by Alex Evans | Jun 3, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, East Asia and Pacific, Global system, Influence and networks
Well, here’s something you don’t often see: a Prime Minister saying that the Club of Rome’s seminar 1972 Limits to Growth report “was right”. Here’s an excerpt from a speech made earlier today at the UN food summit:
In 1968, a think tank was formed here in Rome gathering the wisdom of wise men from all over the world who accepted the call of Dr Aurelio Peccei, and Italian. This think tank was to be known as the “Club of Rome”.
Four years later in 1972, the Club of Rome released a report titled “The Limits to Growth” which gave a warning on exhaustion of resources and destruction of environment. This report caused a sensation when it was released. However, not many of us at the time took this prophecy seriously. As a result, we continued our dependence on fossil fuels without reflecting upon our lifestyle of mass production, mass consumption, and mass waste, thereby steadily increasing the emission of greenhouse gases.
The wise men may have thought about Cassandra who made a prophecy of the fall of Troy. Thirty years have passed since the Club of Rome issued the report. We are finally hearing the scream of the earth, and we now realize the Cassandra’s prophecy was right.
And who was the speaker? Clue: he’s chairing the G8 in a month’s time. Hokkaido may prove to be interesting…
by Alex Evans | Jun 3, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity
One of the catches with this week’s UN food summit is that it’s not immediately clear just what deal the various heads of state and ministers assembled here are supposed to cut – and that leaves the (hundreds of) journalists here looking for story angles. Look at some of the main issues at play in the food prices issue and you start to see their problem:
Humanitarian relief. The World Food Programme’s urgent appeal for $755m needed to keep feeding the 73 million people dependent on it for help has been making headlines all spring – but now the funding gap has been plugged, thanks to a half a billion dollar donation from Saudi Arabia.
(Incidentally, it’s a mystery on a par with the Marie Celeste as to why WFP didn’t wait until the summit to announce the cash. Here in Rome, it would have been the story from the summit. As it was, the news – announced late on a Friday afternoon – sank with hardly a trace. One leading food journalist I spoke to this morning said he didn’t get the press release until two days later. You couldn’t make it up…)
Trade. Numerous policymakers have pointed to the long term importance of trade reform, and pushing ahead with the Doha Development Round. But as far as this summit is concerned, that’s off the agenda, since the Doha Round has its own, separate, negotiations.
Changing diet patterns. The growth of a global middle class eating a grain-intensive western diet is the single biggest driver of rising prices, and as I noted in another post earlier today, it raises the awesomely complex and politically difficult question of fair shares. But there’s no chance of any substantive discussion of that here this week.
Investing in agricultural supply. Everyone agrees that a ‘new green revolution’, or whatever you want to call it, will be essential given that demand is set to rise 50% by 2030. But while the UN’s High Level Task Force sets out a strong analysis in its newly published paper on elements of a comprehensive strategy, it’s hard to see what actual deal this week’s summit could cut in this area. Admittedly, several countries are likely to announce major new funding commitments while they’re here. But the amounts will have to be very big to become the story of the week.
So what does that leave? If I worked for the UN Secretary-General, I’d be putting all of my effort into persuading one or two of the really big producers who’ve imposed export restrictions on crops – like India, Russia, Kazakhstan or Argentina – to announce an easing of those restrictions. That would mark an important step forward, and represent a triumph for the UN and its Secretary-General.
But without that, it looks like the story of the week is likely to be about biofuels – where it’s hard to see any great strides towards consensus being made here in Rome. On the contrary, with the US and Brazil defending biofuels to the hilt even as others (including FAO head Jacques Diouf) fire broadsides off against feeding crops to cars, the risk is of a damaging spat. That will make for a lively story, if it becomes the angle that journalists here go for – but could also lead to all sides entrenching their positions, which would be a Bad Thing.
by Alex Evans | Jun 3, 2008 | Middle East and North Africa, Off topic
As has been widely reported, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Rome in his usual style, saying that Israel would “soon disappear from the map”. But a close reading of his speech here at the UN food summit shows that actually, that’s just the start of his plans:
In conclusion … I pray to God Almighty for the removal of the problem of humanity …
A translation error? Or a fiendish plot? Who can tell?
by Alex Evans | Jun 3, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, Cooperation and coherence, Economics and development
The FT’s Gideon Rachman has a terrific column today mulling over the question that this week’s UN food summit in Rome is likely to sweep politely beneath the carpet: the question of fair shares to scarce global commodities like energy, food and ‘airspace’ for our emissions.
