Monday, December 7, 2009

Climate Chaos

Representatives of around 200 countries and heads of around 100 states are in Copenhagen today and until December 18 to seal an agreement that would bring the world together in fighting the climate change. We have been hearing about the catastrophic effects of climate change that our and future generations might have to face if we don't take steps now to address this global problem. But the solution to this global problem is now caught up in a fight between developed and developing countries. It is no doubt that the industrialized countries, through their industrialization are primarily responsible for the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But the problem of such magnitude deserves global action and this is not the time to blame each other. But instead this is the time to accept responsibilities and the responsibility rests mainly on the shoulders of the developed countries. Let me give you a small statistics about a developing country India. India's population = 1.1 billion ; in this number of people living below the poverty line (less than $2 a day) ~ 200-300 million; number of people living just above the poverty line (less than $10 and more than $2 a day) ~ 200 million. Almost, the same ratio applies to many other developing and under-developed countries. With so much people living in such conditions the only way to improve the standard of living of such people is through industrialization. If any one economist or a global leader can give me a solution of how to eliminate poverty and improve the standard of living of these poor people to basic levels without industrialization, then I am ready to consider that. But everyone knows that there is no such solution to eliminate poverty. At the same time, this is not the time to argue about who is supposed to act and let us have NO doubt that everyone is supposed to act. But I suggest that the level of action should differ between developed and developing countries. Some might argue that the population outburst is a mistake of these countries (read China, India) and that they have to bear that problem. But in countries like China and India, population growth did not happen overnight or even in a decade. The population levels reached saturation even before we clearly understood the effects of climate change. But I am not supporting the population growth here. It's time for countries like India, especially India, to start taking immediate measures for population control not just for climate change effects but also to avoid resource scarcity at any point in time in the future. There is nothing farther from the truth that developing countries do not care about climate change. Most of these developing countries depend heavily on agriculture and will be the worst affected if actions are not taken to reduce their carbon emissions.

But my suggestions are as follows:

1. Classify countries by their economic status as "Developed", "Advanced but Developing", "Developing" and "Under-developed" countries.

2. An international panel must be set, which would review each country's economic status and officially declare such status of countries in a more practical level rather than theoretical. In this case, its important to take population into account since every human being is equal in this planet.

3. Set a flexible range of emission reduction targets for each of the above classified countries. Lets give them a range (for little flexibility) and special credits for doing more. Every country should be bound by international rules to achieve these targets within a given time-frame (say every 10 years). And after every, say 5 years, the international panel should review the status and classification of countries and should upgrade or downgrade their status accordingly.

4. Transfer of technology and finance to poor and developing countries from developed and Advanced but developing countries is a must. If this is not done, developing and poor countries cannot do anything to reduce their carbon emissions.

5. Easier market access for green technology and collaboration of scientists on a global level is a must.

6. More funding, incentives and competition for green-research is a must.

When global environmental scientists keep saying that we need urgent action to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change, it does not mean that the developed countries and developing countries should quarrel with each other on who will take the responsibility and how much BUT it means, according to me, that we should work on the above suggested steps (suggestions are purely mine) immediately.

By the way, I am just wondering how many of the so called global leaders who have gathered in Copenhagen to discuss this climate deal are wearing leather shoes. Will it not be funny if the guys wearing leather shoes discuss global climate deal? :)

13 comments:

  1. Anonymous9/12/09

    Global warming is a hoax. The theory states that the warming is caused by manmade releases of CO2. Let us say that for my purposes here, all of the CO2 on the planet is in the atmosphere because of Fossil Fuel burning. That means that the 0.038% of the atmosphere that is made up of CO2 is entirely the fault of the human race. Then, point your telescope to mars. Its atmosphere is made up of 95% CO2. What is the difference between Earth and Mars you ask? Temperature. Mars is frigid in comparison to our balmy Earth.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous9/12/09

