It's Getting Hot In Here...
The sheer scale of the ESF and huge variety of events which you could chose to attend was at times overwhelming. As a consequence you couldn't possibly get to all the meetings you might like to and I for one ended up selecting many more or less at random. This highly complex selection procedure resulted in me attending two meetings looking at global warming, the first focused on the phenomenon consequences for development, while the latter was ostensibly about emissions trading, although the discussion seemed more focused on the Kyoto protocol and other international agreements concerned with the problem.
My notes from the two meetings stretch to several pages, but much of what I recorded would probably be of little interest were I to attempt to write it up given my own, admittedly limited, knowledge of the area. Instead I will attempt to tease out the elements which I thought were particularly interesting and eye opening.
One idea which ran through the first meeting was the relationship between global warming and the north-south relationship. It was pointed out that the problem is largely the historical responsibility of the West, but that it is the Global South, who are the least able to cope, who will be the worst hit. That said, speakers argued that we are already beginning to see the consequences of global warming even in the developed world. The deaths in last year's French heatwave were cited as an example, with the proviso that the consequences in the Third World are likely to be far worse.
Particularly worrying were statistics which were cited which showed that if nothing were done 1,053,000,000 people would be at an increased risk of water shortages. Even if Kyoto were implemented in full, 800,000,000 would still be at an increased risk. Nonetheless the speaker (her name escapes me, but I think she was a professor) argued that because the likely consequences are so serious and irreversible we cannot afford to do nothing on the basis of scientific uncertainty (although she made a convincing case for the reality of global warming).
By far the most impressive speaker was Andrew Simms from the New Economics Foundation. His speech consisted of a fascinating argument about western responsibility for climate change, which I could not hope to recount in detail here although a few of his points merit repeating, even out of context. He discussed the gold stolen from the people's of Latin America and used to fund the development of the west. He cited an activist who argued that this should be seen as a friendly loan - any other interpretation would see it as an act of war - on which compound interest should be repayable at the usual rate. Had this been done the weight of a pile of gold equal in value to the total amount of the interest would apparently be greater than the weight of the Earth. Simms also revealed that one company was presenting coal as an "alternative" fuel, arguing that it is an alternative to wood.
My favourite comment was his description of emissions trading as a "trade in stolen goods" (because the consequences of global warming flow from northern exploitation of southern resources). He added to this later by describing carbon sequestration (the planting of forests to "offset" carbon emissions) as "carbon laundering". He also had an amusing, if elaborate, analogy for the plight of those in the Third World in which he described someone returning to their home to find it full of uninvited guests from the north using up the air and who had also left the taps and gas running, causing serious damage to the premises. In this situation, he argued, the claims of the uninvited guests that they were helping the homeowners by virtue of small aid payments would hardly be credible.
The meeting on emissions trading was much drier and there is little I feel compelled to recount here, apart from noting the proliferation of firms and inter-governmental organisations swarming around the issue, seen as a major market opportunity.
My notes from the two meetings stretch to several pages, but much of what I recorded would probably be of little interest were I to attempt to write it up given my own, admittedly limited, knowledge of the area. Instead I will attempt to tease out the elements which I thought were particularly interesting and eye opening.
One idea which ran through the first meeting was the relationship between global warming and the north-south relationship. It was pointed out that the problem is largely the historical responsibility of the West, but that it is the Global South, who are the least able to cope, who will be the worst hit. That said, speakers argued that we are already beginning to see the consequences of global warming even in the developed world. The deaths in last year's French heatwave were cited as an example, with the proviso that the consequences in the Third World are likely to be far worse.
Particularly worrying were statistics which were cited which showed that if nothing were done 1,053,000,000 people would be at an increased risk of water shortages. Even if Kyoto were implemented in full, 800,000,000 would still be at an increased risk. Nonetheless the speaker (her name escapes me, but I think she was a professor) argued that because the likely consequences are so serious and irreversible we cannot afford to do nothing on the basis of scientific uncertainty (although she made a convincing case for the reality of global warming).
By far the most impressive speaker was Andrew Simms from the New Economics Foundation. His speech consisted of a fascinating argument about western responsibility for climate change, which I could not hope to recount in detail here although a few of his points merit repeating, even out of context. He discussed the gold stolen from the people's of Latin America and used to fund the development of the west. He cited an activist who argued that this should be seen as a friendly loan - any other interpretation would see it as an act of war - on which compound interest should be repayable at the usual rate. Had this been done the weight of a pile of gold equal in value to the total amount of the interest would apparently be greater than the weight of the Earth. Simms also revealed that one company was presenting coal as an "alternative" fuel, arguing that it is an alternative to wood.
My favourite comment was his description of emissions trading as a "trade in stolen goods" (because the consequences of global warming flow from northern exploitation of southern resources). He added to this later by describing carbon sequestration (the planting of forests to "offset" carbon emissions) as "carbon laundering". He also had an amusing, if elaborate, analogy for the plight of those in the Third World in which he described someone returning to their home to find it full of uninvited guests from the north using up the air and who had also left the taps and gas running, causing serious damage to the premises. In this situation, he argued, the claims of the uninvited guests that they were helping the homeowners by virtue of small aid payments would hardly be credible.
The meeting on emissions trading was much drier and there is little I feel compelled to recount here, apart from noting the proliferation of firms and inter-governmental organisations swarming around the issue, seen as a major market opportunity.
posted by Disillusioned kid at 3:32 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home