What’s the point, say the cynics. The UK’s chancellor can tax petrol all he wants, it won’t make a shred of a difference to global warming. The fight against global warming is out of our hands; it lies with the powers that be in the US, and even more so, with India and China.
For their part, India and China reckon it’s not fair. The rich countries of the world got to their lofty position at the top of the economic league by burning carbon fuels, and now India and China have their chance, they are being told to worry about the environment. There is no flaw in this argument; it is unfair.
And yet a glimmer of hope, or perhaps even a good deal more than that, is shining out from the snow at the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland.
In fact the latest round of hope started in Washington. In his state of the Union address George W said: “Let us build on the work we have done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years — thereby cutting our total imports by the equivalent of 3/4 of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.”
And in Davos, eco warriors and Angela Merkel praised him. The German chancellor said: “Mr Bush’s comments inspired hope.”
Meanwhile, Sir Nicholas Stern, of the Stern report fame, (that’s the report published last year that warned of the economic threat posed by global warming) has been talking at Davos, urging governments to up taxes.
But the truth is that the answer to global warming lies in cost benefit analysis. Reports such as the Stern review have attempted to show that the cost to the world of global warming is higher than the cost of preventing it. That may be true on a global basis, but is that true in certain defined regions? For example China and India, which brings us back to the cynical view.
But, before you just throw your hands in the air, and say what’s the point this is a cause without hope, India and China were both very keen to talk about the environment at Davos.
China’s Zhang Xiaoqiang, Vice-Chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, stressed that his country intends to follow the Kyoto Protocol, and urged speeding up negotiations and establishing concrete emission targets. But, and here is the catch, while China intends to try to keep its emissions low, Zhang said, cement and steel production in China is highly energy intensive, and only around half as efficient as technologies used in the West. To meet its targets, Zhang said, China would need help from the industrialised world.
Montek S. Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission of India, reported that his country is increasingly turning to nuclear power to cut its emissions, and that India’s strategy is similar to that of China. But that it also expects to suffer from the effects of global warming. He said: “It’s clear that business as usual is not going to work.”
Jacques Aigrain, Chief Executive Officer of Swiss Re, also spoke out at Davos. He said that investments to control climate change are considerably less than the cost of risk-adjusted consequences. “Waiting and seeing because one element or another is not certain is not a valid answer,” said Aigrain. “No shareholders would tolerate this in business. Why should the people tolerate it from us?”
And that brings us back to the US. George W’s big idea is bio fuels, and yet many scientists don’t think bio fuels are good for the environment at all. The cost of producing fuel in this way throws carbon into the atmosphere, in massive quantities.
It seems, that Mr Bush is more worried about security, the war on terror and US farmers. By growing its fuel in the from the land and harvesting corn, US farmers do well, and there is reduced reliance on the import of oil from the Middle East.
So actually, it would seem that China and India are more concerned about the environment than Uncle Sam. They just need a hand, they need countries that already made themselves rich by pumping carbon gases into the air, to give them a bit of a bunk up.
The exception to the US apathy, is of course California. The state, led by its recent convert to the cause, Arnold Schwarzenegger, wants to reduce its emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, representing roughly 174 million tonnes of carbon reduction. And yet, while the state does its bit, pollution from other parts of the world is hitting the Californian way.
Steve Chu, Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, reported that the snow pack in California’s Sierra mountains has decreased 30% to 90%. “That is our water supply,” Chu pointed out. “Even a decrease of 20% leads to severe water shortages in California. A decrease of 50% means that our agriculture will be gone, and beyond that we cut into our drinking water.” Chu added that rising sea levels are now at the upper range of what was predicted five or ten years ago. Science has to come forward with new solutions to climate change, ranging from renewable fuels to carbon sequestration, he declared.
Maybe, the answer lies with IT. At least that’s what Gartner says.
“IT,” says Gartner, “provides ways to address many environmental issues from the role of virtual collaboration in reducing corporate travel to the use of control systems in reducing energy consumption in buildings. Furthermore, emerging or improved technologies will have a positive impact on the environment, such as low-power display technologies, improved battery technologies and low-cost sensor networks.”
Actually IT is a part of the solution, but other forms of technology are even more important; hydrogen fuel, bio diesel, solar and wind power, and what is required is money.
The world is not shy of ploughing in billions to fights its wars, and yet, for the most important war of the 21st Century, the war against climate change, the coffers are too low, self interest impeding progress. US has a paranoia with China. This week the Economist magazine reported on how Stephen Roach, the chief economist at Morgan Stanley, has counted 27 pieces of anti-China legislation in Congress since 2005. This is perhaps the biggest threat.
China is set to become rich. It is set to become the world’s richest country during the course of this century, and India will follow in her wake. Both countries are well aware of the dangers of global warming. But as long as their progress is seen as a threat, and as long as legislators in the US try to impede their growth rather than embrace it, then global warming can have no fix.
Comments
Trackbacks