Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on November 21, 2014
The Future of the Planet and the Irresponsibility of Governments
Less than a week after everybody celebrated the historical agreement on Nov. 17 between the United States and China on reduction of CO2 emissions, a very cold shower has come from India.
Indian Power Minister Piyush Goyal has declared: “India’s development imperatives cannot be sacrificed at the altar of potential climate change many years in the future. The West will have to recognise we have the needs of the poor”.
This is also a blow to the Asia policy of U.S. President Barack Obama, who came back home from signing the CO2 emissions agreement in Beijing, touting his success on establishing U.S. policy in the region.
But, more importantly, will give plenty of ammunition to the Republican Congress, which has been fighting climate control on the grounds that the United States cannot engage on climate control unless other major polluters make similar commitments. This was always directed to China, which had refuse to make any such commitment until President Xi, to the surprise of everybody, did so by signing an agreement with Obama.
India is a major polluter, not at the level of China, which has now reached 9,900 metric tons of CO2, against the 6,826 of the United States. But India is coming up fast.
Goyal has promised that India’s use of domestic coal will rise from 565 million tons last year to more than a billion tons by 2019, and he is selling licences for coal mining at a great speed. The country has increased its coal-fired plants by 73 percent in just the last five years. In addition, Indian coal is of poor quality, polluting twice as much as coal in the West.
Nevertheless, newly-elected Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has announced that he will embark on a major programme of renewable sources of energy, and there is an apparent paradox in the fact that many of the climate scientists who form the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) are from India. Its Director-General is an Indian, Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, who is also chief executive of the Energy Resources Institute in New Delhi.
The IPCC’s last report was much more dramatic than previous ones, stating conclusively that climate change is due to the action of man, and providing an extensive review of the damage that the agricultural sector is bound to face, especially in poor countries like India. At least 37 million people would be displaced by rising seas.
Indian towns are by far the most polluted in the world, surpassing several times each year the worst polluted day in China.
But what is more worrying is that governments are reacting too slowly. It would take a very major effort, which is not now on the cards, to keep temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees Centigrade, and therefore to start to reduce emissions by 2020. Emissions in 2014 are expected to be the highest ever, at 40 billion tonnes, compared with 32 billion in 2010.
The consensus is that to limit warming of the planet to no more 2 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels, governments would have to restrict emissions from additional fossil fuel burning to about 1 trillion tons of carbon dioxide.
But, according to the IPCC report, energy companies have booked coal and petroleum reserves equal to several times that amount, and they are spending some 600 billion dollars a year to find more. In other words, governments are directly subsidising the consumption of fossil fuel.
By contrast, less than 400 billion dollars a year are spent to reduce emissions, a figure that is smaller than the revenue of one just one U.S. oil company, ExxonMobil.
The last meeting of the G20 in Brisbane earlier this month gave unexpected attention to climate, but the G20 alone is spending 88 billion dollars a year in subsidies for fossil fuel exploration, which is double that which the top 20 private companies are spending to look for new oil, gas and coal.
The G20 spends 101 billion dollars to support clean energy in a clear attempt to make everybody happy but, according to the International Energy Agency, if G20 governments directed half of their subsidies, or 49 billion dollars a year, to investment for redistributing energy from new sources, we could achieve universal energy access as soon as 2030.
Another good example of the total lack of coherence from Western governments is that they have pledged an amount of 10 billion dollars for a Green Climate Fund, whose task is to support developing countries in mitigating and adapting to climate change. That amount is two-thirds of what those countries have been asking for and, since its creation in 1999, the fund has still to become operational.
And it was only after the last G20 meeting that the United States pledged three billion dollars and Japan 1.5 billion, bringing the total so far to 7 billion dollars – one-third is still missing.
And now we have the upcoming Climate Conference in Lima, in December, where opinion is that governments will once again fail to reach a comprehensive agreement on climate change – and the amount of time left for the planet will reduce even further.
Besides the fight to be expected from the Republican Congress in the United States, there will be also be opposition from countries that depend on fossil fuels, such as Russia, Australia, India, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries.
