What - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – What PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 71db57-ZmViN


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation



Title: Climate change: birds-eye view of science, economics, politics Author: AST1 Last modified by: Santhosh S Created Date: 12/23/2014 5:23:44 PM – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:43
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 97
Provided by: AST1


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: What

Whats happening with Global Warming? Why are we
holding society hostage to Luck?
  • Robert H. Wade
  • LSE
  • Jan 8 2015

Is GW biggest challenge our global society faces?
  • Near-consensus among climate scientists
  • GW real
  • poses acute dangers to human civilization
    larger ecosystem
  • caused in large part by human activities (esp
    fossil fuels)

GW paradox
  • Public politicians not prepared undertake
    costly actions now (sacrifice economic growth),
    b/c GW not clearly visible or acute now.
  • But by time GW is visible acute, too late to
    stop catastrophic consequences unless a stroke
    of Luck. (A. Giddens, The Politics of CC, 2009)

Pessimism reigns
  • Daniel Kahneman I am deeply pessimistic on
    action to reduce GW. I see no path to success
  • (quoted in G. Marshall, Think about it how our
    brains are wired to ignore climate change,
    Guardian 24 Sep 2014, p.39)

But maybe GW sceptics right?
  • Agricultural economist, ex-Ford Foundation,
    Delhi, ex head of International Water Mgt
    Institute, PhD in Economics from LSE
  • There has been zero trend in temperature over
    past 14 yrs with 24 increase in atmospheric CO2.
    I regard the hiatus as a refutation of the 260
    some climate models, since none of them even
    hinted at such an event.
  • Global warming is, as someone said, A beautiful
    young theory raped by a gang of brutal facts
    (email to Wade, 13 Nov 2014)

I am not climate scientist
  • but when I read what my friend asserted with
    complete certainty I thought I should look at the
    evidence for against GW

List of GW sceptics
  • Wikipedia list http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_

Sceptical politicians
  • Prime Minister Abbott, Australia Climate change
    is a load of crap, 2013
  • Senator James Inhofe, Oklahoma The evidence is
    overwhelmingly in favour of those who dont see
    global warming posing grave harm to the planet
    and who dont think human beings have significant
    influence on the climate system, 2003

Sceptical blogger
  • James Delingpole, If you still believe in
    climate change read this, Sep 3 2013 at
  • If any business were to submit a prospectus as
    patently false and deliberately dishonest as the
    ones used to advance the cause of the global
    warming industry, its directors wld all be in
    prison by now.

Sceptical climate scientist
  • Richard Lindzen, MIT, via Watts Up With That?
  • None of the projected disastrous effects of
    climate change exists in the present but only in
    an imaginary future So we ought, when
    considering our expensive prevention/ mitigation
    policies, factor in the key point that future
    generations are going to be richer than we are
    and therefore better able to pay for any problems
    that climate change may cause them

I. The evidence on GW
IPCC report, Nov 2014
  • Risks of GW so high that generations of progress
    against hunger poverty cld be stalled /
    reversed if GHG emissions not very significantly
  • Overall situation becoming more acute as DCs join
    West in burning fossil fuels.
  • Prospect of mass extinctions, food shortages,
    refugee crises, flooding of cities and islands,,
    infectious diseases, etc

Malthus, your time is coming!
  • Malthuss prediction based on sensible premise
    Earths carrying capacity has a limit.
  • IPCC 2014 provided the starkest warning yet of
    dangers of GW to world food supply.

  • Neither GHG emissions nor (many of) climate
    impacts are reversible.
  • Melted glaciers, ocean corals, species being made
    extinct, islands and coastlines flooded over
    are gone forever.
  • So the longer we wait the higher the irreversible

IPCC warnings rest on following
Basic science well-established
  • (1) Earth has been receiving net heat gain of
    0.5-1 watts/ square meter for past several
    decades. Earth has accumulated MORE HEAT in past
    15 yrs than in prior 15 yrs.
  • (2) Main cause Increased concentration of CO2 in
    atmosphere, which has GW effect (one way

Robert Wade
That wheezing sound may be Earth Internationa
l Herald Tribune December 22nd 2010
  • On the Politics of

Basic science well-established
  • (3) CO2 density b/w 200-300 PPM for at least
    800,000 years before 1880.
  • (4) CO2 increased from 280 PPM in 1880 to 390-400
    PPM today going up fast.
  • (5) Annual emissions of GHG have risen almost 2x
    as fast in 2000-2010 as in last several decades
    of 20th C.

