The Copenhagen summit, a big joke
Let me start the blog post with this statement ❝The Copenhagen summit is going to be a big joke❞. Throughout the rest of the post I will try to justify this statement!
|
Update 1.0, 28/11/2009 The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC) is an international environmental treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), informally known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992. The objective of the treaty is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. There has been a number of negotiations since, the principal update is the Kyoto Protocol, which has become much better known than the UNFCCC itself. The Protocol was initially adopted on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and entered into force on 16 February 2005. As of November 2009, 187 states have signed and ratified the protocol. Under the Protocol, 37 industrialized countries (called "Annex I countries") commit themselves to a reduction of four greenhouse gases (GHG) (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride) and two groups of gases (hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons) produced by them, and all member countries give general commitments. Annex I countries agreed to reduce their collective greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% from the 1990 level. Emission limits do not include emissions by international aviation and shipping, but are in addition to the industrial gases, chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which are dealt with under the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Annex I countries: Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America. Some opponents of the Convention argue that the split between Annex I and developing countries is unfair, and that both developing countries and developed countries need to reduce their emissions unilaterally. Some countries claim that their costs of following the Convention requirements will stress their economy. This was one reason given by George W. Bush, then President of the United States, for not forwarding the Kyoto Protocol to the United States Senate for ratification. The Kyoto protocol failed in many ways mainly because USA never participated and signatories like many countries of the EU and Australia are seen to be reluctant members of the movement. It is believed that for the developed countries, which presumably had money to spare at least before the recent recession, cost of compliance is less than the cost of the consequences of doing nothing. Failure or not, Kyoto protocol as a pact is due to expire in 2012 and therefore needs to be replaced by another. Governmental representatives from 170 countries are expected to be in Copenhagen in the days of the conference accompanied by other governmental representatives, NGO's, journalists and others.
|
Living beings are designed to share a very complicated symbiotic relationship with nature and each other. A simple example will be the one shared between photosynthetic organisms and others wherein the former and the later, completely or partially, depend on each other for Carbon dioxide and Oxygen exchange. Another useful example is how volcanoes, otherwise destructive for civilizations and species, are believed to have helped get the world out of the last ice age by emitting massive amounts of green house gases in the atmosphere. During the time of industrialization, we are not aware of these relationships (rather, science was not aware of these). As a result our civilization planned it's growth like a blind man crossing the road! Technologies were permitted to be developed and then massively used in a manner far from being sustainable. Now that we think we know more and may have walked in the wrong direction all along, we have become too used to these amenities of modern life to be prepared to give them all up much like a reluctant chain smoker when asked to give up smoking completely even after being diagnosed for lung cancer!
The world has been found to be designed (we can debate on who designed the world on a later date) to sustain only a certain number of living beings and maintain a balance in the symbiotic relationship at that same time. Moreover, certain resources vital to maintain life is limited and non renewable (non-renewable also means resources which take a long time and or violent natural processes to regenerate amass), like natural fertility of cultivable land, organic gas & mineral oils, etc., while some other, like fresh water and oxygen recycles only in a limited quantity very slowly. With the current growth rate of population there is exerted a huge amount of pressure on resources. Also, there are some other, complex yet, essential adverse effects of uncontrolled and exponential population growth. For example, population is directly proportional to greater need for space to stay and food which in turn are inversely proportional to the land occupied by trees and therefore also to the rate at which carbon dioxide (a major green house gas) is converted into oxygen; add to this the fact that population is directly proportional to carbon dioxide emission. Now also consider this, modern population growth also relates to more cars, more electricity, more furniture, more cement, cotton & synthetic materials, airplanes, TV sets, etc in addition to the basic necessities of life mentioned earlier. Which basically means, no matter how much per capita carbon emission we cut with the current global population growth rate we will still be racing towards non-sustainability. Even if we go back to stone age we will be cutting enough trees and eating enough stuff for the global resources not to sustain us for long. In simple terms, ever wondered why food and oil prices are always on the rise and breaking new records in spite of all the technical advancements in agriculture and mining? Try and explain this to religious leaders who ask us to beget more in order to expand the reach of our respective religions! God does not tell them everything after all, ha?
