open Democracy News Analysis - Who gains from global warming?, John Jackson - Comments

alleywattson on "Who gains from global warming?"

alleywattson — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:19:10 +0000

Stopping global warming isn't realistic right now. Our beautiful blue-green globe is warming so fast right now it can't be halted immediately. The best we can do is slow the warming. Then we can stop the warming and, hopefully, reverse it.

But first things first. It's great there are lots of individuals who are consuming less energy and recycling as much as they can. Unfortunately, there aren't enough of them to make much of a change.

That's why the government has to exercise strong leadership and prerequisite commitment. Treaties and studies are important, but doesn't change anything. Doing good things now is better than waiting until later to do the perfect thing.

Andy's site

eduardodfj on "Who gains from global warming?"

eduardodfj — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:00:47 +0000

There is no direct relationship between economic growth and population, in despite of the fact that richer countries have lower population growth rates. Reality is much more complex: population growth in poorer countries is bigger because of many factors: lower education, family planning, better health care than in the past (sensibly as a consequence of their interaction with richer countries), and so on. So "Lower economic growth" or "negative economic growth" have no absolute meaning: there is lower economic growth if there is a war of a famine, also if there is a crisis affecting a nevertheless rich country (say Japan)... Also if the policy is to reduce economic growth in order to make it sustainable. This later case is not very realistic, given capitalism, but I'm afraid is the only way around the wall we all seem to be heading at a very fast pace. In my opinion, there will be no credible alternative until we (meaning the people plus the politicians plus basically everybody else) realize we need to change or erradicate capitalism... In spite of this being very highly unlikely.

jamesg17 on "Who gains from global warming?"

jamesg17 — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:40:50 +0000

"The growth in pollution and consumption over the last decades has a direct correlation with economic growth." Correlation is not causation. This idea is one of those simplistic pervading myths which leads you to draw false conclusions. In fact, the population explosion comes entirely from the poorer countries. In all the richer countries the populations are shrinking or level - which is why the economists are fond of talking about the demographic time-bomb. The US is the only G8 country with increasing population but that is entirely due to immigration from poorer countries. Why is this? It's just a plain fact that richer families tend to have fewer children, mainly because they have their children later in life and specifically plan the number of children they want - usually 2. Isn't that what all of you did? In contrast, in poorer countries they start young and have many. So increasing economic growth reduces the number of babies born. One might then expect that reducing economic growth will increase the population. So not only is it morally wrong to do so, it is completely wrong. This is not controversial but is proven in study after study.

steven_12 on "Who gains from global warming?"

steven_12 — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:30:21 +0000

Hey daniel,

I think I can agree with most of what you say. But there's another problem.

Steven

danieljones_72 on "Who gains from global warming?"

danieljones_72 — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:40:25 +0000

Broomstick analogy: great, but Disney? That’s nonsense – the apprentice is ignorant – climate scientists are a quite well intentioned and well-educated bunch. Most don’t work for oil companies, admittedly. Confused: givens? No thorough list of facts disputed. More importantly, half agrees with the fact that global warming is anthropogenic. Importantly, proper appropriation of aid money is not mutually exclusive to reductions in CO2 emissions How: “investment to persuade - by providing them with alternatives - those "have nots" who are presently trying to improve their lot by doing environmentally "bad" things to desist from doing so.” Do you improve living standards with no reasonable alternative? “But there is also the possibility of some significant gains. Vast tracts of presently unusable land in the northern hemisphere could become habitable and productive.” And release untold volumes of methane gas into the atmosphere at the same time. Methane is a major ‘greenhouse’ gas. I don’t like using the apostrophes. This will have a major impact on ambient temperature worldwide. A likely consequence of this would be a major exacerbation of the positive feedback mechanism working on global average temperatures (i.e. increase). The simplification of environmental systems in such a manner is simply ridiculous. Most climate scientists would never hypothesise (though in this case I use the term extremely loosely) in the same manner as this. Warmer sea water could add to the planet's store of renewable energy. What? "western powers". This will add to the incentive to maintain technological influence (and financial gain) by investment in their science base and to take the role of example-setting whilst pressing for internationally agreed discipline. Increasingly they will present the view that human survival is linked to recognition that our aspirations should extend beyond "goods and children". Prisoners of their own histories, they will find it extremely difficult to persuade many of that view or that it is they who should advance. What? Environmental change is a large, growing and menacing cloud that may have a silver lining. What? Sorry, I’m not the best qualified, but a get a scientist to counter this. Its nonsense.

Brendan 2 on "Who gains from global warming?"

Brendan 2 — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:25:54 +0000

"We need to accept that greed isn't good"

Even if greed isn't "good" it is a reality of human nature and progress. Any policy that strays from enlightened self interest will ultimately fail, at the nation state level or at the local, social level. The market contains some of the answers to reducing CO2, but the rest of the equation is a mix of progressive carbon taxation, alternative energy sources and ever higher prices due to diminishing stocks of fossil fuel.