(No Transcript)
CO2 temperature
  • Av global surface atmospheric temp is 0.8C higher
    than in 1880
  • 2/3 of this 0.8C increase since 1975.
  • Striking that evidence on damaging effects of GW
    to date comes after only 0.8C rise.
  • Global temp correlates fairly closely to CO2
    density. CHART

(No Transcript)
II. Answers to sceptics
(1) pause in GW since 1997?
  • True that earths surface temp increased at
    slower rate in past 15 yrs than since 1951.
  • But
  • GRAPHS of global surface temperature change since
  • SourceDana Nuccitelli, Arctic sea ice delusions
    strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph,
    Guardian 9 Sep 2013.
  • J. Abraham, J. Fasullo, G. Laden, Continued
    global warming in the midst of natural climate
    fluctuations, Reports of the National Center for
    Scientific Education, 34, 6, 2014)

How Skeptics View Global Warming
How Realists View Global Warming
Conclusion temperature pause is not real
  • (1) Relationship b/w CO2 concentration
    temperature is stochastic
  • (2) Surface atmospheric temps have increased
    since 1997, but at slower pace than in prior 15
  • (3) Cause of slow-down increased transfer of
    surface heat to oceans, a cyclical process which
    will come to end -- accelerate GW.

More on oceans
  • 90 of net heat gain absorbed in oceans.
  • New data indicates Southern Hemisphere ocean
    temperatures have been increasing at faster rate
    over past 35 yrs than previously measured
  • Sea-level increasing at 3.2 mm/year since 1993
  • G. Vaidyanathan ClimateWire, Mystery of ocean
    heat deepends as climate changes, Scientific
    American Oct 7, 2014

(2) Arctic ice rebound?
  • (2) Arctic ice was 60 more extensive by Aug 2013
    compared to Aug 2012. Therefore, sceptics say
    recovery, no continuing shrinkage
  • GRAPHS of trend in ice extension from 1980

How Skeptics View Arctic Sea Ice Decline
How Realists View Arctic Sea Ice Decline
Conclusion Arctic ice recovery not real
  • Conclusions (1) Sep 2012 was record for
    minimum ice, so regression to mean is normal.
  • (2) Long-term clear Arctic has lost 75 of
    summer sea ice volume over past 3 decades, due
    mainly to human-induced GW (with short term
    effects from weather patterns and ocean cycles).

III. What has to be achieved?
What has to be achieved?
  • UN target (2010) limit temperature rise (above
    1880) to 2C
  • Current rise on 1880 0.8C
  • Emissions to date 1 trillion tons of CO2.
  • Meeting UN target requires that emissions from
    additional fossil fuel burning be restricted to 1
    trillion tons of CO2
  • At current rate, 1 tr tons exhausted in 30 yrs
    from now
  • We must cut emissions by 50-70 by 2050

IV. Progress so far?
Movement on ground in wrong direction
  • Absolute decoupling is not occurring
  • Energy companies have already booked reserves of
    oil coal several times the 1 TR tons of GHG
  • Nothing done so far to curb 1,000bn/year on
    bringing oil reserves into production.
  • In 25 yrs of negotiations no measures to limit
    fossil fuel production have even been discussed.

  • Coal remains main fuel for electricity global
    consumption growing at 2 / year
  • Govts subsidize consumption of fossil fuels at
    600 bn/year

Global treaties on CC
  • Exercises in empty promises.
  • International agreements call for targets, plans
    but hailed as successful simply if dont stop.
  • Key issue No sign that govts willing to discuss
    allocating 1 tr ton emissions budget among

UN COP 20 Lima Dec 2014
  • 194 cies represented.
  • Achieved bit more than Copenhagen 2009
  • (1) Cies agreed to submit national plans for
    cutting CO2 by March 2015
  • (2) Cies beyond EU agreed to meet their share of
    burden esp China, whose emissions/head gt EUs.
  • But very vague on how burden to be shared
    funding from rich to poor. Free-riders charter

