by Leo Horn Phathanothai | Oct 16, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, Global system
With a global recession looming, international efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions may be in jeopardy, as concerns are voiced in the US, Canada and Europe about the wisdom of adopting measures that would impose an additional cost burden on already fragile economies. Such thinking is misguided, and it is dangerous. A recession may in fact ease the introduction of carbon emissions trading schemes.
At the recent EU summit in Brussels there was widespread reluctance to meet pledges all EU governments made last year to cut CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020. Eight Eastern European countries – including Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia — released a joint statement urging the EU to balance the wish for cleaner air against “the need for sustainable economic growth” at a time of “serious economic and financial uncertainties.” Italy threw its weight behind these countries, threatening to veto the proposed EU plans.
Likewise in the US, top power industry executives seized the opportunity to lobby for delaying carbon emissions legislation, at the recent New York Utility Conference. More dramatically in Canada, the Liberals were dealt an electoral defeat on Wednesday largely on the basis of their strong advocacy in favour of a carbon tax (see story here).
All this backtracking is akin to forfeiting the forest for the tree. Financial crises are short-term phenomena, global warming on the other hand is with us for the long haul, and the window of opportunity for addressing it is fast narrowing. The prospect of economic recession does not in any way reduce the magnitude or the urgency of the climate problem, nor does it provide any compelling reason for delaying action. Or as EU President Barroso put it:
“Saving the planet is not an after-dinner drink, a digestif that you take or leave. Climate change does not disappear because of the financial crisis.
Moreover, as David Wheeler of the Center for Global Development argues, smart carbon regulation will be easiest, not hardest, to introduce during a recession, since a slowing economy emits less, and smart cap-and-trade regulation can “lock in” this head start on emissions reduction at almost no cost during the recession. His proposal for the US is to:
• Immediately pass a cap-and-trade bill that sets the initial total limit at the pre-recession emissions level, and schedule a progressive decline in the overall limit that will achieve the needed long-run goal.
• Establish an annual auction for 100% of the emissions permits.
• Set aside a healthy share of the auction proceeds to provide a compensating rebate for every American
In this way the consumer is shielded from cost increases, and the power provider incentivised to develop less carbon-intensive energy options for the future.
It is amply clear that big emitting developing countries such as China and India will not make significant commitments to curb their greenhouse gas emissions unless the US and EU lead by example. With only about a year to go before the new global deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol is due to be reached in Copenhagen conference, the US and EU have no room to falter. More than ever, political courage and leadership is needed to ensure global efforts to address climate change are not jeopardized.
by Alex Evans | Oct 14, 2008 | Global system
As regular readers will be aware, I’ve long admired the courageous approach to public diplomacy taken by the US Department of Homeland Security, particularly in the fantastically Byzantine process that is immigration at New York’s John F Kennedy airport.
Now, DHS are raising their game to a whole new level. As frequent travellers will know, in order to qualify for the US visa waiver program, visitors from overseas now have to apply for special authorisation to do so. But what really completes the web experience is a thoughtful, unique touch: when you arrive at the web page to fill out your application, you’re greeted with a special pop-up message – I’m not kidding – that reads as follows:
This Department of Homeland Security (DHS) computer system and any related equipment is subject to monitoring for administrative oversight, law enforcement, criminal investigative purposes, inquiries into alleged wrongdoing or misuse, and to ensure proper performance of applicable security features and procedures. As part of this monitoring, DHS may acquire, access, retain, intercept, capture, retrieve, record, read, inspect, analyze, audit, copy and disclose any information processed, transmitted, received, communicated, and stored within the computer system. If monitoring reveals possible misuse or criminal activity, notice of such may be provided to appropriate supervisory personnel and law enforcement officials. DHS may conduct these activities in any manner without further notice. By clicking OK below or by using this system, you consent to the terms set forth in this notice.
Wow. That wins the prize by a country mile for the least welcoming, most f**k-you way to arrive at a website that I’ve ever seen in my life. I’m lost for words.
by David Steven | Oct 10, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, Conflict and security, Cooperation and coherence, Global system, Influence and networks
I’m just back from RUSI, where I spoke about the future of resilience. Full text is below the jump, or you can download the PDF.
The talk complements one from April, at RUSI’s Critical National Infrastructure conference. Alex and I also have a paper on the subject in a future edition of Renewal.
Brief pitch: in turbulent times, we need to build on the work done by emergency planners, and take a broader look at how to make global, national and local systems more resilient to risk. (more…)
by David Steven | Oct 9, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity
Climate change policy is bedevilled by two ugly terms: mitigation and adaptation.
(For those who have managed to avoid this jargon, forget the dictionary definitions. The first is used to mean any response that aims to cut carbon; the second, any response that aims to help people cope with a changing climate).
But there’s a big problem with adaptation, once it’s practiced in the real world.
The UK government (through UKCIP) provides an ‘adaptation wizard‘ that is designed to “help determine your vulnerability to climate change, identify your key climate risks, and enable you to develop a climate change adaptation strategy.”
One of its guiding principles is to “identify key climate risks and opportunities and focus on actions to manage these.” Decision makers are enjoined to consider the potential impact of a changing climate on all the major decisions they make.
But this is where it gets difficult. If you’re making a major and long-term investment today, you may have exposure to rising sea levels and temperatures, or growing numbers of extreme weather events.
But none of these are likely to be your greatest source of climate-related vulnerability.
By far your greatest risk will be your exposure to the vagaries of climate policy. The UK is currently committed to a 60% emissions reduction by 2050; 26% by 2020 (all against a 1990 baseline). It seems likely that more stringent targets will have to be taken on (80% by 2050).
This, of course, means that we are in for a complete social and economic revolution – massive changes in the way we live, work and use energy. But no-one knows how this will happen, or how quickly.
So it makes no sense at all to pretend that adaptation is solely, or even mostly, about responding to the vagaries of future weather conditions. But that’s what we do when we shove adaptation and mitigation into different silos.
Resilience, as I argued in a talk at RUSI yesterday (to be published here in the next 24 hours), is about the ability to ‘reorganise while undergoing change.’ If we don’t have shared awareness of the nature of the changes to come, then the chances that we’ll reorganise in the right way must, surely, be minimal.
by David Steven | Oct 5, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, North America
“Challenge to a cynic” as recited to Charlie Gibson:
You are a cynic.
Because show me where
I have ever said
That there’s absolute proof
That nothing that man
Has ever conducted
Or engaged in,
Has had any effect,
Or no effect,
On climate change.
Many more powerful and affecting works here.
