An Alternative Lesson from Copenhagen

This is an Op-ed by Dugald MacTavish. It was also published in the Otago Daily Times on 5 January .

An Alternative Lesson from Copenhagen

The failure of Copenhagen and where to from here are the subjects of a recent Roger Kerr commentary. I wish to suggest a very different response strategy.

In spite of acknowledging that a “respectable body” of scientists believe that the world has a climate problem, Mr Kerr feels that this is only sufficient justification for judicious policy action “in line with (but not ahead of) our major trading partners”.

This business uppermost approach was echoed in a post-conference debrief by the Rt Hon Bill English. "From New Zealand's point of view we've still got our national interest to negotiate for and we haven't given anything away in this round” (21 Dec 2009) - as if the least action for climate change was unquestionably in our best interest.

This mindset is quite clearly contrary to the advice of many in that “respectable body” of scientific opinion. From the point of view of climate change, we are already in deep trouble and unambiguous emission cuts by “developed” countries are needed now, not in ten years.

For example, a key target option at Copenhagen was a maximum 2-degree post-industrial temperature rise, although many scientists doubt whether this is possible even if we act now. At a recent lecture in Dunedin, Dr Jim Salinger said that he could not see how we can avoid less than 2.1 degrees - 0.7deg rise has occurred, 0.6deg is already in the pipeline and 0.8deg occurs while switching to renewables. And Prof Kevin Anderson of Manchester University calculates that staying within 2 degrees would require year-on-year emissions reductions of 9% starting now. Yes, 9%!

So, how do we do it?

The root cause of the problem is the scale of our fossil-fuel-based human economy that devours, at an escalating rate, our natural capital – soil, clean air and water, fisheries, forests etc - and discharges, among other things, greenhouse gases (GHG). Perhaps the condemnation of “capitalism” at Copenhagen by some third world leaders was an attempt to draw attention to this.

Real data shows a trend relationship between environmental impact, GDP and GHG emissions. So what hope can there be of agreeing on emissions limits (let alone achieving them) when our capitalist economy is configured to expand forever despite the planet’s finite resources? For example, in NZ our goals are in direct conflict – new roads, cement factories, dairy expansion, lignite development and multiple cars and homes - and are not the pathway towards greenhouse gas emissions reduction.

Those who, like Mr Kerr and the Rt Hon Bill English, wish to keep one foot in the growth camp and one in the climate science camp are turning a blind eye to two important realities. One is that the consequences of causing runaway climate change are so catastrophic we simply cannot risk an inadequate response. By analogy, although the chances of the boat sinking are not high, we insist on a life jacket for our child because the possible consequences of not doing so are so unthinkable. And just as we still debate Darwin, absolute consensus on the cause of climate change will never be reached. So the mere existence of the informed body of evidence for it demands immediate action, if we are not to risk handing to our children a planet without hope.

The second is that the combined effect of human population, our collective consumption and our technology is such that humankind are already overexploiting the gross biological capacity of earth by approximately 40% (http://www.footprintnetwork.org). To illustrate the rate of this process, when I was a child in the 50s it was 50% of global biocapacity. Such planetary debt is of course only possible for a limited time without entire system collapse unless one or more of these factors corrects. More specifically, continuing a growth rate of 2%, which doubles GDP every 35 years, is simply no longer possible when each successive doubling period consumes as much resource as all the previous doubling periods combined. Yet the vision for the economy in National’s 2009 Report Card flier includes “Unleashing NZs potential for growth”.

So I think Copenhagen confirms once again that the vast majority simply do not get it - Roger Kerr, Bill English and their colleagues included. The political-economic culture of endless resources and constant growth dominates the thinking of those who develop and implement governmental and corporate policies throughout the developed world, and they approach such forums in “trade negotiation” mode rather than one concerned with the very future of life on earth. To a visiting Alien I’m sure this would seem like collective insanity.

Our pathway is clear. As there can be no economy in an overwhelmed ecosystem, the incremental, wallet-watching, chain-dragging response to the ecological crisis proposed by the Roundtable and demonstrated by our leaders is pointless. What is needed to break the international deadlock on climate change is a bold, far-sighted, incisive, unilateral and truly selfless gesture by NZ, in the same vein as our antinuclear stand. We are not big enough to bulldoze but we are one of the few countries sufficiently nimble and capable to challenge others by example, in our common interest.

Accordingly, we let go of undiscriminating economic growth and profit as underlying policy objectives, and instead throw all our efforts into building durability, self-reliance and stabilizing our life supporting systems, including climate. There will be material costs, but, if we are smart and do it now while the global economy is still stable, there will also be economic opportunity in transition.

With the failure of Rio, Kyoto and now Copenhagen, my hope is that enough individuals will finally recognize that transition is urgent and if it is to happen at all, it will be driven by individual and community action. The prerequisite is rethinking the beliefs, values and assumptions behind our economy and priorities, and forcing governments to provide a new policy framework around emissions, energy and carbon. There is no ethical alternative.

Given unfettered power, here is my Five-Point Plan.

1. Economic activity: Refocus all business on becoming technological and information experts in achieving a low carbon, renewable economy. Not only can we use such technologies ourselves as emissions targets and fuel availability tighten, but we can also market them internationally as an extension of our "clean-green" image.

2. Manage Supply: Align fossil fuel imports with national emission reduction targets and ration access. This will buy time to transform into a renewable economy and extend the life of remaining resources. It will also create a predictable environment where people and businesses can develop systems of conservation and efficiency to make best use of allocated resource.

3. Manage Demand: Require low-energy, low consumption living systems and much greater self-reliance at all levels, particularly with food. This will automatically reduce our emissions and our unsustainable ecological footprint, and at the same time reduce vulnerability to climate, economic or energy shocks.

4. Mitigation: Direct major research effort at options for carbon recapture and storage from the atmosphere, to reduce concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This includes major tree planting programmes and changes to farming practice to incorporate carbon in soils.

5. Adaption: Central and local government prioritize the security of citizens and secure essential infrastructure based on robust risk assessment of climate change effects, and trends in the availability of essential resources and materials. It will take time to adapt both physically and socially to these changes, so the sooner we start the better, while energy is still cheap.

The writer is a water resources consultant based in Otago.

ENDS

© Scoop Media