Dear Hadiza
Thank you for your email, reference TO2011/23141 in response to my letter linking the failure to achieve nuclear disarmament and the failure to agree climate change agreements.
Your letter confirms the worst fears. We should prepare for the worst possible future of global heating, nuclear war and economic collapse.
To address your points:
The Durban platform is flawed. It is premised on starting CO2 reductions in 2020, we cannot wait this long. Atmospheric emissions are currently rising faster than the worst-case scenario of the IPCC report. Section 4 of the Durban platform suggests a review of the IPCC report is carried out over 2013-2015. A two-year review is unnecessary and time wasting. Basic maths that is within the capabilities of a secondary school student shows the worst case scenario is already being significantly exceeded.
In 2010 the biggest ever atmospheric greenhouse gas increase of 6% was recorded. If this trend continues annual emissions will have increased by 69% in 2020. We are not witnessing a mere increase in greenhouse gases. We are witnessing an explosion.
The situation is so severe that even cutting emissions to zero today would not guarantee that global heating can be kept below 2 deg C. By contrast, a downward reduction starting at 2020 following the exponential increase that we expect over the coming years makes planetary survival impossible.
In these circumstances it is absolutely incredible to hear that time continues to be wasted with debate on what to do with unused carbon credits from the first period.
It is hard to see how you can be so positive that the Durban Platform sends a signal to industry and business to invest in low carbon technology. There are no targets, other than to acknowledge that the existing targets will not keep the planet's temperature rise below the 2 deg C threshold and the leisurely timescale allows them 10 years of unfettered growth.
By contrast, restoration of economic growth remains the objective of all nations along with increasing greenhouse gas output. In the UK we are seeing proposals being put forward for an additional airport in the Thames, an energy consuming high-speed rail network and support for virtually every other high carbon industry. This country is no different from any other country in the world. There is absolutely no evidence of any substantive behavioural change since the Durban COP. Instead, there is increasing effort to preserve the business as usual scenario, despite it being manifestly more impossible and immoral to sustain. The current efforts by USA and China to overturn aviation's incorporation into the EU ETS further highlights how little the Durban COP has impacted actual behaviour.
This failure to see significant change in behaviour is in contrast to the opening sentence of the Durban Platform which acknowledges, “that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation.” However, the nation-state system that forms the basis of the COP compels nations to compete economically and militarily. Failure to achieve success in either sphere results in national collapse. The cooperation that is needed is therefore impossible in a competitive environment and it becomes impossible to transform to a zero carbon economy.
The epitome of this competition is the possession of nuclear weapon systems such as Trident. They require huge resources to build and huge economies to raise enough taxes. The maximum cost estimate quoted in your response of £17billion for the platform and warhead is impossibly low. It takes no account of cost growth, which is likely to be high given the technological risks involved. It does not include operational costs, or the costs to defend Trident. Greenpeace’s well-prepared report suggested a more likely figure would be £100billion for the entire through life cost. Even their report does not include the cost for the eventual decommissioning of the submarine and disposal of the nuclear waste from both the reactors and the warheads. Once the decision is made to pursue Trident, it becomes impossible to build a zero carbon economy, as consumption must be kept high to raise the taxes and a high carbon industry must be kept in place and operational to build it. Trident massively increases the stakes in a competitive environment.
What makes this expenditure totally inappropriate is that it is impossible to foresee any time when Trident could be used. Your letter correctly suggests, “We face a more dangerous situation now than we have for several decades. There are substantial risks to our security from emerging nuclear weapons states and state sponsored terrorism.” If deterrence is credible we must be prepared to pre-emptively destroy cities such as Tehran in the event of a nuclear threat from Iran and before they strike our cities. It is hardly surprising they feel the need to build their own nuclear weapons. Likewise if a terrorist group such as Al Qaeda obtains nuclear weapons, which is not affiliated to a state, though gets state support such as from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, are we proposing to destroy Islamabad or Riyadh? It is better by far to focus on the dirty work of stopping nuclear weapons proliferation.
Given the strategic failure of Trident in the face of climate change, it is hugely disturbing that the initial gate document states a primary objective of the decision to proceed with a Trident replacement is that “We must retain the capability to design, build and support nuclear submarines and meet the commitment for a successor to the Vanguard Class submarines.” This objective will be shared by our competing nations who also must continue to build nuclear submarines to keep their submarine building capability intact. This is the ultimate paradox; the thing that is meant to protect us has become our biggest threat. The nation states have become more concerned about the preservation of their arms industries than the security of their people. Both the UK security review of 2008 and the American Centre for Naval Assessment concluded that their biggest threat was climate change.
As a further disconnect from reality, the initial gate document states that the Trident replacement will “deliver our minimum credible nuclear deterrent out until the 2060s.” This is beyond 2050, when the planet is not expected to be habitable through global heating. If Trident is successful in preventing nuclear war, then the last survivors on the planet will be the crews of the Trident submarines and their equivalent submarines from other countries. If for no other reason, this is the strongest reason for not proceeding with replacement. There will be no intact economy able to safely decommission the submarines and these will pose too big a risk to the few survivors.
