Japan cools the climate waters
Japan's new target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions has been widely criticised as too weak - and not just by environmentalists, but by the EU environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, and implicitly by the UN's top climate official, Yvo de Boer.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, Japan pledged to cut emissions by 6% by - well, by around now, in fact.
In fact its emissions have risen in recent years - it's not the only Kyoto country in that situation - so its pledge to cut emissions by 15% from 2005 levels by 2020, when untangled, takes it only 2% beyond the Kyoto 6% pledge in a further 11 years.
Confused? If so, I'm think that may be part of the point.
Until a few years back, everything in the UN climate treaty framework was calculated with regard to 1990 - a clear and simple baseline against which every commitment could be measured and compared.
Japan has never liked the 1990 baseline, and there are some good reasons for that. With few indigenous energy sources, and caught out by the 1970s oil crisis, it made huge gains in energy efficiency before 1990.
In contrast, the bulk of European emission cuts came immediately after 1990 when Soviet bloc economies collapsed, Germany re-unified and the UK put its recently-developed North Sea gas resources to use.
Hence Japan's current choice of a later year - 2005 - against which to measure its latest 15% pledge. Australia has chosen 2000 as a baseline; and President Obama's pre-election promises, which have not yet gained the status of a national target, referred to 2007.
Does this profusion of base years matter? Absolutely.
One reason is that the change of baseline year allowed Japan's Prime Minister Taro Aso to claim that his commitment matches the EU's 20% from 1990 levels by 2020 commitment. It does, approximately, if you start from here - but not if you start from 1990, since when EU emissions have fallen and Japan's risen.
More profoundly, it creates an environment in which politicians can eternally start anew, forgetting what their predecessors promised in 1992 or 1997 - promises that are supposed to be internationally binding commitments.
Jenson Button, who currently leads the Formula One motor-racing championship, has to win races over the full distance. The rules don't allow for him to say "well I was fastest over the last 20 laps, so I win the race" - and that is basically what Mr Aso, Mr Rudd and (potentially) Mr Obama are trying to do.
It may make governments look better against a domestic landscape of economic turmoil and business desperation; but it surely plays very differently on the international stage, where the support of the poorest countries is a precondition for securing a climate pact at December's Copenhagen meeting.
By accident or design, Mr Aso chose to announce his 2020 goal during the second week of an important UN climate meeting in Bonn, a staging post on the road to Copenhagen.
It came a day after green groups lambasted EU finance ministers for not stumping up what Greenpeace calculated as "one bus fare per day for each EU citizen" to fund climate programmes in developing countries.
In terms of its climate rhetoric, the industrialised world is as healthy as it has ever been.
As we come closer to the key Copenhagen summit, fewer and fewer of the politicians' fine words are being matched by their deeds - and that must make prospects of a real deal in Copenhagen progressively slimmer and slimmer.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~40~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I see that "green house gas emissions" is the chosen phrase these days. I could not find a single reference to CO2.
Is this like changing "global warming" to "climate change"
I remember that the EPA has just posted its list of "greenhouse gases". I think folks support their entire list with the exception of CO2.
As a speaker for the plants in this forum I can relay that they are very happy with the news.
Complain about this comment
"More profoundly, it creates an environment in which politicians can eternally start anew, forgetting what their predecessors promised in 1992 or 1997 - promises that are supposed to be internationally binding commitments."
What a suprise. You can't rely on "promises", you have to make it a contract so that if the countries deliberately slide away from their agreement they can be heavily fined (preferably the politicians personally - or even imprisoned). That's the only way to get realistic agreements on anything. It has to be like a business contract, such as if I agree to pay a company for a service. I can't simply not do what I promised.
Of course you'll find noone will commit in the first place if there is any hint of punishment for failure, because even politicians must realize their plans for cutting co2 emissions are a pipe dream. On the positive side it would expose the fact that governments aren't doing anything, rather than the current state where people think all these Kyoto-ish agreements make some difference.
timjenvey: The phrase Climate Change has been around a long time and is more accurate than Global Warming (which refers only to the temperature change). Hence the last two initials of IPCC determined over 20 years ago.
Complain about this comment
l4dbill #2
You say:
"The phrase Climate Change has been around a long time and is more accurate than Global Warming"
Silly me for believing too much propaganda from the likes of Al Gore.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091801125.html
And we wonder why folks are skeptical? I think there is a lot of work to do on the communication front if you are thinking to rescue this whole sham from tumbling public rejection.
Complain about this comment
"1. At 7:55pm on 10 Jun 2009, timjenvey wrote:
I see that "green house gas emissions" is the chosen phrase these days. I could not find a single reference to CO2."
Uh, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Do you go all tin-foil-hat when someone calls themselves B Gates and also, worryingly Bill Gates AND William Gates???
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry the whaling blog did not stick around a little longer.
But in any case, I am realizing more and more that specific issues, while suitable for blogs and such, must always be fit into the larger picture, which is being termed 'peak everything', or 'the perfect storm.'