US-China climate accord
  • Nov 2014 Pres Xi Pres Obama, deal China will
    slow, then start to reverse carbon emissions by
    2030, increase renewables to 20 of energy
    consumption by 2030.
  • US will set new goal of reducing net carbon
    emissions by 26-28 below 2005 level by 2025 (up
    from target of 17 by 2020 announced June 2014).
  • Unambitious likely to bring emissions to level
    consistent with 3C rise in global temperature
    (making plausible assumptions abt other cies).

  • Obama US must decarbonize its energy system.
  • Energy Dept no strategy document outlining HOW
    this might be done.
  • New Republican chair of Senate environment cttee
    says climate science a giant hoax
  • US govt continues to subsidize fossil fuels gt
    incentive for CO2 emissions
  • 2014 defence appropriate bill fracking legal on
    all US public land

  • India 3rd largest emitter of CO2
  • India firms have long complained that env regs
    choke econ growth
  • Modi govt moving fast to remove env regs on
    industry, mining, power, armed forces
  • High-level cttee assigned to rewrite env laws
    says India must rely on firms voluntarily to
    disclose the pollution their projects will
    generate monitor their own compliance

Indias coal rush
  • Power minister Indias devt imperatives cannot
    be sacrificed at the altar of potential climate
    changes many years in future. The West will have
    to recognize we have the needs of the poor. He
    promised India will double use of domestic coal
    by 2019 (Gardiner Harris, As others try to clean
    air, India raises bet on coal, INYT 18 Nov 2014)
  • Env minister The new govt is not phasing out all
    env regs, just those which, in the name of
    caring for nature, were stopping progress
  • (Ellen Barry N Thiranbagri, Favoring growth,
    India pares back rules to safeguard the
    environment, INYT 6-7 Dec 2014)

India global GW negotiations
  • India is the biggest challenge in global climate
    negotiations, not China (Durwood Zaelke,
    president of the Institute for Governance and
    Sustainable Devt)
  • But,
  • Modi has promised to build vast array of solar
    power stations

Good news GW action getting rapidly cheaper
  • Dramatic recent progress in renewable energy
    sources. Eg costs of solar power per unit of
    output plunged by half since 2010.
  • Progress in electricity storage
  • New fuel cell which produces electricity AND
    captures CO2
  • More knowledge of co-benefits of cutting
    emissions, beyond climate risks eg health

V. Why no serious policy response in ACs?
  • Greater than the tread of mighty armies is an
    idea whose time has come (Victor Hugo)
  • GW is not an idea whose time has come, despite
    scientific near-consensus that it is a threat to
    human civilization.
  • This GW paradox

Research framing
  • For any research question, ask What is this
    fact, or relationship an instance, or example,
  • Why no serious policy response to GW? is an
    instance of, When why do ideas or issues or
    problems become hot, in sense of being put onto
    political agenda and then decision agenda of
  • Neglected Q in development studies!

(1) Public opinion on GW is
  • Not convinced that GW is real, acute, actionable
  • Polling evidence (Nisbet, M, Myers, T., Public
    Opin Quart. 71, 444-470, 2007)
  • (1) No sigt change in public acceptance of
    scientific conclusions since 1980s. Public
    opinion in West less concerned than a decade ago.
  • (2) High have no understanding of causes (eg
    agree that ozone hole main cause of CC)

Polling evidence
  • Eg 2009 two thirds of Americans disagree or
    dont know in response to GW is a fact is
    mostly caused by emissions from vehicles
    industrial facilities (Angus Reid poll)
    (Oreskes Conway, Defeating the merchants of
    doubt, Nature, 465, 686-87, 10 June 2010).
  • Eg 2008 60 of UK strongly agreed or agreed
    that many scientific experts still question if
    humans are contributing to climate change 77
    agreed that most people are not prepared to make
    big sacrifices to help stop climate change
    (Giddens, Politics, p.103)

