by Leo Horn Phathanothai | Dec 4, 2009 | Climate and resource scarcity, Economics and development
Here’s what the world looks like if country sizes were proportional to their emissions (world map scaled to fossil-fuel carbon-dioxide emissions in 2002):
And here’s what the world looks like if countries were sized commensurately with the burden of climate change impacts (world map scaled by the World Health Organization’s regional estimates of per capita mortality from late 20th century climate change):
These maps were drawn from the recently released UN Population Fund (UNFPA) ‘State of World Population 2009’ report, which focuses on the theme of women, population and climate change. While the developed countries have contributed the most to human-induced climate change up to now, people in poor countries—most dramatically in Africa—already are much more likely to die as a result of the climate change that occurred up to 2000.
The picture is significantly more skewed if we were to take account of (i) historical emissions; (ii) the unequal burden of future climate impacts.
by Michael Harvey | Aug 25, 2009 | Climate and resource scarcity, Economics and development, Middle East and North Africa, North America, UK
– With the news that President Obama has nominated Ben Bernanke for a second term, over at the New Republic Noam Scheiber assesses the merits of continuity at the Fed. Stephen Roach, meanwhile, examines the case against the incumbent chairman, arguing that Obama’s decision should open a “broader debate over the conduct and role of US monetary policy”.
– Taking us back to the depths of last September’s financial meltdown, Faisal Islam has some interesting insights into the collapse of Lehman Brothers as viewed from British shores.
– Elsewhere, debate continues apace about the rights and wrongs of releasing the Lockerbie bomber. Suggesting that “cock-up offers as convincing an explanation as conspiracy for the handling of Mr Megrahi’s release”, Philip Stephens argues that the decision highlights the “price of realism” in foreign policy.
– Speaking of which, in the latest edition of FP Magazine none other than Paul Wolfowitz assesses the realist credentials of President Obama; providing at once a telling insight into the mindset of a man at the heart of foreign policy making during the Bush years.
– Mark Easton’s BBC blog, meanwhile, takes a look at how the British government is looking to influence public behaviour in light of the Chief Scientist’s warning of a “perfect storm” of energy, food and water scarcity by 2030.
– Finally, as President Obama holidays on Martha’s Vineyard, the White House announces what he’ll be reading on the beach. Slate offers its take here.
by Alex Evans | Jul 3, 2009 | Climate and resource scarcity, UK
Yes, yes, it’s not a phrase one hears very often these days, but credit where it’s due: Gordon Brown’s climate change speech a week ago was first rate. Don’t just take it from me – Dan Smith thinks so too:
I think the Brown government – covered as it is with the ordure of scandal and recession that is dished out daily by the UK news media, the commentariat and the blogosphere – deserves a whole heap of credit for getting out in front of the crowd like this.
So what’s Brown done that’s so praiseworthy? In essence, the right thing on financing for climate change in developing countries (both the adaptation and the mitigation / technology transfer side of the equation). The key points in his speech are:
– a commitment that “I will commit the UK now to paying its fair share of the global total of [a climate financing mechanism for developing countries]. And we would expect other developed countries to do the same”;
– recognition that climate finance must be additional to the 0.7% aid target, and that “while some climate finance can come from official development assistance – where it clearly meets both poverty reduction and adaptation or mitigation objectives – a ceiling should be placed on this … in the UK we will limit such expenditure to up to 10% of our official development assistance. And we will work towards this limit being agreed internationally”;
– and a headline global needs figure of $100 billion a year by 2020 for adaptation.
These are really significant announcements. The $100 billion figure is at the high end of the range of figures so far mentioned (and looking at the rate at which the science outlook is worsening on climate damages, the high end is the correct end of the spectrum). But better still is the absolutely explicit commitment on additionality. Aid advocates have been seriously worried about the potential that more and more development aid would end up being diverted to coping with climate, rather than actively reducing poverty – Brown’s speech puts a tough new benchmark in place.
The big question now is whether the Conservative party will match Brown’s pledge on adaptation finance. True, they say that they’re committed to reaching the 0.7% aid spending target (it’s one of only two spending areas that the Conservatives have promised to protect) – but that’s of little use if all the money ends up being diverted to coping with climate change…
by Alex Evans | Jul 3, 2009 | Climate and resource scarcity, North America
Paul Krugman’s NYT column on Monday didn’t pull any punches as far as the 212 Congresspeople who voted ‘no’ on the Waxman-Markey climate bill were concerned:
as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.
He continues:
…sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided — they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.
But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn’t see people who’ve thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it — and they’ll grab any argument, nomatter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.
(more…)