This pronouncement from Japan is just one more indication of the smoke and mirrors game being played by our politicians. Did I say our politicians.
I think rather they are somebody else's politicians.
"Last year, Mr Aso's predecessor Yasuo Fukuda set a longer term target of cutting emissions by 60-80% by 2050, and indicated the 2020 target would be close to the EU's.
To the chagrin of environment groups - who point the finger at lobbying from Japanese industry - this has not transpired."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8092866.stm
The Japanese target for greenhouse gas reduction is laughable, as is the intimation from the United States.
-------------
I was just reading an article from Scientific American, April 2008:
"The Color of Plants on Other Worlds", by Nancy Y. Kiang, coincidentally, of the Goddard Institute for Space Sciences, i.e., James Hansen's organization.
- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-color-of-plants-on-other-worlds
Nancy is a biometeorologist, and this is an interesting article, a brilliant perspective on our own planet.
For plant lovers, such as 'timjenvey', a whole new world awaits.
The reason I bring this up is contrast:
Here and now we have politicians and their lobbyists mandating business as usual. In this Space Science article we have a view of the future, and new insights into life on Earth, as a result of comparative planetary studies, and intimate multi-disciplinary co-operation. Here we have brains, not cunning, visionary thinking, not conservative cocooning.
It's time to throw these politicians so far out of office they will never land, yet Europe swings right politically.
Are we a swarm of locusts?
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locust
- Manysummits, Calgary -
PS: I am wondering about blogging. David Suziki, Jacques Cousteau, Carl Sagan, and many others I'm sure from every country in the world have spent considerable parts of their lives decrying the type of meaningless gesture which Japan has just put forward.
And to what avail?
I am reminded of Henrik Ibsen's works:
"In An Enemy of the People (1882), Ibsen went even further. In earlier plays, controversial elements were important and even pivotal components of the action, but they were on the small scale of individual households. In An Enemy, controversy became the primary focus, and the antagonist was the entire community. One primary message of the play is that the individual, who stands alone, is more often "right" than the mass of people, who are portrayed as ignorant and sheeplike.
Is this an innate truth, or the product of our civilization, the wedding together of the city and the farm, and the taming and dumbing down of the hunter and the explorer?
Or is there wisdom in waiting for categorical proof?
Complain about this comment
Please tell me this is a spoof.
Are they really having a conference to stop the world's climate ever changing for the rest of time ?
Why don't they start off with something easier like world peace ?
Complain about this comment
Manysummits #5
Thanks for the link on plants. Gave me one of those great feelings of awe and wonder. Did you read the article on Hummingbirds I posted on the previous blog?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8091944.stm
Such depths to comprehend: I nearly always end up drowning.
Cheers..........
Complain about this comment
Still this meaningless obsession with 'targets' which (as you admit) most countries then fail to meet.
I'm not surprised Japan is not wanting to fall for this. Their economy is in dire straights already, and as you point out they will have difficulty in making cuts because they long ago phased the fossil fuel power stations that most countries still have (and some are still building)
How much better if people stopped wasting energy on these silly targets without a plan to acheive them.
How about some serious action on new and realistic alternatives to fossil fuels - they already exist - that people can just move to willingly without out all the oppression from the 'environmentalists'?
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey #7:
I hadn't, but I just did follow your link on hummingbirds. Thanks!
I ventured into Baja California solo to climb her highest peak, El Picacho del Diablo, in 2002. And I celebrated back in Alta California, at a fancy Marriot Hotel near Palm Springs, at "La Colibri", which is Spanish for hummingbird. I had Spanish paella and the best margarita I have ever tasted, perhaps made sweeter by both my successful summit bid, and the Mexican friends I met unexpectedly at the base of the mountain, they, the 'Picacheros', having come in from the east, the desert side, and I from the west, Pacific side.
Speaking of the speed of birds, I soloed Aqua Peak in Joshua Tree National Park in California, which is a long way in, and while on top, I was amazed to hear a tremendous 'buzz' just above me.
There were two 'swifts' investigating this lone intruder, or just having fun, I could never tell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift
As they zoomed in towards me repeatedly, I had a chance, being a pilot myself, to contemplate their phenomenal abilities. They would come in at terrifying speed from on high, and then they would initiate an incredibly tight radius circle around me - this is what caused the 'buzzing.'
I tried to estimate their G-forces in my head as they did this, and could only conclude that any pilot pulling that many G's would be a dead man soon, as his plane would be ripped to shreds, not that he would notice, being unconcious.
I see from that article I posted above that the swifts are related to the hummingbirds!
Glad you enjoyed the 'plants from other worlds' link I posted earlier.
- Manysummits -
PS: You know tim, as I read a bit more of the 'what are we all worried about' in the recent posts, I realize that the situation in my mind is very like that depicted in the two 'Terminator' movies, which starred none other than your present Governor.
It feels like war, or to be more precise, like the preparation for a war which will undoubetedly be long and devastating. And the foe will be in one sense the implacable forces of Nature, and in another sense the inertia of a too affluent and complacent society.
