Solving a Solution
Posted by Jeff Id on August 25, 2010
A common theme from climate scientists is how do we get people to act now. They want us to act to stop global warming immediately. They search their brains and write papers and blog posts on how to ‘convince’ the public to take action.
Here is laundry list of the Copenhagen ‘solution to global warming’.
Form a global organization for detemining the right course of actoin
Set targets by country for co2 emission on a per capita basis
Place tax on carbon use.
Use money for research into global warming.
Send money and technology from wealthy countries to poor countries to help them adapt and pay for damages.
Place incentives on preferred adaptation.
Now I’ve said it before but what does any of this have to do with preventing global warming as it has been posed? We currently don’t have the technology outside of nuclear to do anything substantial about emissions. Imagine New York powered by a wind farm! Taxes limit today’s output but don’t accelerate technology. Implementation of costly non-working solutions is just throwing money down the toilet.
It leaves me with a whole lot of questions but the one which really bothers me has to do with ‘developing nations’.
First, there hasn’t been any damage at all to third world countries by our fossil fuel usage. Not one thing has been damaged so why are we paying reparations for adaptation? Why is that suggested at all?
Why do third world countries need MY money for emission reduction when they are not creating any real emissions?
The problem boils down to one of the politics of climate but without boiling it down, these guys actually proposed that the best way for us to change to a better technology and get rid of fossil fuels was to promise to meet goals — very expensive goals — and then give huge sums of money to defective governments which don’t emit much.
It’s not even slightly sane, but it goes right along with the ideal that all governments are equal and it’s just luck that countries like the US and Japan happen to have better industry.
I can’t even find one redeeming quality of that proposal. If we had extra money (which we don’t) why wouldn’t we spend it on new technology or reduced emissions?
A quote from Bart Verheggans blog my View linked on the right provides more clues as to why this was proposed.
The 20-80 story puts population in perspective: 20% of the world population uses approximately 80% of the worlds’ resources (dependent on the resource of course). That alone means that focusing on population isn’t where the shoe pinches in many cases: It’s the (over-)consumption in the rich areas that causes the most strain on the world’s resources.
Over consumption by rich areas causes the strain. Not a reasonable consumption by a healthy people but over-consumption. I’ve got to tell you, I can’t eat more food than anyone else. I’ve been to China and watched them out eat me, drive on roadways so congested and with so much stop and go that gas consumption dwarfs anything my mini-van uses. I’ve also seen them swelter in hot air and cold with a perfectly working air conditioner in the corner. At dark all lights are off in massive apartment complexes in modern cities. Yet the fact that I have light and comfortable temperatures, means over-consumption.
There is so much wrong with Bart’s statement, but in a room of climate scientists, I bet none of them would see it. This blame America for the worlds problems concept has gone way too far but that’s exactly what he does.
He expresses consumption and CO2 production on a per capita basis and considers it excess. Even though China has more production of CO2, it’s ok because they have more people. The not-too-subtle implication is that we MUST even out the playing field. In Copenhagen, the best method for ‘evening out’ happens by direct payment.
Bart’s and climate science’s goal is apparently to stop over-consumption by America, Japan or Europe, which is entirely different from solving the emission problem of CO2. They don’t want us to maintain our lifestyle, greenpeace CEO has directly made that statement himself. We’ve covered it several times here. But more insidious than that, Bart wants to prop up ‘developing nations’.
I’ve said many times that developing nations is a lie by itself. Cuba is not a ‘developing nation’ it’s a non-functional communist system of government. Venezuela is not a developing nation. Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabia are not developing nations. These countries have broken government systems which don’t deserve equality because they don’t create it.
But for some reason climate science thinks we should prop them up with money — to create equality.
This is NOT science. So looking back at Copenhagen, the points raised seem to have more to do with equity of wealth than solving global warming. Perhaps the problem with communicating global warming, is the solution.
Picking on Bart a little more, he highlighted a post called lemmings or leaders indicating that we should jump to the solution now if we’re leaders. My questions revolve around solutions to what and of course, if everyone jumps off a cliff, doesn’t that make the one smart enough to not jump the leader? I’m not sure but if you propose jumping off a cliff, I’ll recommend a different course. If you insist that we do it now, I’ll just stand back and watch.