    If the claims of CO2 were true, then all of the solar energy that enters Mars' atmosphere would never leave because of how much CO2 there is on Mars. This would mean that Mars would be warmer than Earth, because even though it is receiving less heat, it would not ever release any. Yet Mars is cold, terribly cold, in comparison to Earth, so much so that it would not be able to sustain life as we know it. This leads one to the truth of the matter. CO2 is not a pollutant, nor a greenhouse gas of any consequence. The most impacting Greenhouse "gas" on the Earth is water vapor(of course, including clouds). As an estimation, Water Vapor contributes to 95% of the greenhouse effect, while pollutants such as smog and smoke contribute about 4%, and CO2 a paltry 1%.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous9/12/09

    In addition to the following information, let me make known the fact that since 1900, the globe has warmed, then cooled, then warmed then cooled, and is now warming once more. Each time the planet's temperature trend shifted, the media leaped on it, and printed headlines like "Globe heading into next ice age". It is up to you to decide; will you read what there is to be read, and become educated about the subject, or will you behave as the sheep, and simply follow the flock?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous9/12/09

    The entirety of the Global Warming theory is based on research that was funded by Al Gore. Al Gore, in his book the Inconvenient Truth, published a total of 35 major inaccuracies, as measured by the British Government. In fact, these inaccuracies are so ridiculous that in England, Al Gore's book is now considered Propaganda, and cannot be shown in schools unless the students and parents are first warned that they and their children respectively are being shown propaganda. This is the book, by the way, that is used as the main reference point for all of the Global Warming fanatics, and the book for which Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Piece Prize.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The above said points (comments by Anonymous) are very interesting. Lets say we assume that the global warming is hoax (as said by Anonymous in the above comments) and lets say that the global governments either for known or unknown reason are projecting this global warming problem. With this assumption, now we should come up with an analysis on how the steps taken by the global governments for this global-warming problem projected by these governments and scientists (Anonymous believes that and I am ready to assume that for now for my analysis)will affect developed, developing and poor countries. Lets think deeply and see the positive and negative consequences that we will face (economically) from the steps taken on this regard. Anonymous - you are welcome to put your thoughts here.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Also, I have a question on the above comments. Do you think that Mars was hot at one point in time and is now in a cooling phase (I am just wondering if there was severe global warming problem in Mars and is very cold now as a consequence of this? like in an ice age now since i saw somewhere when i googled that Mars has/had polar ice. I am not sure about this though). Or is it a fact that Mars had always been cold from the beginning. Anonymous - can you please clarify on that point? Thanks for your valuable inputs.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous9/12/09

    Mars was indeed always cold. This website enforces such a statement. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4084-mars-was-always-cold-and-frozen.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous9/12/09

    Other than this, the way you are speaking implies that you believe "the ends justifies the means", in that you seem to be implying this projected problem would be acceptable if it positively affected these developing and poor nations. Is this so?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear JE,

    National Geographics had an artical that asnwers the Mars question you asked. Please enjoy:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html.
    As you may be aware, I do not believe in AGW. There is too much of a profit motive for too many powerful people to admit that the Sun causes warming and cooling. A huge industry has developed to steal wealth and freedom from individuals everywhere. The green MOB cares not about developing countries or an individuals’ pursuit of happiness. The earth has been warming and cooling for EONS. The north and south poles didn’t even have land at one point. Remember, the earth was a molten blob of matter; it seems to have cooled nicely without taxes! The temperature of Mars rises and falls in concert with that of the earth despite the lack of Anthropogenic CO2. According to some articles I've read, the temperature data collection all around the world is faulty because temperature gathering devices once in the wilderness are now surrounded by development and heat absorbing materials; this causes current readings to show a false increase.
    I feel that it is most difficult to seek and find the truth when main stream media constantly tells us what we should believe. Look at who owns the media and think of what they would have to gain by changing how the world develops and uses energy!!!
    http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/communications/tv/mediacontrol.html

    Here are two links for you to look at. Can you say “conflict of interest”?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbLK4RZDdzI&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNzBRiAyn8o&feature=related