I wish I could go back to just making money, and climbing mountains, to oversimplify, but this no longer seems possible given what I think I know.
I wonder if there are others who feel this way?
Complain about this comment
This week's issue of Nature contains a paper entitled "The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions".
The paper looks at the carbonclimate response (CCR), defined as the ratio of temperature change to cumulative carbon emissions. The authors consider that CCR is likely to be a useful concept for climate change mitigation and policy. This is because CCR allows CO2-induced global mean temperature change to be inferred directly from cumulative carbon emissions, by combining the uncertainties associated with climate sensitivity, carbon sinks and climatecarbon feedbacks into a single quantity.
Nature's abstract:
Climate sensitivity models may inaccurately characterize the full Earth system response, as they ignore changes in the carbon cycle, aerosols, land use and land cover. A combination of a simplified climate model, a range of simulations from a recent model intercomparison and historical constraints now show that, independent of the timing of emissions or the atmospheric concentration of CO2, emitting a trillion tonnes of carbon will cause global warming of 1.0 to 2.1 degrees Celsius.
Reference:
H. Damon Matthews, Nathan P. Gillett, Peter A. Stott & Kirsten Zickfeld
The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions
Nature 459, 829-832 (11 June 2009)
Complain about this comment
"In terms of its climate rhetoric, the industrialised world is as healthy as it has ever been.
As we come closer to the key Copenhagen summit, fewer and fewer of the politicians' fine words are being matched by their deeds - and that must make prospects of a real deal in Copenhagen progressively slimmer and slimmer."
I cannot believe the hubris of our elected officials....posturing for the economic advantage of their constituents while we continue to trash the ecosystem that supports us. The fallacy of money over our supporting ecosystem is so false and should become more apparent when we are teetering on the edge.
Mr Black makes a good point that the Japanese have already implemented a bunch of efficiency measures due to the fact that they are on a rock in the middle of the ocean and need to transport in almost everything. So they already made a good choice.
Factually speaking, let's think of the incremental global increase in efficiency if the Japanese make more strident measures, compared to the rest of the polluting world. (I live in the US where we have much room for improvement and the incremental improvement to the global pollution is significant if we take strident measures...and we use less precious resources that could be used by others. )
Symbolically speaking, what message does this send to the rest of the world. Most ordinary people only catch the headline and say...oh well, we are all doomed. They do not have time to look into the details to see what is deeply behind that headline. Let us hope that this posturing does not cause the breakdown of our chances for governments to step up and they do not get lost in the "business as usual".
From a more productive angle, we all have a path to choose, regardless of what our elected "geniuses" have chosen for us collectively. We can choose better.
------------------
ManySummits et al
It is time to send some maydays up from the voices of the concerned citizens to the political icons. They need to know we need them to do the right thing.
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
tim: "Such depths to comprehend: I nearly always end up drowning."
Is that why you don't bother to advance your own comprehension?
3 minutes (including time to check the links were relevant) was all it took someone to come up with a theory.
Time you spent thinking "such depths to comprehend". Though what you think is to comprehend remains unsaid.
Complain about this comment
To Burghermeister:
You know Jim Hansen has sent personal letters to many world leaders, including President Obama, and testified before Congress, as has Richard Alley. As far as I know, President Obama has refused to meet with either Jim Hansen or the US National Academy of the Sciences.
If one of the top climate scientists in the world, and one of the top glaciologists in the world cannot make an impression, one is left dumbfounded.
If enough voices are heard in the street, all will be well. But that appears to be exactly what is missing.
Perhaps the spate of popular movies coming out will help?
I would have expected by now that the President would have addressed the nation at the least on climate change, even if it was to talk about mitigation. I may have missed it, but as far as I know he hasn't?
So far, the financial and auto sectors have been given public money - record to date.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
Manysummits at #13
My impression is not that the science isn't being heard at the top, but that a political will to take the necessary actions is lacking.
Obama's science adviser does take the issue seriously - and from what I can tell, his voice is regularly heard in policy making in the White House. See, for example, the 30 April 2009 news item on the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) web-site, Obama's Science Advisor Urges U.S. Climate Policy Leadership Worldwide.
The opening two paragraphs are:
America must become "a leader in the world" and "not a laggard" in addressing global climate change, U.S. science advisor John P. Holdren said 30 April during the 34th Annual AAAS Forum on Science and Technology Policy.
Holdren, assistant to the president for science and technology and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, said that "the voices of the climate science community are being heard." He noted, however, that "the biggest challenge is the policy challenge."
For the rest of it, see: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/0430stpf_holdren.shtml
Complain about this comment
"14. At 12:27pm on 11 Jun 2009, simon-swede wrote:
Manysummits at #13
My impression is not that the science isn't being heard at the top, but that a political will to take the necessary actions is lacking."
'twas always thus.
It's easier to avoid deciding since whatever you do, unless you exclude everyone, SOMEONE will complain.
And anything you do will cause someone else to complain (at least). Anything you won't do will have someone (and the originator) complain.
So it's better to not decide.