So, governments show a total lack of consensus and responsibility. If a referendum could be held asking citizens if they would prefer to pay 800 billion dollars less in taxes to avoid subsidising pollution, there are few doubts what the result would be. And there would be same result if they were asked if they would prefer to invest those 800 billion dollars in clean energy or continue to pollute.
But the incestuous relations between energy corporations and governments are out of the public’s eye. It is yet further proof that, even when nothing less than survival is at stake for islands and coastlines, agriculture and the poor, governments are unable – or unwilling – to see beyond their immediate existence. We are direly in need of global governance for this kind of globalisation.
23 Comments on "The Future of the Planet and the Irresponsibility of Governments"
rockman on Fri, 21st Nov 2014 2:07 pm
“…governments are unable – or unwilling – to see beyond their immediate existence.” Well, Da! Of course they don’t. And what do those politicians fear will terminate “their immediate existence”? Not providing the voting public with that which they demand. The politicians don’t give a rat’s ass what the corporations want. They just show a face to them that will garner contributions to their campaign funds. But no relationship with any industry is going to override the sentiments of the voting majority: if the politicians know they’ll get voted out of office for supporting A there’s no amount of campaign contributions that will get them to do so.
Politicians might crave corporate contributions but they want the majority of votes even more. Take frac’ng for example: name the politicians, local or national, that would call for banning the method if it were certain they would lose the next election for doing so. Now make a second list of politicians that would publicly support frac’ng if it were certain they would lose the next election for doing so
Not very long lists, eh? LOL.
J-Gav on Fri, 21st Nov 2014 2:53 pm
“Hi-oh the derry-oh
The mouse gets the cheese …”
ghung on Fri, 21st Nov 2014 3:49 pm
“We are direly in need of global governance for this kind of globalisation.”
Oh oh, here come the ‘New World Order” corns, scared shitless they’ll be ruled over by some European or Asian; be taxed to death by the IMF,, all that. Clusterfuck Planet sounds about right these days.
And Rock, most folks don’t vote for anything. They vote against what scares them the most. He/she who runs the scariest/angriest commercials about their opponent usually wins. Folks are alot more fearful of not being able to drive their SUV or missing out on that golf vacation than they are about some abstract idea called climate change.
Plantagenet on Fri, 21st Nov 2014 3:57 pm
1. The Obama deal w Xi doesn’t reduce emissions. It allows China to continue Increasing CO2 emissions
2. India said right after the deal that they want the same deal—– they want Obama to OK their increases in CO2 emissions as well.
J-Gav on Fri, 21st Nov 2014 5:24 pm
Yes Ghung, and that’s been going on for a very long time. Already Reagan’s election was hailed (and is still revered by many) as a landslide victory for democracy, even though less than 50% of the people voted and his actual tally was something in the 20-something percent range!
That’s when I “voted with my feet” (albeit not in the generally accepted direction) and left the U.S. definitively, though I already had a few years of living with my at-that-time future wife in France behind me as back-up.
Today, the situation of BAU, the “system,” whatever one chooses to call it, has taken over pretty much everything here as well, so I should admit that my ‘escape’ was in large part an illusion. The juggernaut was launched.
Which is why I now look at our present fix as being spelled-out in advance. And also why I see our civilizational stance as being ‘inextricable.’ No meaningful within-the-system reform remotely possible. For me that means we’re on the cusp of a world of pain.
The only consolation (I won’t even utter the word ‘hope,’) that I see is in people like your own good self and others on this board as well as numerous lucid minds around the world finding ways to skirt the obstacles thrust in their way to find a new path.
Bon courage.
Perk Earl on Fri, 21st Nov 2014 5:34 pm
“Indian Power Minister Piyush Goyal has declared: “India’s development imperatives cannot be sacrificed at the altar of potential climate change many years in the future. The West will have to recognize we have the needs of the poor”.
As we can see from that quote, one of the underlying problems is over-population (in India & China) leads to more poor people, that need cheap energy from coal.
