This is such an important article. At this very moment the EU are trying to persuade South Africa to rapidly wean itself of coal using mainly solar and wind but not gas, hydro or nuclear energy. This is despite the fact that they have themselves failed to do this themselves when they tried it. They now consider nuclear and gas to be green investment in the EU but not in developing countries!
What happens when the need for equity conflicts with the Iron Law? Will elements of some or all policies advocating climate justice be sacrificed to economic growth? Is it possible that climate equity or climate justice could become deciding factors in permitting climate mitigation features?
" ... the situation created by the sciences is of great political significance. Wherever the relevance of speech is at stake, matters become political by definition, for speech is what makes man a political being. If we would follow the advice, so frequently urged upon us, to adjust our cultural attitudes to the present status of scientific achievement, we would in all earnest adopt a way of life in which speech is no longer meaningful. For the sciences today have been forced to adopt a “‘language”’ of mathematical symbols which, though it was originally meant only as an abbreviation for spoken statements, now contains statements that in no way can be translated back into speech. The reason why it may be wise to distrust the political judgment of scientists qua scientists is not primarily their lack of ‘‘character” [...] but precisely the fact that they move in a world where speech has lost its power. And whatever men do or know or experience can make sense only to the extent that it can be spoken about. There may be truths beyond speech, and they may be of great relevance to man in the singular, that is, to man in so far as he is not a political being, whatever else he may be. Men in the plural, that is, men in so far as they live and move and act in this world, can experience meaningfulness only because they can talk with and make sense to each other and to themselves."
To sharpen the point, how do we servants of democracy hope to communicate with & inform those billions trapped in their apparent destiny so they can partake in fateful decisions that are affecting us all?
Trevor you have put your finger on why I so dislike the ’We believe’ lawn signs. One of the ‘beliefs’ is science is real. I ask how do they know science is real? Are you fluent in the language of science: mathematics? Usually they aren’t. Can they determine when an hypothesis is supported by data? Or are they reliant on someone to interpret for them? To the sign people science is real in the same way that Jehovah or Yahweh is real. It is an article of faith because they don’t have the capacity to draw their own conclusions.
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" - makes me wonder about the consequences of us in the ever-consuming West watching on while Somali infants starve. I fear Growth will beat Justice.
This truly is an important and interesting paper. It's good to see it written down and published, but are the results surprising? Hasn't it been obvious all along that the policies being proffered by the UNFCCC/IPCC would lead to these results? International lenders and governments refusing to finance construction of fossil fuel based systems in Africa didn't just start yesterday. Developing nations have been pointing this out for years and have been demanding trillion dollar bribes to keep quiet and go along to get along.
Where do policy makers go from here? How do we undo the mess that has been created by the UN?
“Up the Congo river from Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is a boggy, blooming, buzzing ecosystem that is home to elephants, gorillas and bonobo apes … Underfoot is the world’s biggest area of tropical peatlands…. Undisturbed it hold about three years’ worth of global emissions from fossil fuels, thus mitigating global warming….It may not remain undisturbed for long. On July 28th and 29th Congo will auction 27 oil-exploration blocks that encompass 1m hectares of rainforest. The government recons that under these blocks are at lest 16bn barrels of oil, worth roughly $650bn.” See “Drilling into the world’s lungs” The Economist, July 30th 2022
"Nearly 90 percent of Congo’s 89.5 million people rely on firewood and charcoal for cooking, according to World Bank estimates." see How Demand for Twigs Is Bringing Down a Rainforest at
Eighty percent of South Africa’s electricity is generated by coal. The US has enough natural gas to supply South Africa with LNG that replaces that coal, eliminating an enormous amount of CO2 for some extended transition period. But South Africa’s coal mining labor unions would object to this change, as they have in the past to any reduction in their labor force. So what do you do?
I think the paper – or at least your framing of it – conflates two issues.
• The scenarios are, well, just scenarios: at least somewhat plausible projections of what might be the future.
Given the crime, corruption, civil wars and tribal conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa, increasing their per capita standard of living (using GDP as a proxy) by 3X in the next quarter century seems ... ambitious. Do those countries have the capacity (most importantly, human, social and cultural capital) to do better? Frankly, I'm a little dubious.
• The policies that are developed around those scenarios are the real issue, for me. For example, suppose we imagined a future that somehow sub-Saharan Africa achieves parity with the developed world, then we run the risk of creating another RCP 8.5, and its cloud of poor policies.
The problem with the policy-making is that the decision-makers haven't defined victory correctly. 1.5 C, 2 C shouldn't be goals; they're poorly-conceived and artificially created pseudo-goals that really have no meaning. Our goal as human beings should be to lift as many out of poverty as possible (OK, that's MY morality talking, others may not think of that as paramount.) no matter where or who they are. I personally see red whenever I hear people spouting off about doing away with fossil fuels EVERYWHERE which would doom those who are Without to live in continued penury no matter where they are.
Those nations that exploited FFs first became prosperous to deny their use to developing nations is to condemn them to perpetual underdevelopment and instability. Fossil fuels for the time being are the only proven path to development ask China.
I was just in Africa last month and boy is it big. Didn’t you just show a graph recently of how African population is expected to surpass india and China now in some enormous inflection point? That population has incredible needs that need to be taken seriously
Spot on. Our political systems need to put people first, balancing long term and short term goals designed to elevate EVERYONE to the same level of opportunity.
This is such an important article. At this very moment the EU are trying to persuade South Africa to rapidly wean itself of coal using mainly solar and wind but not gas, hydro or nuclear energy. This is despite the fact that they have themselves failed to do this themselves when they tried it. They now consider nuclear and gas to be green investment in the EU but not in developing countries!