Complain about this comment
Correction to #1:
Meant to say EPA "Pollutant" list (not Greenhouse). Kinda has a better ring to it. Just got to reading about too many references to "grennhouse gases" in the articles.
Puttinng a life giving gas in a list of dirty toxic sounding particulates is kind of like putting a pork barrel in a government spending bill so it gets voted through.
Just not convinced and getting less convinced by the minute.
Complain about this comment
"Puttinng a life giving gas "
Uh, water is a life giving liquid. You'll drown in 3 inches, though. OK, you may say "but you DRINK water!" well, what happens when you drink a lot of water?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-drinking-too-much-water-can-kill
Complain about this comment
"Pork barrel is a derogatory term referring to appropriation of government spending for localized projects secured solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's district. The usage originated in American English."
Of course! What else could you call it?
Complain about this comment
#17
CO2:
385 ppmv
5000 ppmv (unlikely to be reached any time soon) is considered unhealthy
50000 ppmv is considered dangerous to life
H2O
2l considered good
10l drunk in a few minutes will kill you
which is more benign - H2O or CO2?
Complain about this comment
Isn't it about time we, as a World, acknowledged that we will fail to limit emissions (and indeed even if we did there is uncertainly as to how effective any cut will be in limiting Climate Change which is the objective). Rather we should plan to live with a changing climate in a rational and measured way.
If we believe sea level will rise then stop building on low lying coastal areas and river flood plains. If we believe that many parts of the World will get hotter than move away and permit people to move north and south. This is not defeatism, it is a rational scientific and engineering response and rational.
Complain about this comment
#19 Water vapour is also a GHG
Complain about this comment
The targets are a process to produce a false sense that something is being done. In reality, until a new energy form is accepted and implemented we are stuck with coal and oil. Both industries exercise great influence with governments and provide "cheap" engery for industries and homes (when not including social and health costs). More attention is being paid, but not enough, to the relationship to carbon-based fuel airborne particles and public health. The link of these particles and respiratory diseases is finally starting to surface. Neither the industies nor the governments are responding to such reports. As these particles circle the earth, and they do circle the earth, we need to accept the fact that these are global issues and they should be addressed with global agreements. You may also want to look at some maps about the spread of malaria and other vector borne diseases and climate change if this doesn't scare you. Small increases in temperature cause things like West Nile virus to mutate into more resistent strains.
If China is making your child sick you have no recourse with the Chinese. We all subsidize these energy companies one way or another and we may be paying with our health. We live in a coporate run world and product and profit greatly outweight the concerns for the people. If your government basically looks like it did 20 years ago, same parties, same types being elected, financing of elections through corporate and hidden corporte donations, than don't expect things to change. The reason we have crisis' is because our governments when presented with potential problems do not respond until they are a crisis. They like to "rescue" us from the problems they create and view as ingratitude our complaining about their failure to recognize the issues before it became a crisis, although they were warned.
If you look at the world,with any kind of objective view,it is hard to be optomistic about the future unless some substaintial change in the relationship between large corporations and governments is made and the governments become bodies for the common good. Your governments applaud themselves for banning smoking in public places yet take no actions concerning the deadly particles we breath each day. Governments have become the masters of illusion.
Complain about this comment
Richard Black - Japan have set a sensible target that they have some chance of achieving, but it won't be easy They could have set a silly, unachievable target, but had the good sense not too.
Climate policy expert Roger Pielke Jr tells it how it really is:
"In other words, Japan is focused on actually changing the carbon intensity of its economy, and not with playing accounting games with allowances, credits, and offsets. The Japanese economy is the second most carbon efficient large economy (after France) and thus additional progress comes at a correspondingly more costly price. Consider that if the world economy was as carbon efficient as Japans economy, then carbon dioxide emissions this year would be about 33% less.
Of course, Japan could have gone along with Europe and now the U.S. in making fictional commitments to fictional targets and timetables, and everyone would have praised their commitments. We have seen how well that approach has worked out in Australia.
Sincere efforts should be rewarded, and Japan is showing leadership on a difficult challenge. While it is true that Japans proposals do not represent a complete solution to the challenge of decarbonization far from it they do point toward a way forward, which is much more than can be said for other nations or the actions under the Framework Convention.
What does Japan get for its leadership? Criticism.
Such is the up is down world of climate policy where no good deed goes unpunished."
Complain about this comment
It is not only the Japanese and the US, but also Europe. Barroso, the current president of the EU Commission is the favourite for re-election later this year. But the record of his first 5-year term is damned by 10 major environmental groups. A recent article in European Voice (http://www.europeanvoice.com/ - Green groups lambast Commission's record) states "The Green 10', a coalition that includes the Climate Action Network, Greenpeace and WWF, gave the Commission just 4.4 out of 10 for its environmental performance, over 2004-09, the period of José Manuel Barroso's presidency of the Commission."
Complain about this comment
You never said, Chutney, that there was a limit to how good CO2 was. You just stated WITHOUT LIMIT that CO2 was good.
NOW you say "ah, well, within limits".