    Your friend,
    db2dbastill

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous - Thanks for clarifying that Mars is/was always cold. And to your question on "the ends justifies the means" - first of all, I feel that the steps taken now is seriously going to affect all - developed, developing and under-developed countries. That being said, I can also argue on the advantages that the developed countries have from this global warming measures. I can also point out some advantages that the poor countries have. But for all this, we have to wait till they make a deal. We are still not clear on how and to what degree,if agreed, the transfer of technology and finance will take place from rich nations to poor nations. And we still are not clear on which supra-national body (like World bank or IMF for example)would take the role of financing. And remember, on the long run there are some advantages to developing and poor nations but the immediate short term effects will be hard to manage by these developing and poor countries. A simple example would be, say, there is an innovation on green technology coming out of Germany. Now with the currency "Euro" remaining so strong and the currency of the developing countries and the poor countries remaining very weak, the transfer of finance and the resulting money in the recipient country, if not regulated properly, can cause hyper-inflation in some of these poor and developing countries. So by no means the ends look favourable for developing and poor countries (atleast in the short term).
    But the reason why i was asking you to come up with an analysis is just to consider the worst case. According to your suggestion of global warming being a hoax and if this warming is accepted internationally (looks like we are near to a political agreement if not to a climate deal) then I am just curious on the economic outcome on the developed, developing and poor countries. Maybe you are right about global warming being a hoax BUT it looks like its too late to even talk about it being a hoax since we are near to a poltical agreement. And the situation now does not look favorable for global warming skeptics but looks favorable for scientists declaring it to be true. So I was just curious to look ahead and analyze the effects of the measures that are likely to be taken regarding this global warming. I am in no way in favor of going against science and truth for the sake of anyone (be it developed or developing or poor nations). Yes I think that capitalism is not feeding all its children of the world in the way it should (I am NOT a socialist but strongly feel that we should bridge the gaps that exist in today's capitalistic world).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous9/12/09

    We are not anywhere near a political agreement. In fact, every republican staunchly opposes anything involving Global Warming in both the House and the Senate. In otherwords, 49% of politicians disagree with it. Further, I would estimate that a considerably larger percentage of average people oppose it as well, they have just not yet been heard in Obama's half deaf ears. There is no agreement about global warming, politically or scientifically. The exaccerbation of the Global Warming Hoax will without a shred of doubt ruin the world economy, and turn our well developed and flourishing nations, into your "poor and underdeveloped nations" overnight. Is this what you really want for us, and for our brothers and sisters across the Atlantic? Europe? Asia? Is this really what you want for the world?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Anonymous - i understand that you have some very genuine concerns but i should accept that I am not that knowledgeable or experienced to comment on politics and the real motive (if one exists) for all this global warming chaos. In this blog, I am trying to understand, analyze, and look ahead on how the global economies would be affected from an economic perspective by any measures taken not just on this regard but in any general issue. You can see that in other posts in this blog.
    But you have given me some valuable inputs. Let me wait till the situation eveolves further and I will try to analyze, think and see the economic effects of whatever decision they come up with. Also, I may be wrong sometimes and that's why i am writing this blog since one learns more and thinks more through discussions/debates.
    All that said, your points are very interesting and feel free to post your comments. I may not be able to reply back to all your posts but if I have some arguments, I will definitely comment.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous11/12/09

    If you are interested in the economics of the situation, I have come into some knowledge concerning that, which I would like to share. There is currently a bill in congress concerning global warming, and how our government will react to it. The bill contains a ban on 88% of offshore oil reserves, which will raise gas prices to over $15 dollars per gallon. It also contains an economic move allowing the export of 4 million jobs overseas to China and India where the Carbon Emissions of said factories will be increased for lack of technology. Not only this, but Obama's budget estimates that the taxes also included in this bill will earn the government nearly 700 billion dollars of tax payers' dollars. That is the current economic status of the Global Warming problem. It will quickly and efficiently ruin America's economy. When America's economy plunges, China's and India's will soon follow, and we will all be too occupied with our own misfortune to help developing nations at all. If we support this bill, Americans will suffer, and America has the potential to become as poor as the developing nations you mentioned. Is this the right thing to do?

    ReplyDelete