Some pet the self satisfying presumption that solar power and battery powered engines will save the day for us! Personally I know, even this is hardly sustainable in the long run. The logic is simple, even solar energy & energy storage devices have fall outs. Solar panels are made of various alloys and compounds of silicon and they are required in gigantic quantities to produce humble amounts of electricity. Though its effects on the environment are not completely ascertained yet, over silicon exposure is surely not natural and normal! Furthermore, the energy thus generated is stored in electric cells made of toxic chemicals generating even more harmful and hard to recycle compounds and fumes; how is this sustainable, I wonder?
Take a look at the following table and observe the destructive direction we are headed. The global population is estimated to soar to over 9.7 billion by 2150, if we make it that far that is, though I think these are very humble predictions. No form of "green energy source" will be sustainable if we are talking about so many people.
World historical and predicted populations (in millions) (source: http://wikipedia.org)
| Region | 1750 | 1800 | 1850 | 1900 | 1950 | 1999 | 2008 | 2050 | 2150 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| World | 791 | 978 | 1,262 | 1,650 | 2,521 | 5,978 | 6,707 | 8,909 | 9,746 |
| Africa | 106 | 107 | 111 | 133 | 221 | 767 | 973 | 1,766 | 2,308 |
| Asia | 502 | 635 | 809 | 947 | 1,402 | 3,634 | 4,054 | 5,268 | 5,561 |
| Europe | 163 | 203 | 276 | 408 | 547 | 729 | 732 | 628 | 517 |
| Latin America and the Caribbean * | 16 | 24 | 38 | 74 | 167 | 511 | 577 | 809 | 912 |
| Northern America * | 2 | 7 | 26 | 82 | 172 | 307 | 337 | 392 | 398 |
| Oceania | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 13 | 30 | 34 | 46 | 51 |
That we are supposedly in the same page in terms of the facts, let's now understand the politics and idea governing contemporary global climate change meetings like the one in Copenhagen in December, 2009. It's basically going to discuss how much per capita emission cut participating countries will take in years to come. To understand the politics further we need to take a very close look at the last table of the page.
Major polluting countries of the world: (Last table of this page..)
| Rank | Country | Annual CO2emissions (in thousands of metric tons) |
Percentage of total emissions | Population (known population in 2009) |
CO2 emissions per capita (in metric tons) |
| 59 |  Qatar |
46,193 | 0.2 % | 1,409,000 | 32,78 |
| 31 |  United Arab Emirates |
139,553 | 0.5 % | 4,599,000 | 30,34 |
| 41 |  Kuwait |
86,599 | 0.3 % | 2,985,000 | 29,01 |
| 2 |  United States[9] |
5,752,289 | 20.2 % | 308,011,000 | 18,68 |
| 16 |  Australia |
372,013 | 1.3 % | 22,067,000 | 16,86 |
| 8 |  Canada |
544,680 | 1.9 % | 33,855,000 | 16,09 |
| 15 |  Saudi Arabia |
381,564 | 1.3 % | 25,721,000 | 14,83 |
| 65 |  Oman |
41,378 | 0.2 % | 2,845,000 | 14,54 |
| 48 |  Finland |
66,693 | 0.2 % | 5,350,500 | 12,46 |
| 24 |  Kazakhstan |
193,508 | 0.7 % | 15,776,492 | 12,26 |
| 53 |  Singapore |
56,217 | 0.2 % | 4,987,600 | 11,27 |
| 34 |  Czech Republic |
116,991 | 0.4 % | 10,476,543 | 11,17 |
| 3 |  Russia |
1,564,669 | 5.5 % | 141,879,000 | 11,02 |
| 28 |  Netherlands |
168,513 | 0.6 % | 16,575,700 | 10,17 |
| 5 |  Japan |
1,293,409 | 4.6 % | 127,560,000 | 10,13 |
| 35 |  Belgium |
107,199 | 0.4 % | 10,754,528 | 9,97 |
| 6 |  Germany |
805,090 | 2.8 % | 81,882,342 | 9,83 |
| 9 |  South Korea |
475,248 | 1.7 % | 48,333,000 | 9,83 |
| 62 |  Ireland |
43,806 | 0.2 % | 4,459,300 | 9,82 |
| 55 |  Denmark |
53,944 | 0.2 % | 5,532,531 | 9,75 |
| 44 |  Israel |
70,440 | 0.3 % | 7,472,700 | 9,42 |
| 7 |  United Kingdom |
568,520 | 2.0 % | 61,634,599 | 9,22 |
| 54 |  Libya |
55,495 | 0.2 % | 6,420,000 | 8,64 |
| 61 |  Turkmenistan |
44,103 | 0.2 % | 5,110,000 | 8,63 |
| 43 |  Austria |
71,834 | 0.3 % | 8,355,260 | 8,59 |
| 39 |  Greece |
96,382 | 0.3 % | 11,260,402 | 8,55 |
| 13 |  South Africa |
414,649 | 1.5 % | 49,320,500 | 8,41 |
| 21 |  Poland |
318,219 | 1.1 % | 38,100,700 | 8,35 |
| 66 |  Norway |
40,220 | 0.2 % | 4,846,700 | 8,29 |
| 10 |  Italy[11] |
474,148 | 1.7 % | 60,157,214 | 7,88 |
| - |  European Union[10] |
3,914,359 | 13.8 % | 499,794,855 | 7,83 |
| 18 |  Spain |
352,235 | 1.2 % | 45,967,632 | 7,66 |
| 22 |  Thailand |
272,521 | 1.0 % | 38,100,700 | 7,15 |
| 45 |  Belarus |
68,849 | 0.2 % | 9,671,900 | 7,12 |
| 20 |  Ukraine |
319,158 | 1.1 % | 46,029,281 | 6,93 |
| 25 |  Malaysia |
187,865 | 0.7 % | 28,310,000 | 6,63 |
| 58 |  Bulgaria |
48,085 | 0.2 % | 7,606,551 | 6,32 |
| 11 |  Iran |
466,976 | 1.6 % | 74,196,000 | 6,29 |
| 26 |  Argentina |
173,536 | 0.6 % | 28,310,000 | 6,12 |
| 27 |  Venezuela |
171,593 | 0.6 % | 28,310,000 | 6,06 |
| 14 |  France[12] |
383,148 | 1.4 % | 65,106,482 | 5,88 |
| 52 |  Hungary |
57,644 | 0.2 % | 10,031,208 | 5,75 |
| 51 |  Portugal |
60,001 | 0.2 % | 10,627,250 | 5,64 |
| 67 |  Hong Kong |
39,039 | 0.1 % | 7,008,900 | 5,57 |
| 57 |  Sweden |
50,875 | 0.2 % | 9,325,429 | 5,45 |
| 56 |  Serbia and Montenegro |
53,266 | 0.2 % | 9,850,000 | 5,40 |
| 63 |  Switzerland |
41,826 | 0.2 % | 7,753,600 | 5,39 |
| 37 |  Romania |
98,490 | 0.4 % | 21,498,616 | 4,58 |
| 1 |  China |
6,103,493 | 21.5 % | 1,334,320,000 | 4,57 |
| - |  World |
28,431,741 | 100.0 % | 6,799,000,000 | 4,18 |
| 12 |  Mexico |
436,150 | 1.6 % | 107,550,697 | 4,05 |
| 32 |  Algeria |
132,715 | 0.5 % | 34,895,000 | 3,80 |
| 23 |  Turkey |
269,452 | 1.0 % | 71,517,100 | 3,77 |
| 50 |  Chile |
60,100 | 0.2 % | 16,996,000 | 3,54 |
| 33 |  Uzbekistan |
115,672 | 0.4 % | 34,895,000 | 3,31 |
| 42 |  North Korea |
79,111 | 0.3 % | 24,051,706 | 3,29 |
| 46 |  Syria |
68,460 | 0.2 % | 21,906,000 | 3,13 |
| 40 |  Iraq |
92,572 | 0.3 % | 31,234,000 | 2,96 |
| 29 |  Egypt |
166,800 | 0.6 % | 77,504,000 | 2,15 |
| 17 |  Brazil |
352,524 | 1.2 % | 192,089,000 | 1,84 |
| 19 |  Indonesia |
333,483 | 1.2 % | 231,369,500 | 1,44 |
| 60 |  Morocco |
45,316 | 0.2 % | 31,650,000 | 1,43 |
| 49 |  Colombia |
63,422 | 0.2 % | 45,193,000 | 1,40 |
| 4 |  India |
1,510,351 | 5.3 % | 1,173,010,000 | 1,29 |
| 36 |  Vietnam |
106,132 | 0.4 % | 85,789,573 | 1,23 |
| 30 |  Pakistan |
142,659 | 0.5 % | 168,041,500 | 0,84 |
| 47 |  Philippines |
68,328 | 0.2 % | 92,226,600 | 0,74 |
| 99 |  Nigeria |
97,262 | 0.1 % | 154,729,000 | 0,62 |
| 64 |  Bangladesh |
41,609 | 0.2 % | 162,221,000 | 0,26 |
If you had looked at the original table, available in http://wikipedia.org, you would notice that I took the liberty to sort it, in descending order, based on per capita carbon emission rate. The reason behind opting for the per capita sort is that how much per citizen of a country pollutes is much more significant that how much a country pollutes. In order words, if you pile up a huge chunk of the global population in a particular landmass then that piece of real estate will obviously pollute more no matter how much it tries! So, what's the politics behind that? The top country in the sorted table is Qatar, every citizen of which emits 32.78 metric tons of CO2 every year while every Chinese emits 4.57 MTT (Metric Ton/s) of CO2; still China is the leading polluting nation in terms of total carbon footprint! It is note worthy that though China has a population almost a thousand times Qatar's it still pollutes just over 130 times more; that's not too fair, is it? So, even if China goes back to the stone age altogether (and parts of it almost live in the stone age even today) it will still probably pollute more than Qatar due to the sheer size of the Chinese population! Yet, Qatar is not even a major global player in climate change discussions!
Look, a proper direction to tackle the climate change issue will be to help the densely populated regions drastically reduce their population over a period of time (which will automatically decrease the total carbon foot print of these regions) and densely carbon emitting regions to dramatically reduce per capita emission. The reason which lead me to call Copenhagen a global joke is because while we are consistently pressurizing countries and emerging economies like China to cut their already reduced per capita emission further we are completely ignoring them who emit the most per head! This is going to lead us no where because China & India will never agree; they just can't because it does not make sense at all! So why are global political leaders not acting on our suggestions? I wish it was easy to explain but let me try.
If the prime ministers of UK and Australia at 9.22 MTT/head and 16.86 MTT/head or the president of USA at 18.68 MTT/head go back to their respective countries with a deal requiring them to cut, let's say, 40% emission over ten years then they will have to choose a nice & serene piece of land, resign, take political retirement and settle there for the rest of their lives! We can't pressurize Qatar (or any other gulf country) because they are not a democracy and won't listen. The monarch of that kingdom will simply ask the western oil companies to pack up and get out of his soil! Moreover, it makes no business sense for developed nations to get the developing ones cut emissions instead of them because later will have to then rely on the former for "green technology" to sustain growth!
What's the final outcome then? Nothing but failure! It's much wiser to ask the people of low laying nations to start packing up already than engage in meaningless talks! Now, is that not a big joke?
If you read and liked this article do follow @wwwPoet in twitter.
-
- amartya's blog
- Login or register to post comments