There have been REAL WORLD tests (not laboratory tests with plants given plenty of other requirements and having a correct temperature balance, as, say, you get in a gange factory) that have shown that, for example, Soya produces less insect repellent chemicals when stressed with more CO2. Not MASSIVELY more, just a bit more.
Now when the beetles find that these leaves don't make them feel as ill as the other leaves, guess what? They eat more leaves.
How is this good for the plant, having their leaves eaten?
So high CO2 in this case is good for the beetles and bad for the plants.
Your half-thoughts are naive and uncritical.
F.
Complain about this comment
To simon-swede #14; re your link:
"Without energy there is no economy; without climate, there is no environment; and without economy and environment, there's no well-being," Holdren said during his keynote address. "So we had better figure out how to get this right."
- John P. Holdren, President's science advisor.
Very encouraging, and I forgot the huge investment in R&D that is being contemplated. Perhaps this is President Obama's way forward. I think I rather like this John Holdren.
Thanks for the link.
--------------
To ghostofsichuan # 22:
You wrote:
"If you look at the world,with any kind of objective view,it is hard to be optomistic about the future unless some substaintial change in the relationship between large corporations and governments is made and the governments become bodies for the common good."
I liked your whole line of thinking, and the comment above mentions large governments and corporations. In his book "The Corporation", Joel Bakan points out that Adam Smith had remarked on the separation of ownership (shareholders) and management, and that this would produce significant opportunity for corruption and misdeeds.
It occurred to me that governments also separates citizens from management, except for elections and the oversight of the media, a not inconsiderable difference. Still, both governments and corporations can and do raise large amounts of money, and the net result seems to be that significant abuse is indeed foisted on both shareholders and citizens.
The shareholders have their legal recourses, as do we citizens, but for many and varied reasons the common interest is being compromised, and we appear headed for a very hard future. It seems the reaction time is too slow.
--------------
To pmbbiggsy #23:
You make some good points. Thank you. I'll reconsider.
- Manysummits - not used to slow reaction times - death in the mountains -
Complain about this comment
To Mannysummits #9:
Thanks for sharing your experiences.
On birds; I watched a Redheaded Vulture today feeding on some carrion. As I approached it opened its wings and without a single flap lifted high into the sky. The contrast between dead carrion and such grace was unsettking.
The Joshua Tree is such a diverse environment and I can imagine that being on top of Aqua Peak would be very memorable.
You say "I wish I could go back to just making money and climbing mountains". Sounds like a plan to me.
You have an engaging way with your speech and obvious knowledge which I know that folks would benefit from you sharing. You have the eastern Rockies at your doorstep so become a guide or such like. Folks will expect and want to pay you for your services. That's business in the natural way and how the world has always gone around. Make sure to declare for tax. Nothing changes.....
To Davblo2 #18:
On "pork barrel". Pleased to know that I assisted in broadening your education:)
Complain about this comment
#25
you're confused
perhaps you're confusing me with somebody else (timjenvey?)
i stated a few facts about water and CO2 to correct your thoughts in #17
Complain about this comment
"i stated a few facts about water and CO2 to correct your thoughts in #17"
And those facts DO NOT mean that, although CO2 is "life giving" it isn't harmful. In EVERY CASE, a higher concentration of this "life giving" gas will cause death in living organisms alive today.
So therefore a higher CO2 level will be harmful to some extent if it changes. Organisms mutate to best fit their environment. If you change the environment faster than mutations can cause adaptions to the new environment, then you have a detrimental environment to the organism.
Now, does mutation happen for plants on a decades timescale?
NO.
You're confused about what you said, not me. Your inability to see this is your fault, not mine.
Complain about this comment
#29 should have said "...in EVERY CASE, high enough concentrations..."
Complain about this comment
To timjenvey #27:
You wrote:
"I watched a Redheaded Vulture today feeding on some carrion. As I approached it opened its wings and without a single flap lifted high into the sky. The contrast between dead carrion and such grace was unsettking."
Very nice - very honest. Isn't this nature's way of centering us, removing or altering pre-conceptions? And thanks for the comments on guiding.
---------------
Sometimes it occurs to me that I am overly critical, or perhaps pessimistic. Then I read something like this, from Ronald Wright's "What is America" (2008):
"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
- Abraham Lincoln, 1864
I think we have reached that point where money wealth is in the hands of the few. Yet the Republic endures.
In his final chapter, Wright goes on to say himself:
"The neglect of the world's poor will lead to chaos. The rape of the environment will take our civilization to catastrophe. Our only hope, as great Americans such as Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt understood, is to build a world order in which everyone has a say and shares the rewards."
Sometimes it seems to me we are moving this way, in fits and starts.
It also occurs to me that here in the blogosphere, all potentially have a say.
The crux however, seems always the same - sharing the rewards.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
#15 Yeah-whatever wrote:
"It's easier to avoid deciding since whatever you do, unless you exclude everyone, SOMEONE will complain.
And anything you do will cause someone else to complain (at least). Anything you won't do will have someone (and the originator) complain.
