Sunday, December 11, 2005
Montreal: headline agreement, victory for all
I am joining I'm sure many other bloggers commentating on the "breakthrough" agreement on climate change policy in Montreal in the early hour of Saturday morning. Nevertheless, stay with me if you will.
The headline is that the USA has been pressured into joining future negotiations on carbon emission targets beyond 2012, when obligations under the present Kyoto protocol lapse. "Son of Kyoto" is seen by environmentalists as a victory: the nations of the world will continue to work together to save the planet. Grown men wept when agreement was reached (probably for sheer joy that they could finally get some sleep).
Now let's look at the reality. America has agreed to talk, which I think is politically sensible, but has explicitly said it will not agree to targets. There is no conceivable possibility that major developing countries - China, India and Brazil in particular - will jeopardise their future growth in the name of climate control. And, finally, none of the major countries supporting Kyoto and the new agreement is likely to meet its 2012 targets other than by the sleight of hand of buying carbon credits from Russia and other countries whose heavy industry has collapsed.
So, the 10,000 delegates now leave their heated glass building in frigid Montreal and fly back to their home countries, to be collected at the airport by air-conditioned, chauffered cars. Thousands of column inches in newspapers will be wasted on analysis of an empty agreement. Governments will spend millions on measures to limit carbon dioxide emissions. The climate will continue to change under the influence of factors we don't understand. But at least it gives environmentalists something to concentrate on, and takes the pressure off other issues.
Green groups and Kyoto-ratifying governments hail this as a victory. The US should also see the benefits: it's more difficult to consider a country a pariah when it's part of a negotiation process. The burst of worrying research published in the last month or two will recede, and climate change will come lower down the priority list until the next big event. And, finally, we'll realise that governments just cannot take the political risk of legislating for the savage cuts in carbon intensity (and consequent harm to economic growth) to which they pay lip service.
In the meantime, oil, coal and gas prices will be subject to normal market forces, technology will advance, and our energy mix will change without any government interference.
The headline is that the USA has been pressured into joining future negotiations on carbon emission targets beyond 2012, when obligations under the present Kyoto protocol lapse. "Son of Kyoto" is seen by environmentalists as a victory: the nations of the world will continue to work together to save the planet. Grown men wept when agreement was reached (probably for sheer joy that they could finally get some sleep).
Now let's look at the reality. America has agreed to talk, which I think is politically sensible, but has explicitly said it will not agree to targets. There is no conceivable possibility that major developing countries - China, India and Brazil in particular - will jeopardise their future growth in the name of climate control. And, finally, none of the major countries supporting Kyoto and the new agreement is likely to meet its 2012 targets other than by the sleight of hand of buying carbon credits from Russia and other countries whose heavy industry has collapsed.
So, the 10,000 delegates now leave their heated glass building in frigid Montreal and fly back to their home countries, to be collected at the airport by air-conditioned, chauffered cars. Thousands of column inches in newspapers will be wasted on analysis of an empty agreement. Governments will spend millions on measures to limit carbon dioxide emissions. The climate will continue to change under the influence of factors we don't understand. But at least it gives environmentalists something to concentrate on, and takes the pressure off other issues.
Green groups and Kyoto-ratifying governments hail this as a victory. The US should also see the benefits: it's more difficult to consider a country a pariah when it's part of a negotiation process. The burst of worrying research published in the last month or two will recede, and climate change will come lower down the priority list until the next big event. And, finally, we'll realise that governments just cannot take the political risk of legislating for the savage cuts in carbon intensity (and consequent harm to economic growth) to which they pay lip service.
In the meantime, oil, coal and gas prices will be subject to normal market forces, technology will advance, and our energy mix will change without any government interference.
Friday, December 09, 2005
A greener shade of blue
Within 48 hours of becoming the new leader of the Conservative party, David Cameron is establishing his street cred with environmentalists. Today, he launches a new policy group on the environment, the first of six covering different areas. This is to be led by Sir John "beefburger" Gummer, which is hardly a surprise. Alongside him will be Zac Goldsmith, son of the late Sir James, brother to Jemima, editor of the Ecologist (bankrolled by his uncle Teddy) and prospective Tory candidate. He follows the tradition of eco-toffs, being in the company not just of his dotty uncle but also Lord Melchett and Jonathon Porritt (Baron Mond).
The policy group will be launched at the Wildfowl and Wetlands centre in Barnes with Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth in attendance, and, to complete the PR exercise, Cameron was tie-less when interviewed on the Today programme. Now that Tony Blair has announced publicly that the reality of politics means that economic factors have to be taken into account when the Kyoto protocol and other green shibboleths are considered, new boy David is trying to establish the Conservatives as greener than thou. Of course, they have competition from the erstwhile Norman Baker and others in the Lib-Dems, but this party can afford to indulge in some pretty radical policies as it doesn't have a hope in hell of gaining power.
So, where will this environmental enthusiasm lead before the next election? Well, according to a BBCi report this morning (Cameron to focus on the environment), Cameron said:
"The real test will come in 18 months time when we have to show we are prepared to take the tough decisions to meet the carbon reduction targets."
Actually, in 18 months time, it's much more likely that (particularly assuming the government-sponsored Stern report on the economics of climate change policy has been published) the political experience of Sir John Gummer will be called upon to explain that the Conservatives place rather more emphasis on economic growth than trendy green policies. Remember to read this post again in summer 2007...
The policy group will be launched at the Wildfowl and Wetlands centre in Barnes with Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth in attendance, and, to complete the PR exercise, Cameron was tie-less when interviewed on the Today programme. Now that Tony Blair has announced publicly that the reality of politics means that economic factors have to be taken into account when the Kyoto protocol and other green shibboleths are considered, new boy David is trying to establish the Conservatives as greener than thou. Of course, they have competition from the erstwhile Norman Baker and others in the Lib-Dems, but this party can afford to indulge in some pretty radical policies as it doesn't have a hope in hell of gaining power.
So, where will this environmental enthusiasm lead before the next election? Well, according to a BBCi report this morning (Cameron to focus on the environment), Cameron said:
"The real test will come in 18 months time when we have to show we are prepared to take the tough decisions to meet the carbon reduction targets."
Actually, in 18 months time, it's much more likely that (particularly assuming the government-sponsored Stern report on the economics of climate change policy has been published) the political experience of Sir John Gummer will be called upon to explain that the Conservatives place rather more emphasis on economic growth than trendy green policies. Remember to read this post again in summer 2007...
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Environmentally-friendly grenades
Yes, that's right: environmentally-friendly grenades. According to a story in World Science (Earth-friendly grenades proposed), mining of copper for grenades is environmentally damaging. Even worse, apparently, is that detonating the grenades means that the copper cannot be recycled. The researchers, from the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology, suggest that replacing copper by plastic would be "greener". So that's OK, then: lob a grenade and save the planet. Perhaps plastic grenades will get a Greenpeace seal of approval (as long as they're produced from renewable resources, of course); in time, use of copper-based munitions may be regarded as a war crime.
Is it just me, or is this work rather missing the point? Grenades are a rather unsophisticated product of our creative ability to kill each other easily. Where does environmentalism come in to this? Is this just one more rather macabre illustration that environmentalism is the new religion?
Is it just me, or is this work rather missing the point? Grenades are a rather unsophisticated product of our creative ability to kill each other easily. Where does environmentalism come in to this? Is this just one more rather macabre illustration that environmentalism is the new religion?
