Post 24 – The Personal Mirrors the Political

Recently, I found myself remembering a conversation from a few months ago that I had with an acquaintance.  The conversation went something like this.

Me: How are your new solar panels going?

Other: Yeah – they seem OK.

Me: How’s your electricity use?

Other: Oh, probably better.

Me: You mean you’re using less.

Other: Dunno – looks like the daily cost is down.

Me: That’s good.

Other: It’s not like they are really cheap so I expect to get something back for my money.

Me: The more solar the better I think.  What about changing to a bank that doesn’t invest in fossil fuels?  It’s simple to do and sends a powerful message about climate change.

Other: I’ve done my bit with the panels.  When others have done as much as I have, then I might do something else!

And so the conversation concluded.  I’m not yet prepared to harangue people; I try to influence; and I actively provide assistance when I can. Even though the conversation had concluded it never-the-less remained in my thoughts.  I think it remained in my thoughts because it sounded like some of the arguments that are used by nations (ours included) for not doing more about climate change.

Question: Why doesn’t your country set lower targets for emissions?

Answer 1: Our emissions only make up a very small percent of world-wide emissions.  Even if we got down to zero emissions it wouldn’t make fix global warming.

Answer 2: If our trading partners cut their emissions, then we will too.

Answer 3: It’s only fair that all countries have the same targets.

Answer 4: Our economy needs to remain strong and grow.

Answer 5: We export so the emissions should be counted in the country that receives the goods, raw materials, food etc..

Answer 6: We can’t afford the capital costs of renewable energy.

Answer 7: Climate change is not really that bad.

Answer 8: We’re not responsible for climate change.

Answer 9: Climate change is a leftist conspiracy.

Answer 10: Technological fixes will emerge to solve the problem.

Answer 11: The future is in God’s hands ….. it’s a matter of fate …

For each of these ‘answers’ there is a response that supports lowering emissions on both personal and political levels but I will leave the search for those responses to anyone who want to find them.  Let me assure you they are there!

On the matter of things political, international and global I thought I would provide a sort of ‘heads up’ on the climate talks that are happening in Paris in December.  I’m doing this ‘heads up’ for myself, as well as for my eight or nine readers (who have now been joined by a dog – welcome Gula), because I think it could be conversationally handy.  I find in conversation, that you don’t always need to express an opinion, you just need some knowledge about a topic and, miraculously, you become a conversational participant which might then make discussion of climate change issues normal, and with normal comes mainstream, and with mainstream might come change in favor of mitigation.  Maybe that’s a long bow to draw; maybe not.  Expressing an opinion would be even better but ‘toes in the water’ is a good start I find.  So, here we go.

First, the ‘December Paris’ conference will be held about 10 kms from the center of Paris at a place called Le Bourget.  An interesting aside is that Le Bourget has its own airport that connects with 800 European destinations!

Second, the official title of the get together is ‘The 21st Conference of Parties’ colloquially known as COP21 – an unfortunate acronym but true!

Third, the host is the United Nations.  As far as I can tell, all countries are welcome but who are countries sending?  Well, the answer is interesting and even a bit worrying.  These COP events are held each year but, apparently, no-one has gotten over COP15 in 2009 in Copenhagen which, by all accounts, was a huge disappointment and an embarrassment to the attending leaders.  Consequently no presidents or prime ministers are expected to attend ‘Paris’ for fear of similar embarrassments to 2009.  Instead, ‘Paris’ will be attended by ‘high-level ministers of all the world’s governments, who have the power to sign a deal on behalf of their countries’.  Hmmmm.

Fourth, ‘Paris’ has a single objective ‘to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world’.  Wow!  Read on and you find that the secondary aspect of the objective is that, collectively, the agreements will keep global warming at 2° Celsius or below.  Good objective – 1.5° would be better but 2° is okay. The agreements will run from 2020 to 2030 because Kyoto agreements are apparently in place until 2020.  Please that we don’t have to wait until 2020 for increased action!