If a developed country responds to that quote by saying, “The poor will have to make sacrifices too”, then they appear uncaring and politicians avoid that type of label at any cost, even if it means passing 2C like a Lamborghini ripping past a Toyota Tercel.
So in the final analysis of humankind, we have elevated our population to the point whereby we are guaranteed to burn every chunk of coal that can be economically mined, securing a future of harsh consequences from global warming.
Plantagenet on Fri, 21st Nov 2014 6:12 pm
Perk Earl: All we need is politicians with the courage to impose CO2 reductions on EVERYONE. Unfortunately, right now we’ve got obama who pretends he is making a deal to cut CO2 emissions while actually making deals that greatly INCREASE CO2 emissions. This kind of dishonesty has consequences. No wonder India wants the same deal as China, and no doubt every other poor country will want the same deal too, and the inevitable result of Obama’s duplicity is that global CO2 emissions will continue to rise at ever higher rates, with global climate disaster coming on fast.
Perk Earl on Fri, 21st Nov 2014 7:00 pm
“Perk Earl: All we need is politicians with the courage to impose CO2 reductions on EVERYONE.”
That we can agree on, Plant. At this point there can’t be any special compensations provided for specialty groups because our species decided to run right past the third base coach wilding waving his arms to slow down and stop making more children the most important consideration, ignoring population concerns as they effect limits, even if they were born into abject poverty, making ballooning number of people more important than a secure future with stable weather.
After all, poor is poor. It means a person has pretty much nothing. So how much worse can it get for someone with nothing to not have cheap energy from coal? They probably won’t even notice anymore than they won’t notice there’s no salmon, scallops or prawns on their rice, because there never is. I’m not trying to rip the poor, just pointing out the excuse of claiming to have to burn coal for the benefit of the poor is a crock of you know what. The politician claiming that doesn’t care about the poor. He just wants what he wants, like all other humans just want more, sure that’s people want, more, and in this case that ‘more’ want is for more cheap energy.
If you come back in twenty years when things are much worse they will say the exact same thing. So you have to tell them ‘No excuses! Buck up buddy and face the music. We didn’t ask your country to tee off at the maternity ward like you lived in a country five times larger. You decided that and now we all have to make changes, including India!”
Davy on Fri, 21st Nov 2014 7:47 pm
Being a hybrid how can I tell the poor not to improve themselves because of climate change? I call myself a hybrid because I was a lucky sperm I have a wealthy family I coattail with on occasion. You all know my true love is stoic and Spartan living but because of my family I am a carbon whore sometimes through my loyalty to family and tribe. How can I possibly say to the poor suck it up and remain poor?
That is on a personal level. If I step up to a national level my attitude and perspective changes. At this level I say that consumption and population size matter. Both are impactors and both must be given a weighted balance. Off the top of my head I do not know that weighting nor do I think those that throw numbers out have a really good figure for comparison. The important point now is an understanding between countries like India and China with the US and Europe. This understanding says consumption must diminish and population must dictate that China and India do not have the ability to consume relative to the west if they are going to carry such a large population. If they can’t limit population they will have to limit consumption to levels bellow the west to compensate for large populations. This bullshit that the poor countries can consume more regardless of having such a large population and large population growth is absurd. Not only that absurdity but both India and China have numerous wealthy and many obnoxiously wealthy to boot.
We know the current discussions revolve around the west limiting their consumption and the developing world is allowed to catch up. This is plain wrong because it won’t work. What is the use of playing a losing hand? Just throw the cards in and quit betting. Quit throwing good money after bad. The only prescription is all counties must do less with less. Consumption must drop in the west and large population countries. I am sure there is a fair number but aggregate population must matter in the equation.
In any case China and its coal consumption has pretty well signed a death warrant for the planet. China and India have no plans to limit consumption so what is the use. I am not taking the side of the West who are just as bad with consumption and smaller populations. My point is China and India are hypocritically saying we deserve to have large populations and higher consumption. If that is the case screw it we are done for. Let’s stop this stupid talk that we have hope and just throw in the towel. Our climate is done for and our kids have no future.
