Everyone loses. The question is defining when and how.
As climate quickly changes and related-effects are felt worldwide, nation states featuring more financial and military resources will increasingly invest in preventive infrastructure and meet their national security by securing “treaties” with former colonies. However, incremental changes and palliative measures are political smart band-aids to temporarily cover up internal social unrest, nationalist discourses, and economic meltdowns. In the twilight, poor nations had long perished, and rich ones are following suit.
Everyone is to blame for. Rich or poor -- we will sink together in the epilogue. We should not point our fingers at the Japanese, Canadians, Russians, and Australians. If they want to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol it is because they have realized that the Clean Development Mechanism has done little to address global warming. Why only us paying? At what cost? Should not be better to allocate resources within borders where there is more accountability over tax-payers money? Answers to these questions usually gravitate around the argument: “Let’s do our homework and create added value for our constituents.” This is a legitimate nation-state rationale.
However, the beauty of the environment is that it is not about me and them. It is about “us”. No matter how much capital, guns, and scientists a country has in its pockets, the world will increasingly get warmer as the whole depends on all its parts to survive. So, is the solution doing my part and diplomatically asking others to do theirs -- or coerce to do so? Maybe if one plans to break out an unprecedented international conflict and making all of us worse-off in a very short period of time.
The solution is cultural. We should change politics. We should change economics. By voting to candidates that ignore the risks of not investing in elementary education and defending the expansion of existing infrastructure without offering structural and behavior-change alternatives, we are greatly increasing the burden on our children. By believing that happiness derives from “having” and “more”, we are indirectly encouraging the exploration of natural resources and intensive energy-use products by reinforcing a utilitarian mindset very little concerned with surroundings.
Cultural changes, however, are painful processes and heavily rely on legal enforcement or cyclical collapse. We make a choice. Do we share our responsibility worldwide or continue walking towards abysm? I go with the latter because I myself am not taking the stairs, continue driving to grocery stores, and intuitively respond to “Black Friday” irresistible savings.
segunda-feira, 12 de dezembro de 2011
COP 17 -- Durban
Climate change? Food and energy security? Green technology? Bahhh! The international media -- from US-Europe-Japan to Caribbean & Pacific Islands -- is concerned about other things. Economic crisis in the EU, political unrest in Egypt and Syria, and “Spider-Man” are definitely selling more. The only national media newspapers making any reference to UN climate change talks starting today in Durban are the ones from China, India, Brazil, and, of course, South Africa. I wonder what does that mean?
http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/Alarm-bells-ringing-UN-climate-chief-20111127
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2011-11/28/content_14170909.htm
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/At-South-Africa-climate-meet-India-fights-for-right-to-grow/articleshow/10897345.cms
http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/vidae,crise-economica-ameaca-conferencia-do-clima,803756,0.htm
PS. To the ones advocating limiting economic growth by imposing draconian mechanisms and carbon taxes worldwide; please, do not miss The Times of India’s article.
http://www.news24.com/SciTech/News/Alarm-bells-ringing-UN-climate-chief-20111127
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2011-11/28/content_14170909.htm
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/At-South-Africa-climate-meet-India-fights-for-right-to-grow/articleshow/10897345.cms
http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/vidae,crise-economica-ameaca-conferencia-do-clima,803756,0.htm
PS. To the ones advocating limiting economic growth by imposing draconian mechanisms and carbon taxes worldwide; please, do not miss The Times of India’s article.
UNEP Report
This is an interesting UNEP report on causes and solutions for environmental issues over the last twenty years. The main causes for degradation is the rate of consumption growth and GHG emissions deriving from few powerhouse economies. Solutions are tax incentives boosting low carbon initiatives, renewable energy technology, organic farming, and green certification.
In Portuguese: http://www.institutocarbonobrasil.org.br/reportagens_carbonobrasil/noticia=728862
In Portuguese: http://www.institutocarbonobrasil.org.br/reportagens_carbonobrasil/noticia=728862
No Impact Week
Quite interesting going over all progress reports. Wish I had also participated but too lazy. To the survivals and the ones interested in extending this exercise for three other weeks, I highly suggest El Camino de Santiago de Compostela. This is not only a pilgrimage on "no impact" but, more than that, a permanent reflection on what really matters. Buen Camino,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2011/may/02/camino-pilgrims-route
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJr2FzPnn1A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDOTJHbwRj4
http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2011/may/02/camino-pilgrims-route
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJr2FzPnn1A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDOTJHbwRj4
Quick reflection on tonight's questions
Interesting questions raised tonight related to carbon tax, cap and trade, and the role of planners in the local, regional, and federal levels in the U.S. This is a very complex matter and this is my modest two cents for the discussion.