(2) Sceptics have excellent media access
  • They have manufactured a debate, convincing
    media that journalists obliged to present both
    sides of it
  • Yet media not feel obliged to present balance
    on question of whether Earth revolves around Sun,
    or vice versa
  • Balance gives sceptics influence
    disproportionate to small numbers

(3) Campaigns to raise doubt
  • Public unmoved, confused rejectionist b/c
    people orgns have waged organized campaigns of
    doubt against climate science.
  • N. Oreskes E. Conway, Merchants of Doubt,
    Bloomsbury NY, 2010

Doubt campaigns
  • GW is only latest of long line of doubt
  • (1) 1950s -- 1980s cigarettes ? cancer
  • (2) 1970s -- 1980s man-made pollution ? acid
    rain ozone hole
  • (3) 2000s pesticide DDT ? harm to humans, bald
    eagle, etc. Campaign argued govt shd not have
    banned DDT

Premise of doubt campaigns
  • Campaigns focus on getting public politicians
    to reject scientific evidence that threatens
    ideology or profits.
  • Mantra the science is too uncertain to justify
  • Mantra works, b/c if people think the science is
    contentious, they are unlikely to support public
    policies that rely on that science

Doubt is our product
  • Playbook written by R.J. Reynolds Doubt is our
    product, since it is the best means of competing
    with the body of fact that exists in the minds
    of the general public (senior tobacco industry
    executive, memo, 1969, quoted Oreskes Conway,
    Merchants, p.34)

Organization of doubt campaigns
  • In US, network of conservative Libertarian
  • EG Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, American
    Enterprise Institute, Competitive Enterprise
    Institute, Heartland Institute, Marshall
  • They are anti-government, anti-regulation, pro
    free market.
  • Anti liberal environmentalists internal
    enemy watermelons green outside, red
  • Regard GW as scam to justify more government

  • Online release of emails from climate scientists
    at University of E Anglia in UK turned into media
    event, Climategate.
  • Investigations showed charges almost completely
    baseless. Polls showed that event precipitated
    doubts about reality of GW in large swathes of
    US UK populations

Conclusion so far
  • GW is not hot (its time has not come) b/c a
    very small number of sceptical scientists a
    whole industry of doubt-campaigners have
    combined to keep the public politicians mostly
    unmoved by GW
  • That is not end of story. Also, GW is by its
    nature a wicked, not tame problem that most
    of us try to avoid contemplating

(3) GW wicked problem
  • GW is classic wicked rather than tame
    problem we know general direction of solution,
  • (1) efforts to solve create other huge problems
  • (2) solution requires billions of people to
    change mindsets behaviors
  • (3) the stakeholders have very different

GW wicked problem (ctd)
  • (4) Evidence that might be construed as the
    problem of GW (eg more frequent floods,
    droughts, etc.) can plausibly be attributed to
    weather so GW not seen as problem
  • (5) Solution requires many countries to act to
    cut emissions therefore vulnerable to free
  • (6) Problem persists over centuries appropriate
    mitigation today depends on how we value future
    costs benefits compared to today.

GW wicked problem (ctd)
  • (7) Deeper level Human brain wired to mobilize/
    cooperate in response to external enemy.
  • If North Korea discovered to be lacing atmosphere
    with chemicals to destroy US agriculture, rapid
    mobilization policy window wide open
  • GW not caused by external enemy, but by us
    living normal, innocent lives us in DCs
    trying to secure fast econ growth, reduce
    poverty. So easy response reject GW, or
    someone elses problem

Why no serious policy response conclusions
  • GW is not hot problem for political action
    idea whose time has come because
  • (a) visible disasters (floods, droughts etc) can
    always be presented as weather, not climate
    (b) small band of sceptics good access to media
    (c ) campaigns of doubt
  • (d ) wicked problem especially, international
  • Therefore public unmoved by GW (except as
    background worry)

Therefore politicians mostly uninterested in GW
  • Climate expert asked, When you go to Washington
    and tell them that the CO2 will double in 50
    years and will have major impacts on the planet,
    what do they say? They ask me to come back in
    49 years (O C, p173)
  • So GW policy entrepreneurs see no policy window
    of opportunity