Fifth, each country is expected to publish their emission reduction targets prior to the conference.  National intentions are detailed on this site.  So how adequate is Australia’s commitment?  The graphic from Carbon Tracker is an excellent representation of where nations rank (I couldn’t get it to copy into this post but do have a look).  Australia’s efforts have been judged as inadequate, meaning that if all countries offered commitments at the level of Australia, then we would have warming in excess of 3-4° (which is pretty much in the disaster zone).  For a commentary (by and large negative) on Australia’s published intentions read this article.

Sixth, So how has Australia been going over the last 25 years when commitments were first made to reducing emissions?  The graphic to the right is based on research undertaken by the European Commission and is the list of CO2 (equivalent) emissions by country.  In terms of total emissions Australia is low (we don’t have a big population) but in terms of emissions per capita Australia is very high and rising not falling.  I can’t see at this stage who is attending Paris on behalf of Australia but I think a thick skin will be needed or new, more substantial commitments to emission reductions.

Seventh, most of the commitments have been received (a minor miracle I would have thought) but are they enough to keep average global warming at 2° Celsius or less.  Tragically, terrifyingly no they don’t.  They result in expected global warming of 2.7°.

Eighth, how are we to get to less than 2° if commitments made at Paris are not enough?  Here is a thought from an analyst.

‘What we already know, however, is that the commitments made, and likely to be made by December, will not by themselves be enough to hold the world to no more than 2C of warming. In order to bolster these targets, two approaches have been suggested: that more effort should be made to bring down emissions outside the UN process, for instance by engaging “non-state actors” such as cities, local governments and businesses to do more; and that the INDCs should be subject to regular review and ratcheting up in the years after the Paris meeting.’

I would like to think that we, as individuals and households, may be one of those ‘non-state actors’.

Ninth, what is the biggest blocker to a ‘successful’ outcome at ‘Paris’?  Gee, gosh, what a surprise, it’s money!  Here’s a paragraph that seems to sum it up.

‘This is a hugely contentious issue. At Copenhagen, where the finance part of the deal was only sorted out at the very last minute, rich countries agreed to supply $30bn ($20bn) of “fast-start” financial assistance to the poor nations, and they said that by 2020, financial flows of at least $100bn a year would be provided.  Poor nations want a similar provision in place beyond 2020, but there is strong disagreement over how this should be done. Some want all the money to come from rich country governments, but those governments are adamant that they will not provide such funding solely from the public purse. They want international development banks, such as the World Bank, to play a role, and they want most of the funding to come from the private sector.  An agreement on this is still possible, but it will be one of the main obstacles to a Paris deal.’

And so that is all I will offer in my ‘heads up’ on Paris but the degree of commitment, made by nations, mirrors the drift of the exchange I shared with you at the start of this post, about what next for the solar panel owner.  Carbon Tracker calls this ‘comparability of effort’ and puts it like this.

‘As governments submit their emissions reduction offers during 2015, they will look at what others are doing, and decide whether it is comparable. They may all have their own interpretation of what is their fair share.’

So what is a fair share of effort for us as individuals and as nations.  I believe comparability of effort can be thought of in terms of responsibility (current and historic), economic capability, equality, will, political engagement and technical capability.  Can we afford to buy ‘green electricity’ (it’s currently about an extra $0.05/kWh in Victoria)? Can we afford to retrofit our houses so we use less energy?  Can we afford an electric car?   If we can’t afford an electric car, are we prepared to use a small car and/or drive less?  Do we have the will to become vegetarian or even vegan (if we all did this then we might sort out that missing 0.7°)?  Are we prepared to move our banking and savings to institutions that don’t invest in, or loan to, fossil fuel organizations?  Are we prepared to buy less on ‘stuff’?  Many of these actions mean we spend less money.  Who among us is prepared to do that?  Who among us is then prepared to use the savings in favor of the climate?

Really …. 

The role model country that has committed to emission reductions that exceed  expectations is Bhutan (an interesting conversational aside should you need it) which also happens to be the country that originally developed the concept of Gross National Happiness!

So bye again for now, Jane