“It’s the economy, stupid” was the sentence that Clinton repeatedly addressed to Bush during 1992 campaign. Since Bill won the elections and positioned the U.S. in an ascent spiral movement, I must say that economics is certainly not only part of the problem but mainly the solution for reducing carbon emissions and promoting low-carbon economic systems. Cap and trade, for instance, has been the financial rationale behind the transformation of methane cumulative trash into energy generator and profitable landfills in developing countries.
In our brief and productive group discussion, Michele shared her surprise on how expensive is adopting environmentally-minded behavior during “No Impact Week”. Indeed, organics are not cheap. Neither are the prices of certified green products for furniture, vehicles, and houses. Green looks more like gold, actually. The way they are marketed today make them widely perceived more like a luxurious trendy for rich pockets -- or a non-optional for the extremely disadvantaged living in marginalized areas. In addition, Jacqueline and Brinton mentioned how cheap products are at Wal-Mart and thus merchandise prices should be increased by adding carbon taxes on individual consumption and corporative economic chains. This is believed to change behavior. Spending more dollars do make us think twice before buying something; however, no one can resist to incentives like free treats at CostCo.
No one wants to pay a little more but everyone expects to earn -- a lot more.
Incentives do just that. Subsidies for the ones buying electric cars are a great idea even though may lead to economic disruptions in the long-term. Tax rebates for householders installing photovoltaic panels are another positive fiscal initiative. These two mechanisms promise to change how the Japanese ride cars and Hawaii’s residents consume electricity by 2050. The solution, therefore, seems to be right in front of our noses. We basically need to understand how people make decisions and how these decisions can be channeled for something environmentally and socially responsible.
The U.S. is the country where corporations call the shots. Its citizens have a lot to thank for. The high rates of living standards of over three hundred million people have only been achieved because policymakers here have historically partnered with local corporations helping them become global. By advocating “free market” overseas and ingeniously operating monopolies within its borders local leaders have created the most resilient economy in the twentieth century and still in this one. Ask a Chinese tycoon what currency he buys during financial crises. It is certainly not the overregulatedEuro, let alone the Yuan. In a country where citizens have a strong sense of rights and duties, as Tocqueville pointed out in the first half of the 19thcentury, this is an economic model that the world should learn from its failures to sharpen their our models, even if they go against the State Department’s powerful interests -- and bombs.
The role of the United States is of a leader. I am saying so on behalf of other countries’ welfare. No one consumes more than a U.S. average citizen. Storage stores are a phenomenal business here even in a limited space and expensive land like the Hawaiian islands. The U.S. national leaders should continue promoting consumerism but not only opening markets and finding low cost suppliers for its companies -- after all, the world will not react warmly if it is forced to become A-American Self-Storages. If the U.S. citizens are really concerned about their local issues -- like obesity -- and global problems -- like the underpaid and over-exploited Chinese manual labor and the impact of a beautiful iMac on public health --, they should advocate in unison on Wall Street as well as at other decision-making locations fiscal and monitoring mechanisms enforced by federal and state laws against U.S. companies violating human rights inside and outside their borders. By doing so, the U.S. voters would trigger a direct shift within its borders and foster indirect changes in countries restraining citizens from basic living conditions at the same time as it establishes a competitive market where prices do not necessarily go sky-high. In other words, it is still possible to enjoy an iPhone and go to bed in peace knowing that others are taking a bit of your Apple.
In this context, the role of planners is more than mediating conflicting interests and mobilizing stakeholders. Planners must first be able to collect various data and influence decision-making processes by designing spaces where private interests coexist with public properties. An example is “tax free zones”. By providing cutting-edge infrastructure and creating areas where incentives reduce deadweight losses, planners implement conditions for a growing number of white and blue collar positions while abiding by regulations that only permit the import and export of environmentally-certified or socially-responsible products. By leveling the playing field, therefore, planners potentially turn urban areas in the U.S. into thousand of Masdar Cities and indirectly influence the appearance of many others worldwide -- if we totally ignore what politics is about, but this is another story.