VI. What to do
Paris 2015 as last chance
  • Paris 2015 will be 21rst Conference of the
    Parties (COP21).
  • If IPCC report 2014 accurate, Paris 2015 may be
    last chance to stop CC from spinning out of

Insure against extreme outcomes
  • Sceptics say we dont know enough, action now
    too expensive, leave it to later generations who
    will be wealthier, more knowlegable than us
  • Would you overtake on corners with justification
    that you cld not be certain a car was coming at
  • We must insure against extremes

We are obliged to future generations
  • We benefit from efforts of our ancestors to leave
    a better world than the one they inherited
  • We have the same obligation to our descendants
  • (M. Wolf, An unethical bet in the climate
    casino, Financial Times 12 Nov 2014)

We know broad direction of policy
  • Solution
  • (1) well-known polluter pays principle eg
    carbon tax, auctioned permits.
  • (2) speed up innovation gt industrial policy.

Role of government
  • Govt must keep GW near top of political agenda.
  • Concordat b/w main political parties that GW
    energy policy will be sustained.
  • Govt must lead in steering behavior of businesses
    citizens. As catalyst, facilitator, enforcer.

Role of govt (ctd)
  • Govt must undertake long-term planning,
    encourage same in businesses, NGOs, citizens.
  • Forecast future seen from present also
    backcast based on vision of desirable future
    then translated into plans from the present.
  • Need short-term as well as long-term targets
  • Independent monitoring agency.
  • Obligatory 2 yearly review by Parliament

Industrial policy
  • More active in microeconomics, not just
  • Use tools of industrial policy (eg to promote
    low-carbon technologies).

Emphasize positives
  • Present strategy -- win public acceptance by
    provoking fear anxiety, urging people/
    businesses to deprive themselves. Unlikely to
  • Strategy shd emphasise positives opportunities.
    Opportunities for energy efficiency eg home
    insulation, under banner of style, comfort,
    saving money
  • Oppies for energy security eg local power
    production (solar, wind, etc).
  • Oppies for better health

Enlist corporate support
  • Corporate sector split on GW
  • Eg Obama plan to curb emissions from power
  • Consumer businesses support eg Kelloggs, Mars,
    Starbucks, Levi-Strauss, Nike
  • Industrial businesses oppose eg American
    Petroleum Inst, Am Chemistry Council, National
    Assoc of Manufacturers

International cooperation
  • ACs must take the lead make bigger proportional
    cuts in emissions (than DCs)
  • Most of required emission cuts could be made by
    small number of countries
  • 2 countries (China US) gt half of global
  • 15 cies EU 80 global emissions (R. Stavins,
    Climate realities, NYT Sep 20 2014)

Which ideas have their time come, why
  • General At any one time, govt cld pay attention
    to many subjects-problems must limit attention
    to some rather than others.
  • Those taken seriously by people in around govt
    constitute govt agenda the subset being
    considered for legislation constitute decision
  • What determines which subjects-problems make it
    to either agenda? Ie wh are hot, wh enjoy the
    status of their time has come?

How to tell when an ideas time has come?
  • (1) Sustained marked changes in public opinion.
  • (2) Repeated mobilization of people with strongly
    held preferences.
  • (3) Bandwagons onto which politicians from across
    political spectrum climb.

John Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives and Public
Policies, 2nd ed., New York Longman, 2011
  • JK identifies 3 streams which together constitute
    the policy system (eg for education, health,
    transport, macroeconomic, environment) problem
    stream, policy (or solutions) stream
    politics stream.
  • Within any one policy domain, across policy
    domains, there are periods when policy windows
    of opportunity open analogous to launch
    windows for space rockets.