It is all very awkward. China and India are getting richer. And it appears their new middle classes want all the things we want: cars, washing machines, even meat. Here in the west, we have to restrain ourselves from saying: “Stop. You can’t live like us. The planet can’t stand it. And our wallets can’t stand it. Have you seen the price of petrol?”
Global equity is the awkward issue lying behind the world food crisis. In the long run, it will also prove fundamental to discussions on energy and global warming.
Gideon’s clearly right that asking China, India and other emerging economies to stay poor is a total non-starter (politically as well as morally) – but on the other hand (as his article also makes clear), the problem is that a burgeoning global middle class also risks leaving the world’s poor in an untenable position, now that supplies of energy, food, water, land and ‘airspace’ for our emissions are all getting scarce. Moises Naim asked in a recent LA Times editorial whether the world could afford a middle class – he might have asked whether the poor can afford one, too.
On climate change, at least, we’ve known for a while where the debate needs to go. Given that stabilising the climate will necessarily entail sharing out a safe global ‘emissions budget’, we can’t duck the question of how to share such a budget out – and, by extension, how to satisfy the different equity claims of both emerging economies and least developed countries. How to do that? In a nutshell, through enshrining the principle of fair shares to the global common resource of the atmosphere through a process of convergence to equal per capita emission rights by some agreed date (2030, 2050, the day after tomorrow – whatever countries can hammer out). More and more people in the climate debate are now accepting that proposition (Nick Stern being a notable recent convert), and discussion of it ought to figure heavily on the road to next year’s Copenhagen summit.
With food, though, it’s very much harder to see how the principle of fair shares can be operationalised. At this week’s UN food summmit, the demand side effects of changing diet patterns aren’t even being talked about seriously, even though most analysts agree they’re the most important driver of rising food prices.
Still, one starting point would be to get some basic analytical tools up on the web. If I want to calculate my lifestyle’s carbon footprint, there are any number of websites that will allow me to do just that – and to see whether I’m living within or beyond my ‘fair share’ of the atmosphere. But if I look for a calculator to figure out my diet’s “grain footprint” – the amount of wheat, corn and other cereals needed not just for my daily bread, but (more significantly) the meat, dairy products and processed food in my western diet – I draw a blank. As a result, I’ve no way of telling whether I’m taking food out of someone else’s food bowl, or being a responsible consumer and living within my fair share.
True, grain footprint calculators hardly represent a comprehensive global solution. But if global food supply fails to keep pace with demand growth – forecast by the World Bank to rise by 50% by 2030 – then they’re not a bad place to start the discussion.
by Richard Gowan | Jun 2, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, Conflict and security, North America, Off topic
I was recently hiking in Putnam County, NY, a charming slice of hill country on the Hudson made famous by a musical about a Spelling Bee. I picked up the Putnam County News and Recorder, an old-fashioned newspaper with old-fashioned stories like “Sloop Club Strawberry Festival Serves Up Shortcakes and Sails” and “Heritage Funeral Home Allegations Unproven Says Owner”. But I was struck by the signs of resource scarcity in small (if admittedly liberal, Obama-signs-everywhere) town America. Here are some article openings from the 21 May edition:
The Putnam County Legislature’s Physical Services Committee implicitly acknowledged the financial impact that rising fuel prices are having on the county when, during its May 13 meeting, it heard a presentation on alternate fuels and ways of reducing the ever-escalating costs of heating the county’s buildings.
Water is perhaps our most precious natural resource. All life is dependent on a supply of clean water. And whether you are an average resident changing the oil in your car or a developer constructing several new houses – you have a legal obligation to ensure that your activities do not jeopardize the quality of water in area streams – and ultimately in the Hudson River. That was the gist of a presentation made at a meeting on May 14 at Cold Spring.
Gasoline continues to be a subject of considerable interest in and around the Village of Cold Spring – and not only because consumers are paying more than four dollars to purchase one gallon of regular at area pumps. At the meeting of the Village Board, Trustees passed a resolution requiring Mayor Anthony Phillips to submit expense claims documenting mileage incurred on Village business in order to be reimbursed.
It’s a sort of Olde Worlde Resilience, I guess. And good to see. Although most Putnam residents are probably most concerned about exactly how Olde Worlde their local 1970s-vintage nuclear power station is, especially as it has a “history of problematic performance”. This week it’ll be testing its 156 emergency sirens – a temporary system, it transpires, while a new one is sorted out. Reassuring.
UPDATE: for thoughts on why this post makes me look like a fool, look here.