So it's better to not decide."
That is definitely how politicians operate...and is the root of lack of leadership. (The great conundrums they create in their minds...)
I guess we cannot afford to stake our future on politicians leading....the game of politics prevents any meaningful leadership.
I know a lady who works at EPA who recently shared that when they work on new measures, the benchmark response they look for is to have both side of the aisle screaming foul. Only then do they know they broke new ground. (HMMMMMMM....is that how we accomplish things?)
We can still choose to do correct things to improve efficiency and the like. "Peak everything" almost demands this type of move to survive from energy/financial/security perspectives both for businesses and individuals. Many organizations such as ASHRAE is on a net zero consumption building standard path by 2031 for commercial buildings with tighter requirements in specification releases every 3 years. Fortunately they have a global impact as well to help with building efficiency standards, and are ratcheting performance up at a pace that manufacturers can work within so the efficiency improvements are tangible and achievable.
Manysummits:
I still say that more constituent voices demanding better of them will get the attention of politicians more than brilliant men of science. Politicians do not have the depth to get the science.
Burghermeister
Complain about this comment
#29
You're confused about what you said, not me. Your inability to see this is your fault, not mine.
uh?
you confuse me with somebody else and say it's my fault?
end of discussion
Complain about this comment
"33. At 1:56pm on 12 Jun 2009, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
uh?
you confuse me with somebody else and say it's my fault?"
Yes it is your fault.
"i stated a few facts about water and CO2 to correct your thoughts in #17"
But #17 was in response to 16:
"Puttinng a life giving gas in a list of dirty toxic sounding particulates is kind of like putting a pork barrel in a government spending bill so it gets voted through."
But your response doesn't say that #16 is right nor that #17 is wrong. In fact, if anything, it merely reinforces that #17 was correct.
Yet you seem to think it slams 17.
Ergo: you're confused.
Complain about this comment
There is a systems theroy that states that when two organizational systems are in competition with each other, those systems begin to become more alike. Thus, Western corporate structures and advertising, for the purpose of enticing consumption, have been adopted in the East and governmental and corporate coluded corruption as a means of increasing individual and corporate wealth at the expense of the consumer and investor has been adopted by the West. We have the worst of both worlds. Anyone interested in buying a warehouse full of tainted Chinese baby formula or maybe some bad mortgages from Fannie Mae?
Complain about this comment
gost, I think that the allure of power is the problem. Or at least a large part of it.
Those in power start off thinking they can make a change.
They find that it's easier to make the change if they have more power.
So they accrue more power.
And then start buying in to their own propoganda. They are right because they are powerful.
And both systems, communism and capitalism are about how to measure power. In communism, it's about government directly owning power and in capitalism it's about money owning power.
So a communist government will collect money backers to receive more power (as they have considered themselves right to do) and use the money backers to bolster their system. And a capitalist government will collect direct power so that the money backers can be given breaks that bolster their system.
It's all because in BOTH cases, power can be concentrated.
Utopia was where the people, having revolted against unelected powers of commercial enterprise ruling them unfairly and put government in place, then find that the government will rule them unfairly, and so then create a society where power cannot be concentrated.
Communism isn't the failure of Marxism, the failure of communism was part of Marxist philosophy.
It's a bit of a pain that so many people think that there are only the two options and seem to want to bounce between them, never considering that it's the concentration of power that leads to despotism. So utopia will remain out of reach.
Complain about this comment
Japan cools the climate waters?
From the first link above:
The US, and some EU nations, are determined that major developing countries such as China and India should adopt emission curbs. But they have repeatedly said they will not sign up to measures that could curb their economic growth, arguing that the developed world must lead the way.
At the LSE last summer, Newsweek editor Fareed Zakaria said that by 2012 China and India will build 850 coal-fired power plants - the combined CO2 emissions of those power plants is five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords if implemented. So you can drive all the hybrids you want or do all the energy efficiency you want - China and India ate it for breakfast and lunch.
Will China and India really volunteer to sacrifice their short-term priority of economic growth nationally, in order to slow long-term climate change globally?
Complain about this comment
And it's not just China and India that prioritise economic growth.
Established commerce worldwide want it. This is a big threat to President Obama's plans to build a clean energy economy in the US. For example America's oil, gas and coal industry has increased its lobbying budget against the proposals by 50%.
The Guardian reported last month:
The spoiler campaign runs to hundreds of millions of dollars and involves industry front groups, lobbying firms, television, print and radio advertising, and donations to pivotal members of Congress. Its intention is to water down or kill off plans by the Democratic leadership to pass "cap and trade" legislation this year, which would place limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
Complain about this comment
"... all deep earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea, while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous slavish shore."
- Herman Melville, "Moby Dick"
-------------------
Having domesticated the plants and animals, we are now almost completely dependent on them for the continuance of "business as usual."
We became civilized wage slaves - rather than free hunters, alive on the land.
As regards the very powerful disussion above on the concentration of power, one wonders:
Perhaps the unwillingness of the many to avert the catastrophe which some predict, due to the global environmental crisis, is not a matter of ignorance or apathy.
