Climate Change and Revolution

[Barra Roantree]

Interesting piece from FT:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc27a844-5b56 ... fd2ac.html

Climate change debate needs revolution
By John Aglionby in Jakarta

Published: September 5 2007 04:27 | Last updated: September 5 2007 04:27

A revolution of society on a scale never witnessed in peacetime is needed if climate change is to be tackled successfully, the head of a major business grouping has warned.

Bjorn Stigson, the head of the Geneva-based World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), predicted governments would be unable to reach agreement on a framework for reducing carbon emissions at either a US-sponsored meeting in Washington later this month or at a United Nations climate summit in Indonesia in December.

Climate change is also expected to be high on the agenda at this week’s annual summit of Pacific leaders in Sydney.

“It will probably get worse before it gets better before governments feel they’ve got the political mandate to act,” he told the Financial Times during a visit to Jakarta. “We’re going to have to go into some sort of crisis before it’s going to be resolved. I don’t think people have realised the challenge. This is more serious than what people think.”

The “challenge”, Mr Stigson said, is for developed nations to cut carbon emission levels by 60 to 80 per cent from current levels by 2050 if global emissions are to be kept below 550 parts per million. Global emissions at that level would keep average permanent global temperature increase below 3 degrees by 2050, a level beyond which most scientists say climate change would be significantly worse.

The WBCSD reached this conclusion after studying the Stern review on climate change, the International Energy Association’s world energy outlook, and a recent International Plant Protection Convention review.

“I think it’s beginning to dawn on people that we are talking about such a major change in society people are saying this is tougher than what we thought,” he said. “How do you change society in a radical way in a democracy so the people you want to vote for you are also going to suffer the consequences of the policies that you put in place.”

“I don’t think we’ve seen that kind of a challenge in societal change happening peacefully. It’s [only] happened in revolutions.”

The 200 members of the WBCSD, which have a combined market cap of $6,000bn, are dismayed by politicians’ lack of political will to address the issues, Mr Stigson said.

“We’re very concerned by what we see and the lack of response from governments in grasping the responsibility they have in dealing with this issue,” he said. “Our problem right now is that we…don’t know what the policies are going to be beyond 2012. How do you take these issues into consideration when you build a new plant that’s going to live for 30, 40 years.”

The WBCSD want rich countries to agree on global targets for themselves while committing to developing nations $80-$100bn a year and technology to help them grow more sustainably.

“If that deal is not there, you’ll be in a situation where India, China and Brazil will say, we’re not going to get into any agreement,” he said. “If I were betting my money now, I would bet that by 2012 the world will not have a global framework. We will have a patchwork of regional and national regulations that we have to make as compatible as possible.”

Will there need to be a revolution before the issue is tackled? What do people think? Anyone who doesn't "believe" it is happening, please bugger off for a while.

[david]

Will there need to be a revolution before the issue is tackled? What do people think?

Your one more or less makes the same point I've and several others have made: it's going to take catastrophe to get the culprits to do anything - we're just too comfortable. I don't mean the sneeze that was Katrina, I mean the ice caps flipping from solid to liquid, the gulf stream disappearing. Perhaps not even then.

Anyone who doesn't "believe" it is happening, please bugger off for a while.

Fat chance.

[Seos]

It's funny that the artical should talk about a peaceful revolution (EDIT: and use the word revolution) and forget the industrial and argicultural revolutions involved much bigger changes in society. All we need to do in the new revolution is a change how we do the exact same thing we do now. Not that that makes it any easier.

[ivnryn]

However, both or those revolutions benefited the people involved. Reducing CO2 emissions doesn't help anyone on a personal level. The only benefit is global, if at all.

[ibis]

However, both or those revolutions benefited the people involved. Reducing CO2 emissions doesn't help anyone on a personal level. The only benefit is global, if at all.

A lot of those who benefited fought tooth and nail against those revolutions though.

Profitable and successful businesses always fight against change, because their success, by definition, occurred under the current set of conditions, whereas the new conditions might turn out to be very bad for them.

Would we vote for carbon taxes that actually hit us in the pockets? I suspect we would, if there were a decent chance they were hitting everyone else, too. I think most of us want to do something, but we need to be constantly reminded. How many people really object to the bag levy?

[patslatt]

[quote="Barra Roantree"]Interesting piece from FT:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc27a844-5b56 ... fd2ac.html

[quote]Climate change debate needs revolution
By John Aglionby in Jakarta

Published: September 5 2007 04:27 | Last updated: September 5 2007 04:27

A revolution of society on a scale never witnessed in peacetime is needed if climate change is to be tackled successfully, the head of a major business grouping has warned.

Bjorn Stigson, the head of the Geneva-based World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), predicted governments would be unable to reach agreement on a framework for reducing carbon emissions at either a US-sponsored meeting in Washington later this month or at a United Nations climate summit in Indonesia in December.

===================================

Economists call it the Tragedy of the Commons. Into the late Middle Ages,the common lands that had no ownership were a large proportion of all lands. Those lands were overgrazed,overtilled and overexploited by the public at large until the land became infertile. That's how it is with the exploitation of the earth's atmosphere for polluting industries.