Plantagenet on Fri, 21st Nov 2014 7:56 pm
@Davy: There are other ways for the poor to “improve themselves” then to burn coal to make electricity and to pollute the atmosphere with CO2. There are these marvelous things called windmills that make electricity without emitting CO2. Then there are photovoltaic panels. And hydro dams. Even nukes make electricity without emitting CO2.
And China isn’t even poor anyway—China is a wealthy country. Last time I was in Beijing hordes of people were out shopping and dressed in the poshiest styles, there were new cars and freeways everywhere, a new subway system, new high speed train systems, giant modern skyscrapers and enough neon lights to make Las Vegas jealous.
redpill on Fri, 21st Nov 2014 8:08 pm
With all the coverage of the pollution in China, Beijing in particular, I was surprised to learn just this week that India has the first 4 of the top 10 most polluted cities. New Delhi is off the effing charts.
India is roughly the size of Argentina. It is hard to conceive of that many people living in such a small area with an environment that is already heavily degraded proclaiming that they’re going to about double their coal usage, and shite coal at that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/world/asia/cities-in-india-among-the-most-polluted-who-says.html?_r=0
Plantagenet on Fri, 21st Nov 2014 8:20 pm
You’re exactly right about India, redpill. And China is also planning to greatly increase their use of coal, in spite of the fact they are already the biggest CO2 emitter in the world by far.
Meanwhile, the oceans are warming up fast and the entire earth is on track for the hottest year ever recorded in 2014.
Davy on Fri, 21st Nov 2014 8:20 pm
Planter, I wish you were right but we are still primarily in a FF world so any of these alternative measures mentioned are FF driven and by extension carbon sources. It has also been shown that these AltE sources in the end ensure growth is maintained. There is no significant reduction in carbon growth with any AltE applications to many of these countries energy mix.
The only place we may see some improvement is in Europe but most of this is just Europe being in a slowdown. Europe’s AltE is not the primary driver of the lower EU carbon foot print. A deflating EU economy is doing much more than EU AltE efforts. How can we expect China and India to reduce consumption and lower carbon emissions when their population is growing in size and wealth?
Perk Earl on Fri, 21st Nov 2014 9:52 pm
“How can I possibly say to the poor suck it up and remain poor?”
Yeah Davy, but India has always had poor people, and the greater their population rises to the more poor there will be. So my point in saying in 20 years when things are much worse they can make the same excuse is true. When all is said and done India just wants to take the cheapest route in supplying energy. They’ve already decided to make all these new coal powered E generating plants, so can you see the excuse of taking pity on the poor is just that, an excuse?
It’s not like in 20 years there will be no poor people in India because they had cheap coal powered energy today to jack up their prosperity. They have a caste system to guarantee there are poor people to do menial work so there is a form of slavery without having to label it that. If there are people in India a billion years from now, a certain percentage will be poor.
GregT on Fri, 21st Nov 2014 10:30 pm
“And China is also planning to greatly increase their use of coal, in spite of the fact they are already the biggest CO2 emitter in the world by far.”
CO2 accumulates in the environment. China may be the largest emitter, but China is late to the CO2 emissions game. It is us in the west that have contributed the most to CO2 accumulations, and it is us in the west that are mostly responsible for the Chinese ‘industrial’ machine.
Stop buying stuff from big box American stores, and do your part to reduce Chinese CO2 emissions.
Makati1 on Fri, 21st Nov 2014 10:45 pm
Just to put it into perspective:
“… China, which has now reached 9,900 metric tons of CO2, against the 6,826 of the United States…”
If you do the math, the uS pollutes 2Xs the amount as china, per capita. Davy discounts that because American pollution is exceptional and not to be counted accurately. Not to mention that most of that pollution is to make junk to ship to Walmart. Be used for a short while and then tossed into the trash mountain nearby.
Davy on Sat, 22nd Nov 2014 6:34 am
Greg, you can’t include historical carbon emissions or we should go back 10,000 years and add up the emissions. In my book historical emissions can only be counted since we knew carbon was part of AGW. I would say in the 80’s we knew we had a problem on the horizon.