Windows of opportunity
  • Window may be opened by events in problem
    stream eg sudden worsening of some indicator (eg
    unemployment), or disaster (eg airplane crash).
    May be opened by events in political stream (eg
    budget, new govt, shift in public mood)
  • Then policy entrepreneurs or policy advocates
    in the policy stream can ride their favorite
    solutions to the now salient problem into the
    political stream help to get it onto government
    agenda. Strike while iron hot
  • Key visible/acute problem plausible policy
    solution ? government agenda

Kingdon when do major new issues come onto
political agenda?
  • Political agenda at any one time results from
    interaction of 3 streams problems, policies,
  • They often flow separately, with own rules,
    personnel, dynamics sometimes converge.
  • Problem stream comes to attention of
    policy-makers thru shifts in key indicators (eg
    crime, unemployment), focusing events (which
    catch headlines) or (negative) feedback
  • Policy stream goes on continuously, pursued by
    policy communities made up of specialists in
    different subjects (like education, health,
    macroeconomics, CC) and partly independent of
    politics public mood. Policy stream generates
    solutions looking for problems when
    problems come to attention of policy-makers.
    Some specialists become policy entrepreneurs,
    or prominent advocates for certain solutions.
  • Problems which do not attract solutions (widely
    agreed in policy community) unlikely to stay on
    political agenda will quickly fall down peoples
    ranking of what disturbs them the most.
  • NGOs, business groups, other interest groups
    shape what problems are perceived and what policy
    solutions deemed appropriate.
  • When problems converge with policy solutions,
    window of opportunity opens when policy
    entrepreneurs, or advocates for change, can make
    transformative departure, enlisting shifts in
    public mood in favor of action by politicians.
    But may not remain open for long. Especialy if it
    calls for action against the public mood. If
    public mood anti-government, public
    politicians will discount state role.

Kingdon GW policy problem stream
  • GW is an issue facing strong handicaps as a top
    policy priority
  • Problem stream Wicked problem. (1) Scientists
    identify the problem as resulting from the way
    people live produce. Members of public only
    recognize toxic effects of their everyday
    consumption once they accept reality of GW
    easier to reject GW. (2) Any focusing event
    (hurricane, drought) can be blamed on contingent
    factors (weather). The generic phenomenon of GW
    is abstract, not visible, not acute

Kingdon GW policy stream
  • Policy stream (1) Basic principle of polluter
    pays is simple familiar but very difficult to
    apply wrt de-carbonizing economy. (2) Rationale
    for action by one nation easily undercut by free
    rider incentive.
  • Yet if broad agreement on policy solutions not
    in place within policy stream before events open
    a policy window, change advocates will not be
    able to take advantage of open window.

  • Political stream Politicians have strong
    incentives to think short-term, length of
    electoral cycles, not longer.

Fossil fuels, econ growth, temperature
  • 300 years of econ growth in ACs fueled by fossil
    fuels (coal, oil, gas)
  • Econ growth in DCs over past 60 yrs fueled by
  • DCs determined to grow with fossil fuels, saying
    we did not cause CC, you caused it, you solve

The economic growth survival dilemma
  • Annual emissions of GHG have risen almost 2x as
    fast in 2000-2010 as in last several decades of
    20th C.
  • World on track to more than double current GHG
    concentration in atmosphere by end of century,
    relative to 1880. Doubling might push up av
    global temps by 3 8C relative to late 19th C.
  • Devastating effects glaciers, droughts, crop
    productivity, sea levels/flooding, vanished
    coastal land, storm frequency intensity,
    species extinction, infectious diseases.
  • So, fuel of econ growth might destroy growth --
    human civilization, many non-human species

2C rise in global surface temperature as
  • Av global surface temp is 0.8C higher than in
    1880 2/3 of this since 1975.
  • Striking that evidence on damaging effects of GW
    to date come after only 0.8C rise.
  • Medium (not extreme) forecasts suggest rise of
    global surface temperature of 2C relative to
    1880, by 2040-50.
  • Widely agreed international target CHECK limit
    temp rise to 2C.
  • Present rise is almost 1C. So only 1C headroom
  • But 2C is NOT temperature cliff it is
    compromise on a spectrum, b/w what is inevitable
    (1C rise) what wld probably have extremely
    disruptive consequences for world (3C or more)

Effects of GW on DCs
  • To extent that GW happens, costs born
    disproportionately by popns of DCs who did
    least to cause the problem
  • Likely (but not certain) that costs will
    overwhelm development ( recurrent) budgets of
    many DCs

The pause
  • Why difference b/w surface temp trend heat
    absorption trend in past 15 yrs?
  • Ocean heat absorption. Rising atmospheric heat
    absorption (generated largely by human activity
    releasing GHG) absorbed more in deep oceans than
    at surface. In previous several decades oceans
    absorbed less heat, causing faster surface
  • Why the difference? Ocean cycles. Cycles come to
    end current cycle of deep ocean absorption will
    end, surface warming will accelerate.