Perhaps the many see no point in saving this system, having experienced it firsthand, either as part of the neurotic developed world, or the trampled developing world.
The great advantage of this alternate view is that it fits the facts.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
To 'timjenvey' #27 re guiding:
I considered it a few years ago tim, and took a course on interpretive guiding in Banff. Neither the people taking the course nor the prospective clientele interested me.
But I might write a book. For your perusal, here is something I wrote for 'Underacanoe' and 'Cloudrunner', to whom this book, "High Road to the Future", would be dedicated. The book would center around one man's journey of discovery, and perhaps thoughts on a new world order, built around the dignity of the individual. Here is a rather pithy mission statement:
---------------
Lets not pussyfoot around. Despite its good parts, I think our civilization sucks. The good ship Western Way is a failure, and is about to become a disaster. We have plenty of smart people, all seemingly impotent. War, environmental degradation, and the hemorrhaging of our humanity mark us as a failed society, unfit to live properly, or lead others. We dont even know how to eat, and too many of us cant be bothered to vote.
Most of us are physically and mentally compromised from birth, and until we fully realize this, and do something about it, things will only get worse. There is little point in tinkering with the Western Way, we need to replace it.
My life, viewed in retrospect, seems to me a fractal of our culture. I am going to trace the course of my own journey, and that of my family and friends, and draw comparisons between our path, and that of western civilization. Ive made a few discoveries along the way which Id like to share with you and submit to public scrutiny. Let the chips fall where they may.
----------------
'Tim', I sense that you too are on a voyage of discovery, and while a solid member of the Establishment, you are nevertheless engaged actively in righting wrongs done to the environmant around San Francisco's marine environs.
I commend your committment, and applaud your love of nature.
Here. for you, is the epitath of a favorite writer:
"Home is the sailor, home from the sea,
and the hunter, home from the hill."
- Robert Louis Stevenson
- Manysummits - heading out with Underacanoe and Cloudrunner on a beautiful day in Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Well, the US has increased their output already. UK has. And this thread is about Japan doing the same.
So china and india will say if you upbraid them "Why should we bother? You'll only build more coal power stations".
What does "leader" mean now?
Complain about this comment
"Anarchy"; from "an" (without), and "archos" (leader)
Hence, without a leader.
The Apache - "a pure democrat", in the words of John Cremony, who fought them, was almost killed by them on many occassions, and oversaw them on the reserve at Bosque Redondo. (Life Among the Apaches)
While the Apache did have leaders, it was only in times of extremis, they preferring their "wild and unfettered" existence to our own.
Could it be that we require leaders because we are in fact 'in extremis' most of the time?
- Manysummits, Calgary -
PS:
'Underacanoe' loves this expression above all others:
"It is the time you have spent with your rose that makes your rose so important."
- from "The Little Prince", Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Apache recognized the value of reading and writing etc., and admitted that in many ways our way was stronger than theirs.
But they adamantly refused to send their children to our schools, feeling that "the precious children" would be bewitched by our ways.
--------------
Complain about this comment
"Democracy"; from 'demos' (the people); and 'kratein' (to rule)
Hence, rule by the people.
Not far from anarchy?
Natural leaders will always pop up in time of crisis, then it's back to "anarchy", life without a leader - if you are a pre-reservation Apache.
I have become fascinated with the psychological aspects of this climate inertia and global environmental apathy syndrome.
Here is the voter turnout for United States Federal Elections from 1960 to 2008:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
The 1960 election recorded the highest voter turnout percentage-wise. That would have been the John Kennedy election. The average for presidential elections is ~ 55%; for all, ~ 48%.
Today some 46 million Americans are without health-care, approximately 15 percent of the current population.
Is rule by half the registered voters really a democracy?
And why are half the registered voters not voting?
Why would anyone expect more than this percentage to concern themselves with climate change and the global environmental crisis?
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
To Manysummits #40:
You wrote:
Here. for you, is the epitaph of a favorite writer:
"Home is the sailor, home from the sea,
and the hunter, home from the hill."
- Robert Louis Stevenson
Thank you, I am very touched. A new experience for me: thinking how does one respond on a blog? I think we are all on a "voyage of discovery". IMO when the voyage stops and life looses its sense of adventure we are effectively dead from that point onwards. Even Stephenson's requiem talks about coming home as if it were the end. Could be the start of the next trip on the voyage of discovery!!
Stevenson was a favorite of mine especially the adventure ones. Not so much the Jeckle and Hyde.
I like the Apache thoughts you share on leadership. In my experience of a good leader they are transitory for a particular cause or change. As soon as the job's is done they revert back to business as usual. In my business we work a lot in teams. If the team is doing business as usual we do not need a leader. We need a business manager to look after us and watch our backs. In a new situation breaking new ground etc. somebody in the right place with a connecting vision may lead and seniority is not of significant importance. They still are accountable to the business manager.
