As the Copenhagen climate conference appears to be drawing to an inglorious end, it is worth reflecting on the basic problem for environmental policy: in most cases, environmental problems only get cleaned up when they become so bad that the short-term gains from exploiting resources whatever the pollution cost simply cannot be justified any more, no matter how sophisticated the lobbyists’ arguments.
Numerous studies (most recently the TEEB study) show that cleaning up pollution, not ripping up forests, not pouring chemicals into water and so on, will produce long-term benefits for us all. But these are intangible public benefits, and ranged against them are private benefits: huge profits for a few in the short-term from the pillaging of resources.
This seems to be at the heart of the Copenhagen climate non-consensus. Those who will lose out most from climate change are poor, developing countries, especially in Africa and Asia. But in the short or even medium term, what do rich countries have to gain from helping them out? Of course from the point of view of global equity and fairness, the rich world should pay to clean up the global pollution it has caused by pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for the last century and a half. But tell that to those who control the purse-strings in wealthy countries.
African countries negotiating in Copenhagen have recognised their weak position – that the only real leverage they have is moral leverage – by scaling back their requests for climate adaptation cash.
I wrote recently about a case that illustrates well the priority given to short-term gain by those that have lobbying power, over the general good, when it comes to environmental questions:
Every Brussels policy edict comes with green edging nowadays. So, when in September Monaco suggested that the best way to conserve the highly endangered and emblematic Atlantic bluefin tuna was to ban international trade in it, the European Commission was quick to lend its support – only to huff and puff when Spain and other Mediterranean countries declined to back it up.
But behind all the talk of sustainability, EU money has been bankrolling the bluefin-decimating fleets. Spanish green MEP Raül Romeva has discovered that the Commission has paid €33.4 million since 2000 to vessels licensed for the bluefin fishery. These boats, many owned by industrial fishing conglomerates, are rather less concerned with conservation than they are with selling at premium prices to the Japanese as much of the giant tuna as possible.
And although the Commission has repeatedly talked about the need to reduce Europe’s fishing-fleet capacity, most of the subsidy has been spent on new vessels that will terrorise any remaining bluefin for years to come. EU money has helped pay for no fewer than 121 boats that participated in the bluefin fishery in 2009, including 15 purse seiners, hated by environmentalists because they indiscriminately scoop up sealife in giant drawstring bags. Meanwhile, scappage payments have been made for just nine vessels. Pass the salt and vinegar! (this article was originally published in Private Eye magazine).
Back in Copenhagen, the EU continues to insist it is leading the world in the fight against climate change, when in reality the only two countries that matter are China and the US. The EU’s climate policies may bring some productivity and innovation benefits but will make no difference when it comes to tackling global warming unless the US comes on board. China meanwhile is becoming more of a superpower every day, and can increasingly call the shots. A international climate deal will be a US-China deal. The rest of us can only hope that it does not totally marginalise us.
#1 by David Walker on December 17, 2009 - 8:53 pm
Stop confusing genuine problems with frauds, and perhaps real progress will be attained. Stop using force to determine who gets rich and who pays, and perhaps we will all realize benefits through markets and effective products. Prosecute the crisis constructors and charlatans, and reward innovation.
There are very simple solutions to our environmental problems; sadly, the environmentalist, the socialist and the corporatist (not the capitalist) have phucked up every opportunity for the sake of their avarice, ambition, and desire to use fear as a control mechanism.
The global warming context is the greatest fraud in science and in modern human history.
#2 by Anonymous on December 17, 2009 - 11:29 pm
The basic mistake you are making is that the core talks in Copenhagen are on CO2 emissions which does NOT pollute. It is part of the air we breathe and has always been. Problem is its recent high percentage which causes global warming, but by no means this high percentage is pollution. So your attempt to explain the Copenhagen talks with the short run returns theory has failed. Here’s a tip: try the free rider theory
“Of course from the point of view of global equity and fairness, the rich world should pay to clean up the global pollution it has caused by pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for the last century and a half. But tell that to those who control the purse-strings in wealthy countries.”
Don’t even try to go there. Preventing global warming isn’t realizing some sort of social agenda. And the more you make it the lesser chances of the world doing something about it.
“Back in Copenhagen, the EU continues to insist it is leading the world in the fight against climate change, when in reality the only two countries that matter are China and the US.”
Yes, you just keep on promoting that story to the European public. Tell them how insignificant they are. Somehow I doubt they’d agree.
True that unless all major emitters commit there’s no real deal. But, here comes the moment of leadership. How about writing an article that urges Europe to do more in persuading the US to commit rather than bicker with Africa and Latin America?
