Eco Imperialism:
Or why the Copenhagen Agreements and their like keep being unworkable.
To start with, yes, the conduct of the likes of the USA and Canada in either not at all signing agreements and proceeding to ignore them shamelessly or signing them and then ignoring them anyhow is entirely deplorable. Those points are perfectly valid and there's nothing to argue with. This is not that discussion, it's a wholly different one.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/12022821/Paris-climate-talks-Through-the-smog-coal-hungry-India-sees-carbon-imperialism-in-the-West.html
"India has announced efforts to boost renewables too. Prime Minister Narendra Modi will launch a “solar alliance” of 122 solar-rich countries at Paris, seeking to attract $100bn per year global investment in the technology. He has also spoken of the need for new, cleaner methods of coal generation.
In both cases, Mr Modi seeks to remind the West of its promises to help finance the developing world’s fledgling green industries - promises he says it has failed to honour.
Either way, Mr Kerry’s "challenge" comment was received with fury in New Delhi. Officials here are quick to point out that it still burns less coal than the US or China - and besides, the West has been profiting from pumping out carbon for decades.
“Kerry’s comment is unwarranted and unfair. The attitude of some of the developed countri"es is the challenge for the Paris conclusion,” said Prakash Javadekar, India’s environment minister. India is "not in the habit of taking any pressure from anybody", he added.
“This smacks of a ‘carbon imperialism’,” wrote Arvind Subramanian, the Indian government’s chief economic advisor. “And such imperialism on the part of advanced nations could spell disaster for India and other developing countries.”
When the leader of India critiques the West for promises to help with developing green technologies in poor countries that to be perfectly blunt have enough problems with the most basic element of the state (the monopoly on force (i.e. they're permanently in civil wars and exist in some parts of their territory in name only)) and the West fails to deliver, and of course fails to follow through with its own roles in such cases, I do believe that the Indian leaders are right to say "Whoa, wait, what?"
Another article related to the same topic is this one:
https://next.ft.com/content/0805bac2-937d-11e5-bd82-c1fb87bef7af
"For India - a country struggling to provide basic electricity to about 25 per cent of the population, according to conservative estimates - this smacks of a “carbon imperialism”. And such imperialism on the part of advanced nations could spell disaster for India and other developing countries.
In fact, rather than replacing coal, the only way India and other poorer nations can both meet their needs and minimise damage to the environment may be to find effective techniques to “clean and green” coal.
Under any plausible scenario, coal will provide about 40-60 per cent of India’s energyuntil 2030. It will, and should, remain the country’s primary energy source because it is the cheapest fuel available.
But India is neither unaware of the social costs of coal nor is it lax in promoting renewables. It has already started taxing carbon, both explicitly and implicitly. The coal tax has quadrupled to Rs200 ($3) a tonne since 2014. This has resulted in an implicit carbon tax of $2 a tonne of CO2 on domestic coal. This may, of course, still not be enough to cover all the social costs of carbon use.
There has also been a substantial indirect tax on carbon. In response to the fall in the oil price, the government has eliminated subsidies on petrol and diesel and increased taxes. India has therefore moved from a negative price - that is, a subsidy - to a positive price on carbon emissions. In contrast, the governments of most advanced countries have simply passed on the benefits to consumers, setting back the cause of curbing climate change."
So again, the West demands carbon be cut, but it can afford, in theory (in practice as noted behavior does tend to differ slightly) to work around things. Poorer countries with less to spend and not uncommonly endemic insurgencies and civil wars have less money to spend on these issues and the issue of dubious sovereignty in a world where the USA and now China are building bases all over the place to provide control for their discretion.
One last article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/apr/11/eco-imperialism-climate-change-carbon
With poverty redefined in terms of the environment and infused with pro-rural socialism, large-scale projects to industrialise or modernise are not the priority - indeed, western-style development and modernisation are seen as part of the problem. Instead there is a self-limiting bottom-up approach which subsidises underdevelopment not as a transitionary phase but as an end goal.
To effectively sideline the development strategy that every western country has undertaken in raising living standards is remarkable. Indeed, while India and China have lifted at least 125m people out of slum poverty since 1990, over the same period 46 countries have actually got poorer - the large majority of them African states.
It would be too simplistic to prescribe the industrialisation and modernisation agenda pursued by India and China as a panacea for the problems of sub-Saharan Africa, and the Indian and Chinese policies have not been without adverse consequences. Nevertheless, it is a staggering achievement which demonstrates that poverty alleviation should be pursued through a developmental agenda.
The truth is that African poverty is not a result of global warming. It is likely that the poor will be disproportionately affected by global changes in temperature - but this is not a reason to limit development. It is development which will allow countries to better cope with the consequences of a changing climate. For example, the Netherlands is better prepared to build dams to protect its coastline from rising sea levels than Bangladesh. Those that will be hardest hit by global changes to temperature will be those who are most exposed to the vagaries of the environment now - the rural poor.
I believe all of this raises a good and rather cogent point to solving the climate change issue in the long term. The interests of rich and poor countries aren't the same, and human history is not encouraging for the belief that people put aside divergent issues in pursuit of a common good that's nebulous and supposed to really hit in a century or so. Even when the oceans are becoming more acidic and literally swallowing islands, it still seems to remote to really do anything about the climate part. Rich countries destroying their own natural ecosystems and expecting poor countries to uphold standards they refuse to apply to themselves? Not so much. Same with rich countries presuming that poor countries can actually afford the expense of developing technology when shacked with multiple issues the rich countries do not face.
Stuff like this, frankly, makes me pessimistic that 2100 will be anything but the kind of Mad Max-style disaster that'll happen if the science is right. How can people really solve issues if the idea of solutions involves maintaining a dubious status quo? What ways are there around this Catch-22?