The Commons were eventually enclosed by landed interests and taken into ownership. This is not possible with the Earth's atmosphere.

[ibis]

Economists call it the Tragedy of the Commons. Into the late Middle Ages,the common lands that had no ownership were a large proportion of all lands. Those lands were overgrazed,overtilled and overexploited by the public at large until the land became infertile. That's how it is with the exploitation of the earth's atmosphere for polluting industries.

The Commons were eventually enclosed by landed interests and taken into ownership. This is not possible with the Earth's atmosphere.

It's not politically feasible, but it's not impossible for the atmosphere to be taken into ownership. Any single world body that is given the power to regulate use and pollution of the atmosphere is actually a mechanism for realisation of the common ownership of the atmosphere.

[Akrasia]

Economists call it the Tragedy of the Commons. Into the late Middle Ages,the common lands that had no ownership were a large proportion of all lands. Those lands were overgrazed,overtilled and overexploited by the public at large until the land became infertile. That's how it is with the exploitation of the earth's atmosphere for polluting industries.

The Commons were eventually enclosed by landed interests and taken into ownership. This is not possible with the Earth's atmosphere.

Actually, the commons weren't usually overgrazed and were a perfectly sustainable way of organising land. the phrase 'Tragedy of the commons" was invented by a guy called Garrett Hardin and he used an analogy of commonly farmed land in a hypothetical situation based on the presumption that people acted in a purely individualistic way. In reality, 'Commons' are usually regulated by local customs and traditions that ensure that the resource is used sustainably.

Ironically, when resources are privatised, the real tragedy is that very often the owner uses them in a way to maximise his own short term benefit and then moves on when the resource is depleted. (this is especially true with corporate ownership)

It should be perfectly possible for the nations of the world to agree on a sustainable economy. Unfortunately, the biggest players think they own the world and that its theirs to destroy for their own good.

Unfortunately that would require a rejection of capitalism and a return of the planets resources back to local communities where they have an incentive to use them wisely for the long term.

[Frigo]

the phrase 'Tragedy of the commons" was invented by a guy called Garrett Hardin and he used an analogy of commonly farmed land in a hypothetical situation based on the presumption that people acted in a purely individualistic way.

Even without the "evil" individualistic, short-term interests, people are unable to manage commons well.

Ironically, when resources are privatised, the real tragedy is that very often the owner uses them in a way to maximise his own short term benefit and then moves on when the resource is depleted. (this is especially true with corporate ownership)

Hehe, state owned companies have done the same thing. Except more inefficiently, wasting more resources.

In reality, 'Commons' are usually regulated by local customs and traditions that ensure that the resource is used sustainably.

"If you don't want the people to do something, tax it!"

Besides, what is better inspiration for seeking alternatives, than the sky-high price of a resource ?

[ibis]

Economists call it the Tragedy of the Commons. Into the late Middle Ages,the common lands that had no ownership were a large proportion of all lands. Those lands were overgrazed,overtilled and overexploited by the public at large until the land became infertile. That's how it is with the exploitation of the earth's atmosphere for polluting industries.

The Commons were eventually enclosed by landed interests and taken into ownership. This is not possible with the Earth's atmosphere.

Actually, the commons weren't usually overgrazed and were a perfectly sustainable way of organising land. the phrase 'Tragedy of the commons" was invented by a guy called Garrett Hardin and he used an analogy of commonly farmed land in a hypothetical situation based on the presumption that people acted in a purely individualistic way. In reality, 'Commons' are usually regulated by local customs and traditions that ensure that the resource is used sustainably.

Mostly true. Unfortunately, every commons that has not been governed by such custom and tradition has been over-exploited in the fashion described - which is almost every example of commons apart from local agricultural commons. Nor can this be blamed on capitalism, since it appears to have happened with primitive humanity, and certainly happened to fish stocks and other exploitable resources in pre-capitalistic history.

Ironically, when resources are privatised, the real tragedy is that very often the owner uses them in a way to maximise his own short term benefit and then moves on when the resource is depleted. (this is especially true with corporate ownership)

Mostly false. Extractive mineral industries obviously operate in this way, because there is no such thing as sustainable use. Forestry operations in virgin forest also operate this way, because it's cheaper for them to do so, but it is not a requirement of corporate forestry operations.

Most businesses intend being around for the long term, and as such, tend to be very concerned with the sustainability of their resources, for perfectly selfish reasons.

It should be perfectly possible for the nations of the world to agree on a sustainable economy. Unfortunately, the biggest players think they own the world and that its theirs to destroy for their own good.

Unfortunately that would require a rejection of capitalism and a return of the planets resources back to local communities where they have an incentive to use them wisely for the long term.

The problem with capitalism is that for money invested to make money on average, the whole market has to expand, which almost inevitably increases resource usage. However, capitalism can still operate in a zero-sum or shrinking market, and even an expanding market doesn't necessarily require increased pollution.