Global Warming: We Need Equity for Survival
|
August 21, 2003
Can you describe and define what “global commons” means? It is something common to all. The atmosphere is global and something we all depend on. It has no vertical boundaries and is a perfect mixer of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Global Commons Institute (GCI) has proposed its protection by “shared ownership” of the GHG emissions limits necessary to avoid the concentrations and warming being raised too far.
Is climate change real? Yes. As we release more GHGs into the atmosphere - the laws of physics being immutable - more heat is trapped by definition. This is changing the climate. The rate of emissions release is like an uncontrolled explosion in slow motion. The “science” arguments are only about the rate and manner at which the heating effect of this is “masked” by various factors.
So who caused this explosion? The industrial countries did, since around 1800. The unequal GHG emissions and consumption patterns since industrialization are now key among the factors changing the climate. How dangerous do you think the climate change situation is? I think it is very dangerous, and increasingly so, because our response is inadequate and random. If emissions continue to accumulate in the atmosphere at the present rate, consequential damage could break the economy within decades. If we warm the atmosphere too far, the whole climate system will react with potentially runaway greenhouse conditions. We need a roadmap to avoid this. How did the idea of “contraction and convergence” (C&C) come to you - you were, after all, a musician? In 1989 I read about the death of Brazilian social activist Chico Mendez and thought this would be a good subject for a musical. Ranchers clearing the forests murdered him. He was an enigma, but the broader issues were clear and so writing a musical seemed like fiddling while things burned. About a year later the World Resources Institute (WRI) published a league of polluters. The top five countries were USA, USSR, China, India and Brazil. I was incredulous that the WRI could group those countries together ahead of everyone else. In 1990, the accumulated emissions of the industrial country group alone was around 85 per cent of the global total. I also compared emissions per capita internationally for that year. My campaigning was focused from then on. In 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was agreed. Its objective is the restraint of GHG emissions following the principles of precaution and equity. GCI had integrated this formally into C&C by 1996. We added past emissions and a function to project all contraction and convergent emissions futures that stabilize atmospheric GHG concentration at a predefined level. What about critics who say this is just a crazy concept? What makes it a mainstream idea? Those who say climate change is not an issue, or one you can do anything about, are the crazy ones. The mainstream has to deal with the imperative of emissions contraction to meet the objective of the UN climate treaty. By definition, convergence is integral to the contraction. Do we get C&C going at rates that are effective by chance or by choice, by accident or design? How does this differ from the Kyoto Protocol? C&C makes possible a global rate of convergence that can be accelerated relative to contraction, and this can be used to resolve the row about the historic accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere from the industrial countries. More rapid convergence shifts future equity share to the developing countries to settle this “debt”. This makes agreement to work together possible. Kyoto delays global contraction and makes convergence random. But people say that Kyoto, though flawed, is the best that can be expected. Kyoto attempted to bring out leadership from “guilty” countries in the UN treaty. Kyoto-only experts assert that they’ve created a basis on which we go through to 2100 when GHG concentration will be stabilized. Their claim is to be able to resolve 186 countries’ special arguments about why each is the exception during every five-year negotiating period for the next 100 years - while temperature, damage, tempers and panic rise. C&C is the logical continuation of Kyoto or its replacement if it fails. Those proponents of Kyoto who repudiate the C&C framework in favour of perennial Kyoto-style guesswork look silly. What about the USA? Would it support C&C? They do, but may not have spotted it. The Bush administration made stabilizing atmospheric GHG concentration a global security issue last year. Together with the Byrd-Hagel resolution, this is C&C by definition. What are your relations with the European Union (EU)? Good. The EU makes an effort to reduce emissions and create institutional arrangements supporting this. They are seen doing this in front of the rest of the world and they see the logic of C&C.
What about the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS)? If it leads to trade under conditions of C&C, it has promise. The danger is emissions trading becoming a law unto itself, progressively delinked from the problem we are trying to solve. Already there are more people waiting to sell emissions credits than willing buyers. Can you talk about your interface with the multinational companies? Businesses, especially in energy, want to proceed in a responsible way, but they are in difficulty for lack of a road map. Long-term investments have to be secure, and in the absence of a road map there is uncertainty. People are nervous of doing what they know is necessary. Banks and insurance companies know we need a habitable planet to have an economy. At present rates of damage increase from climate change, huge swathes of equity will become uninsurable as the risks become too big to carry. Some have already called for C&C as it creates a roadmap for security and prosperity. They have to underwrite the present system but also have the clout to force C&C. It is only a matter of time. Aubrey Meyer is Director of the Global Commons Institute, UK. He was interviewed by Argus Global Emissions, where a longer version of this interview was originally published. --- OneWorld Guest Editorials represent the viewpoint of the authors and not necessarily that of the OneWorld Network. Read and comment on previous Guest Editorials. If you would like to contribute or suggest a future OneWorld Guest Editorial, please contact Miles Litvinoff. |
Printable version
Back to top
