Okay, so now it's official. The UN has spoken. Their verdict is in. They have finally named the elephant in the room. Global warming is happening faster than anticipated, and it is now too late to prevent it.
Although there's no stopping it, we can mitigate it; we can plan for how to best cope with inevitable future extreme weather events that will undoubtedly be even worse than those we are experiencing now. If we act now we may even still be left with a somewhat livable planet. But precisely who needs to act? And exactly what must we/they do/stop doing, and start doing? What is the plan, and how will it be implemented? Who, if anyone, is in charge? Questions abound, but definitive answers remain elusive. Some of the most obvious questions to climate action are:
Is climate action compatible with democracy? Most signatories to climate agreements are elected representatives of democracies. Will enough of the voters in each of these democratic nations elect representatives with an unwavering commitment to acting effectively, decisively, and immediately? Or will democracy show itself to be yet another obstacle rather than a tool for implementing effective, decisive and immediate climate action?
Is climate action compatible with the global free-market economic development model? All industries and businesses are in competition with each other in the global market place. The most “successful” of these are those who manage to increase efficiency and productivity by automation and by minimizing and/or externalizing production costs. Will these industries be able to remain competitive and survive if they agree to meet carbon emission reduction targets? If not, what, if anything, will compel these industries to stop externalizing production costs while reducing their own carbon emissions? What must happen to ensure that industries in a global competitive marketplace will no longer contribute to out-of-control environmental deficits by shifting production costs to jurisdictions with lax or unenforced environmental laws? What needs to happen to stop fossil fuel industries from supplying such jurisdictions with coal and oil? What needs to happen before the emissions associated with burning some of the dirtiest fuel available to transport fuel, other raw materials, and finished consumer goods tens of thousands of miles across our dying oceans? Is perpetual economic growth, expansion, exploitation and destruction of finite resources compatible with sustaining a livable planet?
Is climate action compatible with global inequality? Clearly, as exemplified by global vaccine distribution, some countries are economically far better able to undertake climate action than others. Will economic compensation be provided to incentivize countries that lack the economic resources to do so? If so, who will provide these economic resources?
Furthermore, there is a very strong correlation between carbon emissions and levels of consumption. If countries and individuals with high levels of consumption –large carbon footprints—are primarily responsible for the global climate crisis, will they also bear the brunt of the costs of climate action? The impact of global warming is felt by everyone, but especially by poor people suffering because of extreme weather events –floods, droughts, crop failures, out-of-control forest fires, cyclones and typhoons, etc. Not only is mitigation against further increases in global temperature absolutely necessary; the consequences of on-going extreme weather events must also be mitigated against. How will we accommodate all those climate refugees and all those displaced by extreme weather events? Who will feed the destitute? Will climate refugees be allowed to immigrate to more hospitable climates? Will those most adversely affected be allowed to sue those most responsible for damages? Or will they be left to drown in the Mediterranean, warehoused in make-shift concentration camps, or deported back to where they came from or some third country? Can carbon emissions be reduced without the active participation of the 80% of the world's population who collectively only consume 20% of the resources, and are therefore only responsible for 20 % of carbon emissions? Or must global inequality be addressed before international cooperation on climate action can be achieved?Will consumer choices significantly reduce carbon emissions? Will the purchasing of solar panels, LED light bulbs, windmills, and electric cars by a relatively small percentage of the world's well-heeled super-consumers significantly reduce global carbon emissions? Or must over-privileged super-consumers, super-emitters be eliminated in order to save the planet?
Is there an entity that can and will assume responsibility for this global climate crisis? Is the United Nations, in which five countries—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States—hold veto power, be capable of coming up with an agreement and a plan, oversee the implementation of that plan, and enforce compliance? If not the UN, then who? Alas, there is no other pan-global entity on the horizon capable of undertaking such a task.
Is international cooperation on the part of nation states even possible? What we have seen to date is a blame-game and finger-pointing, with countries absolving themselves of responsibility while blaming each other for the crisis: developed countries blame developing countries for using oil and coal as sources of energy for fuelling their development; developing countries are quick to point out that developed countries have centuries of history of carbon emission, all of which contributed to the current crisis; countries like Canada, with relatively low aggregate levels of carbon emissions blame countries like China, with relatively high aggregate emission levels; Countries like China, with relatively low per capita emission levels point to countries like Canada, which has one of the highest per capita emission levels in the world; developing countries are quick to point out that most of the fossil fuel energy they use is used to manufacture goods for consumers living in developed countries, so it is consumers in developed countries who are “demanding” and driving their use of fossil fuels in their production processes; etc. Oil and fossil fuel producing countries are quick to point out the world's dependence on fossil fuel energy and plastics, and the impossibility of overnight transitions. This blame-game and finger-pointing is used by pretty much all nation states as an excuse for their own inaction, thus precluding any possibility of international cooperation on the climate crisis.
Can coercion, threats of sanctions and/or military might etc. by wealthy, powerful, over-privileged, over-developed, and over-consuming nations substitute for voluntary global cooperation on the part of the majority of less powerful, less developed, low consumption, and underprivileged poor nations? Can the crisis be addressed without also addressing issues of climate injustice and economic injustice? Would the energy and fossil fuel emissions required to coerce the unwilling into compliance be offset by reductions in the comparatively minuscule carbon emissions of billions of the world's have-nots?Is there any point in even worrying about the carbon emissions of the "have-nots", given that the life-styles of the "haves" are the primary driver of carbon emissions? What would the use of coercion, sanctions and/or the use of military persuasion on the "haves"look like? How likely is that?
This
is but a a short, by no means comprehensive, list of questions that
must
be answered if our children are to have a future. I have no answers.
The prognosis looks bleak. In close correlation with responsibility for carbon
emissions, the benefits have also accrued to a very small percentage of the
world's population, while the costs of the crisis are born by
all—especially by the poorest, most vulnerable and most powerless
majority of those living in the two-thirds world. Any thoughts,
suggestions, and/or solutions you have regarding this existential
crisis would be most welcome!