“It’s the economy, stupid” was the sentence that Clinton repeatedly addressed to Bush during 1992 campaign. Since Bill won the elections and positioned the U.S. in an ascent spiral movement, I must say that economics is certainly not only part of the problem but mainly the solution for reducing carbon emissions and promoting low-carbon economic systems. Cap and trade, for instance, has been the financial rationale behind the transformation of methane cumulative trash into energy generator and profitable landfills in developing countries.
In our brief and productive group discussion, Michele shared her surprise on how expensive is adopting environmentally-minded behavior during “No Impact Week”. Indeed, organics are not cheap. Neither are the prices of certified green products for furniture, vehicles, and houses. Green looks more like gold, actually. The way they are marketed today make them widely perceived more like a luxurious trendy for rich pockets -- or a non-optional for the extremely disadvantaged living in marginalized areas. In addition, Jacqueline and Brinton mentioned how cheap products are at Wal-Mart and thus merchandise prices should be increased by adding carbon taxes on individual consumption and corporative economic chains. This is believed to change behavior. Spending more dollars do make us think twice before buying something; however, no one can resist to incentives like free treats at CostCo.
No one wants to pay a little more but everyone expects to earn -- a lot more.
Incentives do just that. Subsidies for the ones buying electric cars are a great idea even though may lead to economic disruptions in the long-term. Tax rebates for householders installing photovoltaic panels are another positive fiscal initiative. These two mechanisms promise to change how the Japanese ride cars and Hawaii’s residents consume electricity by 2050. The solution, therefore, seems to be right in front of our noses. We basically need to understand how people make decisions and how these decisions can be channeled for something environmentally and socially responsible.
The U.S. is the country where corporations call the shots. Its citizens have a lot to thank for. The high rates of living standards of over three hundred million people have only been achieved because policymakers here have historically partnered with local corporations helping them become global. By advocating “free market” overseas and ingeniously operating monopolies within its borders local leaders have created the most resilient economy in the twentieth century and still in this one. Ask a Chinese tycoon what currency he buys during financial crises. It is certainly not the overregulatedEuro, let alone the Yuan. In a country where citizens have a strong sense of rights and duties, as Tocqueville pointed out in the first half of the 19thcentury, this is an economic model that the world should learn from its failures to sharpen their our models, even if they go against the State Department’s powerful interests -- and bombs.
The role of the United States is of a leader. I am saying so on behalf of other countries’ welfare. No one consumes more than a U.S. average citizen. Storage stores are a phenomenal business here even in a limited space and expensive land like the Hawaiian islands. The U.S. national leaders should continue promoting consumerism but not only opening markets and finding low cost suppliers for its companies -- after all, the world will not react warmly if it is forced to become A-American Self-Storages. If the U.S. citizens are really concerned about their local issues -- like obesity -- and global problems -- like the underpaid and over-exploited Chinese manual labor and the impact of a beautiful iMac on public health --, they should advocate in unison on Wall Street as well as at other decision-making locations fiscal and monitoring mechanisms enforced by federal and state laws against U.S. companies violating human rights inside and outside their borders. By doing so, the U.S. voters would trigger a direct shift within its borders and foster indirect changes in countries restraining citizens from basic living conditions at the same time as it establishes a competitive market where prices do not necessarily go sky-high. In other words, it is still possible to enjoy an iPhone and go to bed in peace knowing that others are taking a bit of your Apple.
In this context, the role of planners is more than mediating conflicting interests and mobilizing stakeholders. Planners must first be able to collect various data and influence decision-making processes by designing spaces where private interests coexist with public properties. An example is “tax free zones”. By providing cutting-edge infrastructure and creating areas where incentives reduce deadweight losses, planners implement conditions for a growing number of white and blue collar positions while abiding by regulations that only permit the import and export of environmentally-certified or socially-responsible products. By leveling the playing field, therefore, planners potentially turn urban areas in the U.S. into thousand of Masdar Cities and indirectly influence the appearance of many others worldwide -- if we totally ignore what politics is about, but this is another story.