To start with, yes, the conduct of the likes of the USA and Canada in either not at all signing agreements and proceeding to ignore them shamelessly or signing them and then ignoring them anyhow is entirely deplorable. Those points are perfectly valid and there's nothing to argue with. This is not that discussion, it's a wholly different one.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/12022821/Paris-climate-talks-Through-the-smog-coal-hungry-India-sees-carbon-imperialism-in-the-West.html
"India has announced efforts to boost renewables too. Prime Minister Narendra Modi will launch a “solar alliance” of 122 solar-rich countries at Paris, seeking to attract $100bn per year global investment in the technology. He has also spoken of the need for new, cleaner methods of coal generation.
In both cases, Mr Modi seeks to remind the West of its promises to help finance the developing world’s fledgling green industries - promises he says it has failed to honour.
Either way, Mr Kerry’s "challenge" comment was received with fury in New Delhi. Officials here are quick to point out that it still burns less coal than the US or China - and besides, the West has been profiting from pumping out carbon for decades.
“Kerry’s comment is unwarranted and unfair. The attitude of some of the developed countri"es is the challenge for the Paris conclusion,” said Prakash Javadekar, India’s environment minister. India is "not in the habit of taking any pressure from anybody", he added.
“This smacks of a ‘carbon imperialism’,” wrote Arvind Subramanian, the Indian government’s chief economic advisor. “And such imperialism on the part of advanced nations could spell disaster for India and other developing countries.”
When the leader of India critiques the West for promises to help with developing green technologies in poor countries that to be perfectly blunt have enough problems with the most basic element of the state (the monopoly on force (i.e. they're permanently in civil wars and exist in some parts of their territory in name only)) and the West fails to deliver, and of course fails to follow through with its own roles in such cases, I do believe that the Indian leaders are right to say "Whoa, wait, what?"
Another article related to the same topic is this one:
https://next.ft.com/content/0805bac2-937d-11e5-bd82-c1fb87bef7af
"For India - a country struggling to provide basic electricity to about 25 per cent of the population, according to conservative estimates - this smacks of a “carbon imperialism”. And such imperialism on the part of advanced nations could spell disaster for India and other developing countries.
In fact, rather than replacing coal, the only way India and other poorer nations can both meet their needs and minimise damage to the environment may be to find effective techniques to “clean and green” coal.
Under any plausible scenario, coal will provide about 40-60 per cent of India’s energyuntil 2030. It will, and should, remain the country’s primary energy source because it is the cheapest fuel available.
But India is neither unaware of the social costs of coal nor is it lax in promoting renewables. It has already started taxing carbon, both explicitly and implicitly. The coal tax has quadrupled to Rs200 ($3) a tonne since 2014. This has resulted in an implicit carbon tax of $2 a tonne of CO2 on domestic coal. This may, of course, still not be enough to cover all the social costs of carbon use.
There has also been a substantial indirect tax on carbon. In response to the fall in the oil price, the government has eliminated subsidies on petrol and diesel and increased taxes. India has therefore moved from a negative price - that is, a subsidy - to a positive price on carbon emissions. In contrast, the governments of most advanced countries have simply passed on the benefits to consumers, setting back the cause of curbing climate change."
So again, the West demands carbon be cut, but it can afford, in theory (in practice as noted behavior does tend to differ slightly) to work around things. Poorer countries with less to spend and not uncommonly endemic insurgencies and civil wars have less money to spend on these issues and the issue of dubious sovereignty in a world where the USA and now China are building bases all over the place to provide control for their discretion.
One last article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/apr/11/eco-imperialism-climate-change-carbon
With poverty redefined in terms of the environment and infused with pro-rural socialism, large-scale projects to industrialise or modernise are not the priority - indeed, western-style development and modernisation are seen as part of the problem. Instead there is a self-limiting bottom-up approach which subsidises underdevelopment not as a transitionary phase but as an end goal.
To effectively sideline the development strategy that every western country has undertaken in raising living standards is remarkable. Indeed, while India and China have lifted at least 125m people out of slum poverty since 1990, over the same period 46 countries have actually got poorer - the large majority of them African states.
It would be too simplistic to prescribe the industrialisation and modernisation agenda pursued by India and China as a panacea for the problems of sub-Saharan Africa, and the Indian and Chinese policies have not been without adverse consequences. Nevertheless, it is a staggering achievement which demonstrates that poverty alleviation should be pursued through a developmental agenda.
The truth is that African poverty is not a result of global warming. It is likely that the poor will be disproportionately affected by global changes in temperature - but this is not a reason to limit development. It is development which will allow countries to better cope with the consequences of a changing climate. For example, the Netherlands is better prepared to build dams to protect its coastline from rising sea levels than Bangladesh. Those that will be hardest hit by global changes to temperature will be those who are most exposed to the vagaries of the environment now - the rural poor.
I believe all of this raises a good and rather cogent point to solving the climate change issue in the long term. The interests of rich and poor countries aren't the same, and human history is not encouraging for the belief that people put aside divergent issues in pursuit of a common good that's nebulous and supposed to really hit in a century or so. Even when the oceans are becoming more acidic and literally swallowing islands, it still seems to remote to really do anything about the climate part. Rich countries destroying their own natural ecosystems and expecting poor countries to uphold standards they refuse to apply to themselves? Not so much. Same with rich countries presuming that poor countries can actually afford the expense of developing technology when shacked with multiple issues the rich countries do not face.
Stuff like this, frankly, makes me pessimistic that 2100 will be anything but the kind of Mad Max-style disaster that'll happen if the science is right. How can people really solve issues if the idea of solutions involves maintaining a dubious status quo? What ways are there around this Catch-22?