Section 8 of the Durban Platform states “Parties and observer organizations to submit by 28 February 2012 their views on options and ways for further increasing the level of ambition.” As a party to this I would ask that by this date you raise the linkage between nuclear disarmament and action on climate change.
I would therefore ask that you submit the following proposals for submission by the above date:
1. There is a global agreement to stop further building of strategic nuclear forces.
2. The existing strategic forces are put under a multinational command and any country committed to greenhouse gas reductions can join this grouping and seek protection from it.
3. That an alternative economic system is introduced based on personal carbon rations and these are tradable within the countries committed to carbon reductions.
If you are not able to advance these ideas, then please advise what alternatives you propose that will allow the international co-operation needed to avoid disaster.
This correspondence will be made public on my blog http://kevsclimatecolumn.blogspot.com/
Yours sincerely,
Kevin Lister
5 comments:
Kev' You believe that we should see the introduction of an alternative economic system introduced, based on personal carbon rations and these are tradable within the countries committed to carbon reductions.... Get Real, as a consumer yourself who is clearly not self-sufficient in any way, you must understand how totally ridiculous and bold that statement is...
We all consume, that is not the issue. What is the issue is that we must all consume a fraction of what we do today and be able to distribute resources fairly. What is also the issue is that our system allows the savings made by one person to be used unnecessarily by someone else.
Your assertion that no change is needed in the face of runaway climate change is far braver than mine. If you have a better idea, then please put it forward. Also please ask DECC what proposals they are going to put forward by the 28th Feb.
In case you think that it is a bunck of left wing hippies that are peddling climate change stories, then do please check out the recent statements from the International Energy Agency (IEA) warning of global temperature increases of 6 deg C by the end of this century if continue going the way we are.
Kev, my comment makes no assertion that no change is needed. Nor do I state that I believe you to be a left wing hippy peddling climate change stories. Instead I find your black and white absolutism, which has the stench of middle class superiority all over it.
As a business and environment lecturer, I find it irresponsible to discuss such issues in a way which talks down to people, assuming that your knowledge of the environment is superior and that because you have clearly had a green renaissance that everyone else must do the same. Personal carbon quotas are not the way forward.. unfortunately I don't yet have the answer.. but I certainly won't be promoting a wholly unrealistic economic and social new world order. Instead I work hard to draw people attention to issues, without be condescending which has clearly not got us anywhere up to this point. As a teacher yourself I'm very surprised that you have very little grasp of the fact that plain talking education is the way forward. On a lighter note I cannot fault your knowledge, grasp of issues or sentiment.
Dear Anonymous,
Firstly, my apologies for suggesting that you were calling me a left wing hippy.
Now onto business - there is no choice other than carbon rationing or a very similar system. It is the only way of allowing fair distribution of critical resources in a declining economy. It is nothing to do with middle class values or green renaissances. It is simply to do with the harsh realities facing us.
Our existing economic system is based around the concept of continuous economic growth. If there is no growth the system collapses. We now entering a period of long term and continuous contraction due to climate change and resource shortages. As the system collapses the competitive situation we are forced to fight within means that the weakest will be sacrificed first. Meanwhile, the strongest will consolidate their power. This is happening today across the world.
As regards your assertion about a new social world order, then yes it is. It is a world order that provides resources for all. By contrast, the existing debt based finance system is the perfect mechanism for a small elite to consolidate their power in an economic collapse and the recipe for civil war.
Maybe you don't like the concept, but carbon rationing is the ultimate form of co-operation. In contrast, debt based finance is the ultimate form of competition. If you stick with competitive engagement in a zero sum game, you have to kill you opponent before they kill you. They are the only options. Co-operate accepting mutual sacrifices or compete and either kill or be killed.
As regards being a teacher, I am not a business and environmental lecturer. I am a maths lecturer, though I do have qualifications in the business. It is understanding the maths behind these debates that is important. Fortunately, the maths is very simple and easily understood at GCSE level. The problem is that in general it is not taught in the classes. To put the maths in context, if we continue with business as usual, itshows we will add the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere in the next 20 years as we have ever added since we first crawled out the caves at the end of the Stone age. This will wipe all life out.
As regards the effectiveness of education - do you not think I have tried that option? I have run class and workshops to explain the severity of climate change, only to see the people I teach flying abroad, or taking jobs in high carbon industries. The problem, is that pressure to consume is so great it is totally unrealistic to think that people will voluntarily reduce their emissions on mass.
Also remember, no one can reduce their emissions below zero. However one extreme consumers creates the emissions from hundreds if not thousands of low consumers. Again basic maths comes in handy. It shows the top 5% of society create 30% of our emissions. These top consumers will not listen to polite requests to reduce emissions. They have done everything within their power to either stop or subvert the message and will continue to do so in the future. They must be forced to stop.
Carbon Rationing is not something that will be hated by the poorest, it will be hated by the richest and most destructive people in society. That is fine by me.
Post a Comment