part to not be excited or put much effort into disagreeing with others who often lack basic manners and humility. [:
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/12 06:14 (UTC)That's the idea of debate, yes.
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/12 15:15 (UTC)Maybe it simply hasn't happened yet.
(frozen) (no subject)
Date: 6/9/12 01:05 (UTC)Maybe people with small dicks who are big, immature, babies in the bodies of adults aren't willing to admit I made a point.
That's by far the more likely scenario, especially in your case.
(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
Date: 6/9/12 01:11 (UTC)heaven forbid you attempt to solve your problems like an adult.
(frozen) (no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 4/9/12 21:30 (UTC)Question is, is that the same universe where the rest of us live?
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/12 06:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/9/12 21:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/9/12 21:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/9/12 21:34 (UTC)Elsewise, nothing would've sufficed too, but that'd be too much to ask.
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/12 21:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/9/12 22:00 (UTC)The only thing that is really missing is a viable solution to it all.
Taxes, carbon cap and trade, raising minimum mile per gallon stats. None of these are sufficient.
Yes we probably should do something. But what should we do?
No one has a real answer.
Vomit.
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/12 22:05 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 4/9/12 21:27 (UTC)ahahahahahaha "pretend"
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/12 22:49 (UTC)I stopped there because of the laughter. Wait, you're serious? Let me laugh harder.
(no subject)
Date: 4/9/12 22:50 (UTC)Just be prepared to eat your words at some point. [:
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/12 02:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/9/12 02:43 (UTC)From the minds that brought you the housing crisis, the iran and afghan wars, the deficit and the economic crisis...
Does that sound like something doomed for success?
(no subject)
Date: 5/9/12 03:48 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 5/9/12 05:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/9/12 15:17 (UTC)