Other ampliers of GW
  • Positive feedback loops eg ocean warming
    permafrost melting
  • Current human dietary trends Human diet switches
    towards meat as incomes rise. Livestck emissions
    of GHG (methane) likely to almost double by 2050.
    Emissions cld be much reduced by switch in diet
    to Mediterranean, fish, vegan

GW effects of animal ag
  • New documentary film, Cowspiracy, producers Kip
    Anderson Keegan Kuhn
  • Shows how livestock ? GW, via methane.
  • But this hardly known. Why? (1) Political power
    of livestock industry.
  • (2) Environmental NGOs (eg Sierra Club) mostly
    silent on role of livestock. Dont think they can
    base a win campaign on it. Their funding
    organizations have threatened to withdraw.
  • Solution simple plant-based diets

Economists and GW
  • Almost all prominent economic commentators take
    economic growth and consumption increases as the
    touchstones of progress and think of
    environmental sustainability, if at all, in a
    separate box.
  • Eg comments on big falls in oil prices, 2nd half
    of 2014. Most stress benefits, make no or
    marginal mention of environmental effects of
    higher oil consumption. Eg Martin Wolf, ___.

DCs China
  • China 29 carbon emissions, highest. (US 25)
  • China expected to add equivalent of new 500 MW
    coal-powered electric plant every 10 days for
    next decade (US govt projections)
  • China a world leader in renewable energy
    innovation. Planning major expansion of
    emission-free power by 2030. But, large
    components of that are nuclear, hydro. And 80
    of Chinas energy will still be from fossils.
  • Strong current of opinion West trying to slow
    Cs industrial growth
  • But also, C govt worried ( public worried) abt
    local air pollution most actions to improve also
    reduce carbon emissions.

DCs India
  • 3rd largest global carbon emitter. Accounts for
    __ global.
  • 300 mn Indians no access to electricity, many mns
    more get it fitfully. Average energy consumption
    7 of USs.
  • India 5th largest reserves of coal in world,
    little oil gas. GOI committed to coal rush
    (its coal 2 times as polluting as Wests). P.
    Goyal, power minister Indias development
    imperatives cannot be sacrificed at the altar of
    potential climate changes many yrs in the future.
    The West will have to recognize we have the needs
    of the poor (quoted in G. Harris, As others try
    to clean air, India raises bet on coal, NYT, 18
    Nov 2014
  • Yet Indias cities already worlds most polluted.
    Delhi air 3 times more toxic by one crucial
    measure than Beijings.
  • Its coal plans represent biggest obstacle to
    global agreement in Paris

  • US Obama blocked by Congress. Has resorted to
    tighter regulations on emissions from cars coal
    power stations wout much public support.
  • Power shifting from paralysed federal level to
    state level, which may be more open to pressure
    from NGOs (eg to push solar).
  • But, Keystone XL Pipeline CHECK if it goes
    ahead, Obama not-climate president

  • Has pledged to cut emissions by 40 by ___.

International action
  • Current disputes b/w DCs ACs rooted in
    international agreements signed in 1990s (esp
    Kyoto), when ACs alone agreed to reduce
    emissions. Since, ACs have kept emissions fairly
    flat, while DCs have fast increased theirs.
  • Most DCs still insist that reductions shd be made
    by ACs only.

Possible reasons for no serious policy response?
  • Not because we dont know main lines of solution.
    We do (1) switch to renewable/ non-fossil fuels
    ( leave most of worlds fossil fuel reserve in
  • (2) capture bury fossil fuel emissions
  • (3) switch consumption / economic growth towards
    non-material services, esp in ACs

  • Tax measures crucial but either tax revenue must
    be tied to environmental purposes, or taxes must
    be applied where there are clear options for
    behavior change eg a progressive tax on cars
    according to gasoline consumption will lead
    people towards smaller cars or driving less.
  • Subsidies for low-carbon innovations (eg
    hydrogen-powered cars)
About PowerShow.com