#3 by Radu on December 18, 2009 - 12:22 am
What a pathetic circus this conference is! Packs of beggars blackmailing hard-working nations to squeeze some un-worked cash in the name of noble goals.
Act 1: “You are burning Africa!”, yelled one few days ago! (See article: Rich nations ‘condemning Africa to incineration’: http://euobserver.com/9/29164).
Act 2: “I will yell lower, if you pay me some”, he said the next day (See article: Africa lowers climate cash demands to boost Copenhagen deal chances: http://euobserver.com/9/29171)
Why the hell we link pollution with global warming?! I see no correlation between the two. We could freeze to death into a big pile of garbage. What does the water vapor green house element has to do with carbon and with pollution?
Pollution – the real problem – is a matter of civilization and education, not of carbon. “Poor” nations are used to multiply with irresponsibility fueled by “aid” cash (in the name of colonialism, in the name of “war on terror”, in the name of “global warming”). What if these “poor” nations start showing us first that they can be poor and clean before they approach the hard-working nations like a beggar?
Heck, I would even agree to pay them some “aid” to clean up after themselves, if that is the only way to educate them to respect themselves and the planet!
#4 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on December 18, 2009 - 10:32 am
The true circus is amongst the commentators. I am appalled by the selfishness, the ignorance and the refusal to see facts shown on this board. You might not believe in global warming or in vaccination or that the earth is round… That doesn’t make you smart. But at least don’t write it down on a public forum.
For information, all pollutants are present in the atmosphere, ground, water, in a natural state. It is the increase in the dose which is called pollution. So the argument that CO2 (or methane, or other greenhouse gas) is present naturally in the atmosphere is a ridiculous one. Cyanide is also present in small dose in waters and grounds, that doesn’t make its release in higher levels by industries less dangerous.
Wake up people! Stop listening to the small group of so-called “scientist” paid by the US right wing and the corporatist lobbies. At least 90% of the scientists all over the world, based on sound data, tell you that global warming is a fact and it is most probably accelerated and made worse by human activity. Now you can try and do something about it, or go the way of the dodos…
#5 by Steve on December 18, 2009 - 11:09 am
Ive said it once and Ill say it again…2 degrees is not a safe guard-rail (http://stevehynd.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/copenhagen-and-the-2-degree-guard-rail-the-wrong-goal-missed/). IF we stick to below to 2 degress we leave ourselves a 50:50 chance of experiencing the worst consequences from climate change!
#6 by Anonymous on December 18, 2009 - 12:34 pm
Jean-Baptiste says:
“For information, all pollutants are present in the atmosphere, ground, water, in a natural state. It is the increase in the dose which is called pollution. So the argument that CO2 (or methane, or other greenhouse gas) is present naturally in the atmosphere is a ridiculous one. Cyanide is also present in small dose in waters and grounds, that doesn’t make its release in higher levels by industries less dangerous.”
Dear fellow, children in elementary school learn that the air we breathe is composed of nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide (CO2). There are also other ingredients but their percentage is too small for them to really matter. To conclude: CO2 has been part of the atmosphere long before humans existed, and before life came about on earth as well.
You mention methane. Now that’s not normal part of air. And yes, increasing methane’s share in the air is considered pollution, unlike increasing CO2′s. Thing is, global warming is caused predominantly by CO2, so negotiations on halting global warming have thus far centred on committing to cuts in CO2 emission.
The point I was trying to make in my previous post wasn’t to deny the existence of global warming, but that Copenhagen negotiations can’t be explained with the short-run returns theory as the author suggests, simply because CO2 does not pollute.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in my previous post, I can do that sometimes. Or perhaps you haven’t been reading carefully..
#7 by Radu on December 18, 2009 - 5:32 pm
These climate talks is not about the planet. Nobody gives a damn about the planet, carbon, cyanide, pollution (rich or poor, East or West, North or South). It’s all about money.
It’s a huge circus in which everybody is trying to manage to get more money from the others: the poor by squeezing from those who’ve hard worked them, the competing economies by setting the course towards something that favors their industries over their competitors’. NGO and non-profits are trying to secure their funds for their salaries, perks, and “free trips” to Copenhagen or else. Doubled by the economic crisis (also fueled by greed and financial irresponsibility from all parts) who limited up the cash available, the fight for money is more fierce than ever before.
Even scientist are rigging data to secure cash. The real problem of the planet is that there are more and more humans that devours it. And I don’t see ending anywhere soon. More and more mouths to feed, tougher the fight for shorter and shorted resources.
It’s all a huge hypocrisy, and a pathetic Balkan-lie global bazaar circus that ain’t worth two cents.