Knock, Knock: Collapse
Forget peak oil or passionate discussions over “limits to growth”. If specialists are correct, collapse is at our doorstep and a painful and accelerated transition to a low-carbon economy is gaining momentum much sooner than we ever thought. A U.S.-Israel pre-emptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities late this year will make oil prices soar like a rocket. Got a bike? (and a helmet?)
http://www.economist.com/node/21538146
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index.php/politics/4415-iran-will-respond-to-any-attack-with-iron-fist-leader
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/iran-sees-nuclear-program-as-last-line-of-defense-against-west-expert-says-1.394986
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/bog091111.html
http://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2011/11/10/teheran-met-en-garde-contre-toute-attaque-de-ses-sites-nucleaires_1601512_3210.html
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2011-11/10/content_14071818.htm
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/iran-lobbies-for-russian-support/447583.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,796997,00.html
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/opinion/Iran/bomba/elpepiopi/20111109elpepiopi_2/Tes
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204358004577030392418491690.html?mod=WSJ_World_LeadStory
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/02_iran_israel_strike_pollack/02_iran_israel_strike_pollack.pdf
http://www.economist.com/node/21538146
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index.php/politics/4415-iran-will-respond-to-any-attack-with-iron-fist-leader
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/iran-sees-nuclear-program-as-last-line-of-defense-against-west-expert-says-1.394986
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/bog091111.html
http://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2011/11/10/teheran-met-en-garde-contre-toute-attaque-de-ses-sites-nucleaires_1601512_3210.html
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2011-11/10/content_14071818.htm
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/iran-lobbies-for-russian-support/447583.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,796997,00.html
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/opinion/Iran/bomba/elpepiopi/20111109elpepiopi_2/Tes
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204358004577030392418491690.html?mod=WSJ_World_LeadStory
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/02_iran_israel_strike_pollack/02_iran_israel_strike_pollack.pdf
Limits to Growth?
Great point, Carly, in highlighting contradictions between resource scarcity and current patterns of economic growth. Nonetheless, we should be a bit careful about pointing out demographics as a direct cause of environmental degradation. If we keep going along with this rationale we risk strengthening deep-rooted judgments and prejudices fairly inconsistent to what is actually happening on the ground.
Densely populated areas or high rates of population growth do not necessarily mean environmental degradation. Japanese islands are one of the most populated areas worldwide and relatively to its total area consist of one of the greenest places on Earth. The underprivileged tribal group of the Aetas, in the Philippines, however, is quickly going into extinction. They have long been scattered around a vast natural area in Luzon but never enjoyed the same access to material opportunities and living standards than Shinjuku commuters.
Technology and human capital define growth. The more access people have to formal and technical education, the higher the chances of developing and using technology to produce wealth responsibly over time. Technology means efficiency, that is, generating more or same with the same or less amount of inputs. This is what Japanese policymakers have historically been designing to build a resilient nation. And this what the discriminated Negritos have not been legally receiving from Filipino national planners. In addition, international demographic statistics has shown that population growth has consistently been slowing down especially among vulnerable populations hit by residual rates of economic progress.
As well as overpopulation, overconsumption is not a realistic approach to deter environmental degradation. On the contrary, consumption is the foundation of a better life. This model explains how Norway has presented the highest rates of living standards in international ranks. This model functions because people earn a lot and spend a lot. The challenge here is setting up a system that operates not exporting externalities and creates positive environmental feedbacks within closed economic loops. The difficulty here is replicating a local model of a low-intensive energy environmentally-minded economic structure on a contentious and highly sensitive international arena. Fewer people, less consumption and mainly localism are not going to make any of us better off -- nor preserve natural resources.
Densely populated areas or high rates of population growth do not necessarily mean environmental degradation. Japanese islands are one of the most populated areas worldwide and relatively to its total area consist of one of the greenest places on Earth. The underprivileged tribal group of the Aetas, in the Philippines, however, is quickly going into extinction. They have long been scattered around a vast natural area in Luzon but never enjoyed the same access to material opportunities and living standards than Shinjuku commuters.
Technology and human capital define growth. The more access people have to formal and technical education, the higher the chances of developing and using technology to produce wealth responsibly over time. Technology means efficiency, that is, generating more or same with the same or less amount of inputs. This is what Japanese policymakers have historically been designing to build a resilient nation. And this what the discriminated Negritos have not been legally receiving from Filipino national planners. In addition, international demographic statistics has shown that population growth has consistently been slowing down especially among vulnerable populations hit by residual rates of economic progress.
As well as overpopulation, overconsumption is not a realistic approach to deter environmental degradation. On the contrary, consumption is the foundation of a better life. This model explains how Norway has presented the highest rates of living standards in international ranks. This model functions because people earn a lot and spend a lot. The challenge here is setting up a system that operates not exporting externalities and creates positive environmental feedbacks within closed economic loops. The difficulty here is replicating a local model of a low-intensive energy environmentally-minded economic structure on a contentious and highly sensitive international arena. Fewer people, less consumption and mainly localism are not going to make any of us better off -- nor preserve natural resources.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)