by David Steven | Sep 3, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity, North America
When a member of the Bush administration tried to persuade me that her boss was a ‘thought leader’ on climate change, my first thought was that I was being punk’d. But she was serious. And now Karl Rove has emerged from the White House bunker singing a similar song…
On energy, the environment, and climate change, he is developing a new paradigm. Emphasizing technology, increased energy-efficiency partnerships, and resource diversification, his policies are improving energy security and slowing the growth of greenhouse gases without economy-breaking mandates and regulation. The president who won criticism by rejecting the failed approach of Kyoto has implemented policies that enabled the United States to grow its economy by 3.1 percent and reduce the absolute amount of CO2 emissions (by 1.3 percent).
Rove is also refreshingly honest about how the American right plans to shape its Iraq/Afghanistan legacy. Let’s take it step by step:
Option 1: “History will render a favorable verdict if the outcome in the Middle East is similar to what America saw after World War II.” If a miracle happens, Dubya wins.
Option 2: “If the outcome there is like what happened in Vietnam after America abandoned our allies and the region descended into chaos, violence, and danger, history’s judgment will be harsh. History will see President Bush as right, and the opponents of his policy as mistaken — as George McGovern was in his time.” If the worst happens, it’s the liburals fault. Georgie wins again!
Whichever way:
President Bush will be viewed as a far-sighted leader who confronted the key test of the 21st century. He will be judged as a man of moral clarity who put America on wartime footing in the dangerous struggle against radical Islamic terrorism.
Well that’s alright then…
by Alex Evans | Sep 3, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity, Europe and Central Asia
Here’s the chapter and verse from the German Chancellery website:
According to Merkel’s proposal, CO2 emissions would be measured per capita. The maximum COs emissions of a country would thus be measured in terms of population numbers. The larger the population of a country, the more CO2 the country would be permitted to emit. This would mean that every individual in the world would be entitled to emit the same volume of carbon dioxide.
In her proposal, Merkel presupposes that the industrialised countries cut their share of energy consumption as far as possible, thus reducing per capita emissions of carbon dioxide.
The emerging economies, on the other hand, need to grow if they are to reduce poverty. The downside is, of course, that their emissions of CO2 will continue to rise in the years to come. In the final analysis the per capita emissions in emerging economies will meet those of industrialised countries.
If the agreement is to be just, one thing must be clear, however, stressed the Chancellor, “I cannot imagine that the emerging economies will one day be permitted to emit more CO2 per capita than we in the industrialised countries”.
If the emerging economies were to accept this proposal, they would face the task of braking the rise in their CO2 emissions. This is possible with “intelligent growth”, explained Merkel thinking of the most modern of environmental technologies – many of which come from Germany.
With Merkel’s proposal, the emerging nations with rapidly expanding economies could be brought on board the global climate negotiations scheduled for 2009.
This is a big deal.
by Alex Evans | Sep 3, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity, Influence and networks
John Llewelyn, a senior economic policy adviser at Lehman Brothers, had a great piece in the Observer yesterday identifying five distinct categories of belief on climate change:
The Ideological Mainstreamers: this group has been around the longest. Its members did not have to wait for evidence. They were certain there was a problem well before the rump of scientists reached today’s near-consensus.
The Ideological Contrarians: these people require standards of proof no higher than those of the ideological mainstreamers, but hold the opposite view. If they have an intellectual belief, it is that they are smarter than the crowd. More often, though, it is just a game of attracting attention by attacking the majority.
The Grey Conservatives: members of this coterie specialise in appearing reasonable. They are neither pro nor anti, they gravely insist: the problem is simply that there is not enough evidence to support policy action of any sort. Do more research, collect more data and continue the debate, they counsel sagely.
The Non-Sequiturians: various arguments are advanced by this group, but they share a structure. Warming was caused by sunspots, or fluctuations in the Earth’s orbit, or volcanic eruptions. Therefore it cannot be caused by mankind. The ‘therefore’ is the giveaway, the delicious non sequitur: just because Earth has warmed for one or another reason in the past is no reason why it cannot warm for a completely different reason in the future.
The Busy Executives: their argumentation is loftier, but no fuller than it needs to be. Elevating pragmatism to a virtue, they take the position that what matters is not whether the science is right or wrong, but what policymakers are going to do. Given that it increasingly seems that policymakers are going to do various things, the argument runs, skip the argumentation and go straight to the implications for business.
(more…)