I think we confuse managers with leaders in business and representatives with leaders in politics. It's very difficult for natural leaders to break through the bureaucracy and it's probably not in the interest of managers and representatives to disturb their status quo with some uncomfortable change. It brings up all sorts of interesting discussions on who rules or leads - monarchy, presidents, warlords etc. What works best is always that illusive combination of multiple factors that life throws up on just about every topic in life that even the worlds largest computers cannot seem to crack. All is still mystery.
Thanks again.
Complain about this comment
timjenvey:I liked your last post to Mike and your thoughts on it.
We have just come back from an extremely beautiful walk under the thunderheads and plus 28 weather.There was a ranch with tan colored horses on the way, our son was delighted to share their company.Feeding them fresh grass shoots.
We continued on with thunder heads rising to the west over the snowcapped peaks, clouds trapping heat and humidity.
We basked in the sunshine by a cool pond; and our son played with young boys , with fishing rod and net.
Minnows skattered too and fro, as cloudrunner dipped a long net deep into the cool waters.
Complain about this comment
Tim, I've seen no greater initiative to lead by business managers than I have for political managers.
The money crisis being a case in point: fund managers (business managers) saw everyone else going for huge lending and went for it too. Businesses saw all this cheap lending and took it.
Despite there being statements out there from economists that the situation was untenable, the short term gains overrode any consideration.
And who is being let off from work in a downsizing? CEO's aren't. The business still has one of them.
How about salary? Whose salary is being squashed by inflation on necessities?
Ah.
No, it looks like business leaders have said "forward men" and stayed safely back at HQ themselves.
Same as the politicians.
Complain about this comment
A summary of the recent Bonn climate talks appears on EurAktiv.
As several people have observed here already, there is a lot of passing the buck going on amongst the richer world countries, but not very much in the way of taking responsibility or demonstrating leadership.
EurAktiv write:
Indeed, rich nations did not come any closer to agreeing a collective emissions reduction goal. They came under heavy criticism on the final day of the Bonn conference, when 40 developing countries of the G-77 specifically called for a 40% below 1990-level emissions reduction target for industrialised nations. Neither the EU's 30% offer in case other developed nations sign up to comparable efforts, nor the target of returning to 1990 levels in the draft US draft climate bill come anywhere close to this. Moreover, Russia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Belarus and Ukraine refused even to define an initial target.
For the entire thing, see http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/eu-us-criticised-low-profile-bonn-climate-talks/article-183163
Complain about this comment
On Japan (from EurAktiv link above)
"[Japanese Prime Minister] Aso, however, asserted that the target was ambitious and pointed out that Japan was already the most energy-efficient economy in the world."
"But observers were quick to note that the target was only marginally above the 6% commitment that Japan had made under the Kyoto Protocol."
------------
I note from Richard Monastersky's article in 'Nature', Apr 30/09; vol 458; pp 1091-1094; that:
1) Japan accounts for just 4.2 percent of "Cumulative CO2 Emissions; 1750-2006"
2) While the United States accounts for 27.7 %
3) The United Kingdom 6%
4) The rest of Europe 18.4%
etc...
-----------
On the United States (from EurAktiv link above)
"It is far from certain whether the US will be able to get its climate bill through Congress by the end of the year, which would cement the government's mandate to sign up to emission reduction targets. Concerns are now being raised that the anticipated US leadership on ambitious commitments to reduce emissions will not materialise in the face of domestic realities."
--------------
Viewed in this light, undue criticism of Japan seems unwarranted. They are consistent, and improving. The same cannot be said for the United States.
There are a number of interesting proposals in the 'EurAktiv' link.
But James Hansen's carbon tax at source, and his focus on coal seem both simple and effective by comparison to all others.
----------------
(from EurAktiv link above):
"It's clear that many of the government officials negotiating in Bonn are in their own little bubble, impervious to both public concern and climate science," said Martin Kaiser, Greenpeace International's climate policy director.
------------------
Climate science - Yes, I agree.
Public Concern - see post #43 on democracy in the United States.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile... "Business as usual"
"Across the globe, as mining and oil firms race for dwindling resources, indigenous peoples are battling to defend their lands often paying the ultimate price"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/13/forests-environment-oil-companies
Complain about this comment
To Underacanoe #45
Thanks for sharing. Thunderheads are an awesome sight. With them as a back drop looks like you had a memorable day.
The BBC used to have a 'Nature' section which is now incorporated into 'Science and Environment'. IMO this does not do justice to the subject and gets lost in all the noise. I've mentioned to Richard Black a couple of times that the sections would be better served if it was 'Science and Technology' (bits, bytes and theories) and 'Nature and Environment' (the real world). He says I'm not the only one but that's how it is for now.
Do you have an opinion?
Complain about this comment
timjenvey :True enough it's very,'noisy' here..
Im getting the feeling that everyone feels isolated and shut out..opinions an thoughts unheard..So people shout louder and say more..yet all that seems to come of it all is more noise..if only we all felt that there was someone in power that was actually accountable to us..that we didnt always have to fight tooth and nail to have a small say in the way the world is run..
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS