Smart comment from the Globe and Mail's Margaret Wente:
The key thing to understand about the climate talks is that they’re not really about the climate. They’re about power and money. They are about the desire of fast-growing emitters such as Brazil, South Africa, India and China to extract billions in so-called climate reparations from rich countries, especially the United States. These and other so-called developing countries now account for more than half of greenhouse gas emissions. They want the rich countries to start cutting large amounts of carbon right away, while they do nothing. The rich countries are understandably reluctant. Hence the impasse.
AM: We here at Parallel Polity are not climate change deniers. It's a real problem. But as a political scientist, it's quite obvious the large-scale international agreements are not the way to go. The barriers to successful negotiation are huge; power political always rules over the technocratic; and when rules are made, there is no guarantee that they will be implemented or followed.
Furthermore, it also seems that the world focuses too much on the issue of emission reduction. Are we even sure that this is going to have any real effect? How much do we have to cut to make any dent? Why not invest more in new technological solutions like geoengineering, which might be way cheaper and although still unproven, potentially more effective?
Is there even evidence that humans are impacting the climate? Or is climate change organic in nature meaning humans have little to no effect on it? I agree that we should be sure that the reduction in carbon emissions is actually going to have an impact.
ReplyDeleteI'm far from an expert. The people who are more into the data seem to think so; but it's true, not everyone agrees and there are alternative theories. Of course, just because human made climate change is real, and its a problem, doesn't mean reversing at any cost is the best solution. There might be other more effective measures.
ReplyDeleteI'm happy to hear that you believe in AGW, AM,there may be some hope for you yet. I think the int'l agreements would have more traction if they were not vetoed by governments that are just not committed. read Canada. Living in Calgary, Kyoto was always a joke. We're the biggest polluter in the developed world and a rentier state dependent on mining and exploitation of our natural ecology for wealth. HM
ReplyDelete