What happens when the need for equity conflicts with the Iron Law? Will elements of some or all policies advocating climate justice be sacrificed to economic growth? Is it possible that climate equity or climate justice could become deciding factors in permitting climate mitigation features?
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Hannah Arendt in 'The Human Condition' warned
" ... the situation created by the sciences is of great political significance. Wherever the relevance of speech is at stake, matters become political by definition, for speech is what makes man a political being. If we would follow the advice, so frequently urged upon us, to adjust our cultural attitudes to the present status of scientific achievement, we would in all earnest adopt a way of life in which speech is no longer meaningful. For the sciences today have been forced to adopt a “‘language”’ of mathematical symbols which, though it was originally meant only as an abbreviation for spoken statements, now contains statements that in no way can be translated back into speech. The reason why it may be wise to distrust the political judgment of scientists qua scientists is not primarily their lack of ‘‘character” [...] but precisely the fact that they move in a world where speech has lost its power. And whatever men do or know or experience can make sense only to the extent that it can be spoken about. There may be truths beyond speech, and they may be of great relevance to man in the singular, that is, to man in so far as he is not a political being, whatever else he may be. Men in the plural, that is, men in so far as they live and move and act in this world, can experience meaningfulness only because they can talk with and make sense to each other and to themselves."
To sharpen the point, how do we servants of democracy hope to communicate with & inform those billions trapped in their apparent destiny so they can partake in fateful decisions that are affecting us all?
Trevor you have put your finger on why I so dislike the ’We believe’ lawn signs. One of the ‘beliefs’ is science is real. I ask how do they know science is real? Are you fluent in the language of science: mathematics? Usually they aren’t. Can they determine when an hypothesis is supported by data? Or are they reliant on someone to interpret for them? To the sign people science is real in the same way that Jehovah or Yahweh is real. It is an article of faith because they don’t have the capacity to draw their own conclusions.
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" - makes me wonder about the consequences of us in the ever-consuming West watching on while Somali infants starve. I fear Growth will beat Justice.
We should fist do no harm with our policies. Alas I don’t see that happening any time soon.
What then are the policies that should be implemented to reduce global inequity?
This truly is an important and interesting paper. It's good to see it written down and published, but are the results surprising? Hasn't it been obvious all along that the policies being proffered by the UNFCCC/IPCC would lead to these results? International lenders and governments refusing to finance construction of fossil fuel based systems in Africa didn't just start yesterday. Developing nations have been pointing this out for years and have been demanding trillion dollar bribes to keep quiet and go along to get along.
Where do policy makers go from here? How do we undo the mess that has been created by the UN?
“Up the Congo river from Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is a boggy, blooming, buzzing ecosystem that is home to elephants, gorillas and bonobo apes … Underfoot is the world’s biggest area of tropical peatlands…. Undisturbed it hold about three years’ worth of global emissions from fossil fuels, thus mitigating global warming….It may not remain undisturbed for long. On July 28th and 29th Congo will auction 27 oil-exploration blocks that encompass 1m hectares of rainforest. The government recons that under these blocks are at lest 16bn barrels of oil, worth roughly $650bn.” See “Drilling into the world’s lungs” The Economist, July 30th 2022
"Nearly 90 percent of Congo’s 89.5 million people rely on firewood and charcoal for cooking, according to World Bank estimates." see How Demand for Twigs Is Bringing Down a Rainforest at
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/climate/congo-river-basin-deforestation-charcoal.html
Eighty percent of South Africa’s electricity is generated by coal. The US has enough natural gas to supply South Africa with LNG that replaces that coal, eliminating an enormous amount of CO2 for some extended transition period. But South Africa’s coal mining labor unions would object to this change, as they have in the past to any reduction in their labor force. So what do you do?
They can learn how to code? /sarcasm
Roger:-
I think the paper – or at least your framing of it – conflates two issues.
• The scenarios are, well, just scenarios: at least somewhat plausible projections of what might be the future.
Given the crime, corruption, civil wars and tribal conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa, increasing their per capita standard of living (using GDP as a proxy) by 3X in the next quarter century seems ... ambitious. Do those countries have the capacity (most importantly, human, social and cultural capital) to do better? Frankly, I'm a little dubious.
• The policies that are developed around those scenarios are the real issue, for me. For example, suppose we imagined a future that somehow sub-Saharan Africa achieves parity with the developed world, then we run the risk of creating another RCP 8.5, and its cloud of poor policies.
The problem with the policy-making is that the decision-makers haven't defined victory correctly. 1.5 C, 2 C shouldn't be goals; they're poorly-conceived and artificially created pseudo-goals that really have no meaning. Our goal as human beings should be to lift as many out of poverty as possible (OK, that's MY morality talking, others may not think of that as paramount.) no matter where or who they are. I personally see red whenever I hear people spouting off about doing away with fossil fuels EVERYWHERE which would doom those who are Without to live in continued penury no matter where they are.
Those nations that exploited FFs first became prosperous to deny their use to developing nations is to condemn them to perpetual underdevelopment and instability. Fossil fuels for the time being are the only proven path to development ask China.
I was just in Africa last month and boy is it big. Didn’t you just show a graph recently of how African population is expected to surpass india and China now in some enormous inflection point? That population has incredible needs that need to be taken seriously
Spot on. Our political systems need to put people first, balancing long term and short term goals designed to elevate EVERYONE to the same level of opportunity.
But what about the planet? Far better for them to remain in their hovels while we transfer huge wealth from our poor to our rich. Sarcasm
Indeed horrible. Another example of what in the fields of agricultural and environmental development is sometimes called eco-colonialism.