It is not very clear who will suffer from GW or who might benefit, but to dismiss the possibility seems to me to be just negative. I do like the author introducing the idea of some possible benefits of GW, which I would add includes a renewal of international cooperation through the necessary sharing of technology, both for mitigation and adaptation to climate.

In all, I think that was a very good and thought provoking article.

sendtosadie@gmail.com on "Who gains from global warming?"

sendtosadie@gmail.com — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:04:53 +0000

I quite agree with the last post. It is of course possible, and important, to improve the efficiency with which we consume resources. But it seems to me that the point of enviromentalism is that we cannot 'expand those resources' indefinately, and that making economic policies based on the idea that we can do this is deeply destructive. I'm sure that venture capitalists will increasingly cash in on climate change by investing in new technologies, and that they will benefit from climate change while those in the global south who have done least to create climate change will suffer most from its impacts. But there is no reason to imagine that the wealth they genderate will go towards resolving the coming water shortages and famines in the global south. Of course new technologies are important, but to imagine that the market contains the answer to global warming is wrong. These technologies can only have any impact in a context of carbon rationing - otherwise overall use of carbon will continue to increase. Making planes more efficient will have no impact if the numbers of people flying keeps increasing exponentially. The author also seems to imagine that the likely expansion of power inequalities between rich and poor nations will provide a solution to climate change. I'd argue that in fact it is precisely these kinds of inequalites which enable nations like the US, Japan and Russia to block progress on climate change, as they have at Bali. It is developed nations who have the most to lose from cuts in carbon emissions, and it is those in the global south, some of whom are already suffering the conseqences of climate change, who have the least power to do anything about this. Of course it is difficult 'to persuade the "haves" to reduce what they regard as their deserved material standard of living'. But this is what is needed, and I don't belive that this is impossible. During the second world war, people accepted rationing because they understood it was necessary. Research shows that already the majority of people do accept that emissions limits are neccessary (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/7010522.stm).

eduardodfj on "Who gains from global warming?"

eduardodfj — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:20:38 +0000

I most deffinitely support and share the idea that a much higher level of responsible policies are needed, and this is the most constructive idea of the article. But I find the analysis is basically flawed, if only for the fact that "climate change" doesn't mean that some areas will switch from a climate to another: Siberia having Mediterranean climate where you can grow wheat, for example, of the Sahara desert reverting to savannah. It's not like that. Climate change poses, above all, the problem of the IMPREDICTABILITY of climate patterns: 40ºC one month, -20ºC the following one, a hurricane today and a drought for the following five years. No patterns anymore, and there is no way to grow anything with those conditions, if we talk about agriculture. Climate change is (most appropiately) the talk of the day and there is no single day without a mention of it in the media. It's not usual, but sometimes (like in this article) it's linked to responsible growth and that's possitive, I think. But I rarely find something which, as much as climate change itself, is becoming obvious: the ONLY way forward is to reduce consumption of basically everything, to reduce economic growth and with it, to think deeply about economic (rather than just "development") models and of course that means to reform capitalism, which needs growth simply to survive. I'm not so naïve as to think that is is going to happen anytime soon, but at the same time I think it's simply the only way forward.

steven_12 on "Who gains from global warming?"

steven_12 — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:13:46 +0000

The growth in pollution and consumption over the last decades has a direct correlation with economic growth.

Each year adds 2 to 6% of economic growth over last year's growth. If you would put this on a graph you would see a exploding growth over just some decades.

The question that comes to mind is: why do we need this kind of growth? If a population grows then it makes sense that the economy grows. If living standards improve then you also get economic growth.

But there's another reason why we need growth and that's the constant decline of the value of our currency. Take any currency in the world and its value today will be less than 10 years ago.

This desire to print money out of thin air - attributed by some to the international banking cartel - is a direct contributor to increased pollution. If we can stop the printing presses - which seems next to impossible - we can improve the quality of our lives as well as our ecological footprints.

Actually next to a seemingly imminent environmental crisis we're also faced with a seemingly inevitable monetary crisis - one where people loose confidence in their bankers and their currencies.

If you look at things in this way then the only way to prevent an environmental crisis is to find ways to hasten the monetary collapse. Only in this way will people re-discover the value of money and won't we have to pursue perpetual growth (and consumption).

Who gains from global warming?, John Jackson

Mon, 17 Dec 2007 12:28:24 +0000

It seems that the climate of our planet is reverting rapidly to that which has persisted for much of the last 300 million years. Average temperatures and sea levels were higher, there were no polar ice-caps and temperature differences between poles and the equator were lower. The rate of this reversion, certainly in so far as it is connected with greenhouse gases, is being accelerated by humans and their activities and to such an extent that their must be a risk of "overshoot" into a situation which is entirely new.

John Jackson chairs the law firm Mishcon de Reya, is a director of openDemocracy and History Today and is on the committee of Unlock Democracy

Among John Jackson's articles in openDemocracy:

"Write the constitution down!" (17 February 2005)

"A democracy in trouble" (1 March 2006)

"Alice Wheeldon and the attorney-general" (17 April 2007)

"From deliberative to determinative democracy" (15 October 2007)

Read the rest of this post...