Greg I agree with you on one way to stop Asia’s growth is to quit buying plastic junk i.e. Asian consumables junk. Yet, Greg a significant part of Asia’s emission are related to heavy industry for internal use like concrete, steel, and heating.
OOH, Per-capita-MAK, you are just plain wrong saying per capita matters. We are talking nations not states. That talk might work within a country between states. Like Perk and I mentioned population is half the problem especially with the Asians who are increasing consumption not deceasing it. IMA with the significant amount of the increase nowadays with it aspiring middle class and wealthy.
Mak, you are a propaganda bitch that believes anything Asia does is alright because Asia has the golden touch. I firmly believe it should be an equation with a formula for population size, growth, and consumption levels at a national level. I would also say we should include historical emissions since the 80’s in our equation since that is when we knew AGW to be a danger.
When you develop this equation per capita is irrelevant. Do you think I give a shit about the Chinese and them me? We care about our own people and ourselves. This is not a NWO where every global citizen is equal. We are in a family of nations. The situation with a family of nations has to be on the basis of fairness and reality among nations. Reality screams less with less for all nations. It screams an equation with the formula weighting population, consumption, growth, and post 80’s historical emissions. Like Perk said Asia has such a large population it will always have poor.
Dredd on Sat, 22nd Nov 2014 6:50 am
“The incestuous relations between energy corporations and governments are out of the public’s eye. It is yet further proof that, even when nothing less than survival is at stake for islands and coastlines, agriculture and the poor, governments are unable – or unwilling – to see beyond their immediate existence” …
One Oil-Qaeda executive blatantly stated “I am not an American corporation” when discussing that issue (MOMCOM: The Private Parts).
Dredd on Sat, 22nd Nov 2014 7:02 am
rockman,
“…governments are unable – or unwilling – to see beyond their immediate existence.” Well, Da! Of course they don’t. And what do those politicians fear will terminate “their immediate existence”? Not providing the voting public with that which they demand. The politicians don’t give a rat’s ass what the corporations want.”
We live in two different universes I guess.
In my universe politicians don’t give a rats ass about anything except what corporations want (and hiding that fact from the public).
The U.S.eh? for instance is down at #23-#26 on the election integrity ratings (Oil-Qaeda Wins Big – 2).
The process has less integrity than in some old Soviet regimes that are now democracies.
You aren’t sniffing hopium again are you?
Makati1 on Sat, 22nd Nov 2014 7:33 am
America’s poor. Google any of these headlines for more details:
“Labor Secretary Tom Perez: How to Fix Inequality in America”
“Part-time jobs put millions in poverty or close to it”
“Child homelessness on the rise”
“Seniors Remain on Frontline in War on Poverty”
“More Than 100 Million Americans Are On Welfare”
“Hunger and Children in America: A Slow and Steady Starvation …”
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/
The last one is very interesting. It shows that the US is #52 out of 192 countries in deaths by starvation with 1 per 100,000 population.
Guess who has fewer? Most of the Central Asian countries. Most of Europe. Russia is #50. Even China is only #56 out of 192 with 1.1 per 100/000. Yes, the Ps are #131 with 11 deaths per 100,000 population. Haiti is the bottom with 53.
But for the US to over 3,000 deaths by starvation every year is not a good sign of a healthy, functioning democracy. Certainly not for an exceptional country and people.
Boat on Sat, 22nd Nov 2014 8:01 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll
Once again scroll the numbers and use a little perspective. Remember the growth in human population. These are the glory years for the human race. Thank goodness the US has led the way and shown the way for a better style of health and living through capitalism.
FriedrichKling on Sat, 22nd Nov 2014 11:09 am
Davey…………….the voice of reason. Keep up the good fight, brother!!!!
Makati1 on Sun, 23rd Nov 2014 5:05 am
Boat, Capitalism is the death of the world and humanity. It is like a virus that needs new and more hosts constantly to survive.