It might sound like “blaming the victim,” but The Epoch Times has an interesting piece this week about the lack of funds for sustainable development, and the idea that some of the potential beneficiaries of the program are complicit in the situation. The IMF has its own plan for funding green projects.
Last week I wrote about the post-COP15 emissions target deadline that whizzed by for most of the planet, and tried to put it into context. Of course, the larger question of what the resulting cuts would mean with regards to future warming remained unanswered, due to it being written during the wee hours of the morning. Fortunately, someone else also crunched the numbers and compared them to model predictions, New Scientist reports, arriving at a most unfortunate (but unsurprising) answer.
There’s a lot of press today about the fact that 55 countries have submitted emissions reduction pledges to the U.N. as the deadline drew passed; note that 27 of them are in the EU. New Scientist has a nice summary, and Reuters India lists most of the targets.
Some of the more disappointing targets include our own, our neighbors to the north, and Korea. “The US previously pledged a cut of 17% from 2005 levels by 2020 (equivalent to 3% from the conventional baseline of 1990)” (BBC). True to its word, the increasingly conservative Canadian government submitted the same relative target as the U.S. South Korea—whose emissions have more than doubled since 1990—has committed to an even smaller cut of 4% of 2005 levels. However, it… [view entry]
Cambridge was fortunate to have City Councilor Henrietta Davis attend the recent United Nations conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen. Here is a report of her experiences:
Some have called the COP 15 meeting last month in Copenhagen “the environmental Woodstock of this generation.” It brought together people from far and wide with high hopes and aspirations, representatives of large countries and small, some like the Maldives, fighting for their survival.
Let’s see if we can grasp the so-called agreement reached in Copenhagan.
Many of the Developed Countries (the North) have promised to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as much as they (comfortably) can in the future. These are not binding commitments; just promises to make a best effort. And, they are all over the place in terms of the cuts they represent compared to past and present CO2 emission levels. A number of Developing Countries (the South, including China) have now promised to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Again, nothing binding and wildly inconsistent targets and timetables. And, even if you add up all the promises, you won’t come close to getting the world on track to stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at a (350–450 ppm) level by 2050 sufficient to forestall the worst
While we still have great expectations of the upcoming talks in Copenhagen are all fine and dandy, it’s a rather elite event about a topic that touches us all. There have been efforts to democratize the discussion, such as the Museum of Science’s, “World Views on Global Warming,” but participation is still limited to those who can be physically present. Of course, you have another chance to do so at a follow-up session tomorrow (12/5) morning. MIT’s Center for Collective Intelligence has also launched a new project, the Climate Collaboratorium, to allow people to share, vote on and discuss ideas about reducing emissions on a large scale.
Imagine if I offered someone a 17% return on their investment, that would help to prevent catastrophic long-term environmental consequences and improve the comfort and value of their home. Now envision this person shrugging off this offer and spending their money instead on upgrading their car to a fancy SUV that immediately devalues over time. Would you call this action “rational”?
This was the crux of the Behavioral, Efficiency, and Climate Change conference I attended this week, that looked into the psychological motivations of human beings, exploring why they continually make poor choices and uncover the motivating factors to help people make better decisions. Opening keynote speaker, Dan Ariely author of Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions, is a behavioral economist who explores such questions as, “Do… [view entry]
Congress will have a lot on its plate when it returns to session in approximately two weeks: health care, war/torture, food safety and of course climate change. Indeed, it’s beginning to look like, once again, the hopes of significant international effort to redress global warming are—arguably with good reason—landing square on the shoulders of Uncle Sam. As reported in many places yesterday, the Indian government has all but asked to be shamed into participating, and for developed nations to “call it’s bluff.” In a similar vein, and also making the rounds on Wednesday, was a statement from the Swedish minister of environment suggesting that: If the U.S. leads, China will follow. Alas, the fate of Waxman-Markley is still unclear, but at least this time Congress… [view entry]
Today was a sad day for the environment, with reports released on the safety of our rivers and oceans being at stake. It is hard to imagine that every river in the US has fish contaminated with mercury or that the plastic bags circulating in the Pacific Ocean in an area twice the size of Texas is now being found to be breaking down into a toxic soup of bisphenol-a. More than ever, we need a movement to rise up and protect this fragile blue orb that supports life as we know it.
What gives me hope, is an article I came across today, that the seeding of such a movement is underway. Over seven hundred youth from across the globe have gathered in Daejeon, Republic of Korea,… [view entry]
The controversial climate bill passed through the House on Friday and pressure is mounting for the leadership in the Senate to take up the bill. Republicans see the climate bill as too costly for for households and view the bill’s carbon reduction mandates as having a harmful effect on industry. Some environmentalists are also not in support of the house bill, raising concerns over the reduction targets being too low and giving carbon allowances away to industrial polluters.
It is likely the Senate will vote on a version of the bill by fall, which would then need to be hashed out between the two houses. The climate legislation is a contentious bill for republicans and industry with many legislators calling global warming an outright hoax. Paul Krugman published an… [view entry]
