The COP15 was certainly a worthwhile experience all-around for me personally.  Before I left I was incredibly skeptical that anything positive would come out of the conference.  I left the conference not only skeptical but also angry and fearful; angry that just about any group with an agenda used climate change as an impetus for promoting their cause and fearful that in this environment something would actually be drafted.

Well something was in fact drafted and that was the Copenhagen Accord, a pretty short document about 5 pages total.  After reading this document a certain phrase came to mind, altruistic hubris.  I say altruistic because I try not to doubt the intentions of individuals or organizational bodies especially ones I have no immediate personal relationship with and also the people I did meet overwhelmingly seem to be there for the positive reasons.  The arrogance, however, is evident simply in the wording with phrases like “…with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius.”  Just to take a step back, this language is one of management of the global temperature, a role I think no one or body should be in charge of.  Of course the counterpoint is that we have already “controlled our climate through emissions” so we have to do something.  I agree to the extent that we necessarily should reduce emissions but temperature is a marker of increased emissions and not a necessary consequence.  What if we do go above 2C, can we wholly attribute the gradual 2C rise solely to anthropogenic emissions?  If not (because climate attribution ultimately comes down to probabilities not absolutes), then does it make sense to hold temperatures below 2C?   So when documents are drafted describing the necessity for controlling global temperatures this should give us pause at the arrogance of understanding of the climate system.  The issue is emissions, in my humble opinion, and that is what should be the focus not the language of geo-engineering global temperatures at all.

Apart from the outcomes and documents, of course the thing that made the conference truly enjoyable in the end was hanging out with the Michigan delegation.

No tags Hide

Laura Bell and myself happened to have lunch with a delegate from Turkey.  The delegate was roughly around our age and was tasked with being the environmental adviser for her country.  Her particular specialty is air quality and air pollution with more of a focus on measurements and monitoring.  Imagine 28 years old and being an adviser for negotiations regarding multilateral policy at the U.N.   The young lady we had lunch with also said that she was more or less bored with all the useless back and forth at the closed door meetings.  She expressed a sense of futility in trying to draft an agreement.  I guess its difficult for a research scientists/engineer to really enjoy the seemingly needless posturing and formalities of the policy making process.

No tags Hide

I am currently sitting in on a talk regarding the transmission of information to many communities. The speaker has made a striking and valuable point that I would just like to share.  The speakers main point was that we already have a ton of knowledge out there regarding climate change, emissions, land use,….etc.  The real issue is not knowledge or availability of knowledge but rather easy to use interface and visualization tools that integrate that knowledge in simple ways that a non scientist/programmer can use.  He gave the analogy of a library.  Libraries contain tremendous amounts of information AND while it is organized you still may have to sift to tons of books in a given section before you retrieve what you want.  So even organization isn’t enough (sorry decimal system).

They then introduced and walked the audience through a website that serves to do this.  This website, which is not fully ready yet, provides visualization and data about everything from temperature changes between present and future as well as such novel things as coming up with an adaptation index to measure how a country fairs with regards to adaptability and mitigation.  I would love to link to this website but it is still in beta.

No tags Hide

The heart of the conversation regarding emissions reduction really begins with your assumption about this question. Oftentimes the impulse we have in response to a global situation is naturally “well the problem is global so we need something just as large and just as global to address the issue.” While we might not think so robotically, it is a reflex…and lets be honest it does roll off the tongue; Global problem? Global Solution! This type of reflex was seen during the financial crisis when you had the speaker of the house suggesting an international tax on Wall Street (one of many other examples [1] [2] [3] ).

So back to the original question, do global problems require global solutions. In short my answer is no, as some may have already guessed. Rather I believe the very existence of a global problem shows that a global policy solution is not required. We frequently hear about globalization and how all the nations are so tightly connected. As a result of this global connection naturally we should see that the policies and decisions one country makes will inevitably affect other nations.

Up until now I have deliberately refrained from defining the “problem” or the “policies” in question primarily because the problem is so ill-defined. When discussing climate change and greenhouse emissions, we can see and feel the symptoms so we often define the problem in terms of symptoms and solutions in terms of directly attacking those symptoms. Let me take a crack at defining the problem that produced the symptom, dramatic increases in emissions, which has the potential of placing a burden on the global environment. Problem-symptom sequence: 1) weak dollar policy plus perception of demand for dollars around the world due to its reserve currency status causes the dollar itself to be our number one export 2) U.S. ends up shifting its economy from production to consumption and production is shifted overseas (~70% consumption based economy) 3) With lower environmental standards overseas and a high demand for consumer goods we find countries, such as China, willing to pick up the production slack 4) Production takes energy so we see 2-4 coal plants being created per week in China 5) Causes more greenhouse gas emissions for both the consuming country (U.S.) and the producer (China). Admittedly I skipped a few details so I wouldn’t have a 20 step sequence but in general I believe this captures my thought.

My follow-up question is, why do we have to play this silly waiting game of the U.S. waiting on China who is waiting on the India who is waiting on the U.S. in order for emissions to be reduced? The U.S. is in a unique position to act through monetary and REAL fiscal policy reform (due to the dollars reserve currency status) that would in turn effect production and emissions behavior around the world, or at least from our largest trading partners. I realize this isn’t a politically favorable way to address environmental problems but do you really believe 60+ world leaders and delegates representing 60+ nations will come to a mutually beneficial agreement that is good for each economy and for the environment in two weeks or ever? A global solution seems to be the unfavorable one in my book….

No tags Hide