A da xiang in the room: new emissions data
- Share
There’s a dà xiàng in the room when it comes to addressing climate change.
Dà xiàng is mandarin for elephant. And if you want to get your head around the latest data on greenhouse gas emissions, you’ll need to look to China.
A report on global emissions released this week by the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and the European Commission should put paid once and for all to the fallacy that climate change can be addressed by rich countries taking the lead and “developing” countries following later on.
This is a core principle of global efforts to address climate change and has been since the formation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 20 years ago. The principle made sense then. It doesn’t now. The world has missed that boat, and nothing short of a fundamental overhaul of the principles and approaches of international climate negotiations is likely to achieve the UN’s agreed goal of restraining warming to two degrees.
Here’s why: the Dutch report, Trends in global CO2 emissions 2012, found China emitted 29% of global emissions in 2011 — making it the largest emitter by a significant margin. China’s national emissions rose by a staggering 9% in 2011 alone, having risen by 150% over the past decade.
China’s per capita emissions increased by 9% in 2011 and are now 7.2 tonnes of CO2 per person, which, the report notes, is “similar to the per capita emissions in the European Union”. China’s per capita emissions are now higher than France, Italy and Spain.
International climate negotiations are proceeding on the basis that “developed” countries should take the lead and accept binding targets to reduce emissions under the Kyoto Protocol process, while “developing” countries (including China) can wait to submit to this process from 2020, when a new universal legal instrument is supposed to come into force.
This approach is equitable and ethically sound. It is also not feasible.
The Dutch report found that global emissions, which had dipped for a few years because of the GFC, increased by 3% in 2011, reaching an “all-time high” of 34 billion tonnes of CO2. The report calculated that at this rate, the world would use up its “carbon budget” for the period 2000-2050 by 2032. In other words, global warming will not be restrained to two degrees if we keep this up. (The report’s data covers emissions from energy use and industries, but not forestry or forest fires.)
The distinction between “developed” and “developing” countries no longer reflects reality; looking at the figures, the world has to find a way to dramatically rein in China’s emissions, and pretty soon, to get back on track.
That’s the realpolitik. The ethics of the situation is different, and one in which Australia and the US are the villains — not China.
The report grants the perennial high-polluting Australia the dubious honour of having the highest per capita emissions.
Australia comes in at 19 tonnes of CO2 per person in 2011, and our per capita emissions are still rising (the figures exclude forestry emissions). By any measure Australia performs poorly. Our national emissions are the world’s 15th largest — which given that the world contains close to 200 countries, makes us a major player.
We beat the US on per capita emissions; the US comes in at 17.2 tonnes (those emissions — both national and per capita — are dropping slowly). It’s worth remembering that as the US was the world’s biggest polluter for a long time, its historical (as opposed to annual) share of emissions is proportionally very high.The UNFCCC approach of developed countries taking the lead on climate change has failed largely because the US refused to do so, by not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and not comprehensively addressing emissions at the national level.
By contrast, Erwin Jackson, deputy CEO of the Climate Institute, notes that “many emerging economies are doing more to tackle climate change, they have some of the world’s most ambitious policies”.
Jackson concedes that the division of the world into developed and developing countries “is a reflection of the reality of 20 years ago”, but thinks equity cannot be left behind in the debate, which translates to focusing more on “developed” country actions than pointing the finger at China.
China is working on laws to make its self-selected greenhouse targets (which aim to reduce emissions per unit of GDP) binding, is the global superpower on renewable energy, and is trialling regional emissions trading schemes. Some Chinese provinces have simply turned off the electricity to industrial areas at times, to meet greenhouse targets. Imagine the howls of protest if Julia Gillard tried that.
But while China’s actions are in some ways ambitious, they won’t reduce the country’s emissions for some time. They just dampen what would otherwise be truly extraordinary emissions growth.
Ethically, the only crime China is guilty of is trying to emulate the economic growth and level of material comfort of countries like the US (which has itself squibbed on climate change). The problem is that the atmosphere will struggle to cope with that from China’s 1.34 billion people.
Experts say that international efforts to address climate change are failing, and there is a dire shortage of fresh approaches and political goodwill to get them back on track. The Dutch report provides evidence of this failure.
Among the report’s doom and gloom is one method by which emissions can be reduced — but it’s an inconvenient truth. Countries and regions that suffer economic decline tend to see their emissions drop. In 2011, emissions fell from the US (2%), Japan (2%) and the EU (3%); that was “mainly due to weak economic conditions”, as well as mild winters and high oil prices. On the other hand, China’s 9% emissions rise was “mainly due to a continued high economic growth rate”.
The Australian government (and quite a few economists) like to talk about how it’s possible and desirable to decouple economic growth from emissions growth. That doesn’t appear to be happening yet.
The other elephant in the room is that much of China’s output occurs in the manufacture of goods consumed in Australia, the European Union, the United States and Japan. Perhaps there should also be a graph “Responsible for Emissions” which takes that into account.
Thank you Cathy, interesting report on the science of the bleedingly obvious. The worlds economists will bleat on about continual growth which is just an impossibility when living on a world of both finite resources and finite environmental health.
The latest Popular Science says it all when it states “There is no longer any question of preventing climate change, the atmosphere is already warming in response to Human generated greenhouse gas emissions”. It’s just a case of how hot will it become and what effects will that have on weather and climate conditions.
I can recall a forum where Dr David Suzuki stated that that everything Economists predict rarely runs true (ie. predicting the GFC), whereas environmental predictions run true to prediction (ie pollution, environmental degradation, species extinction).
I am not critical of the Aust Govt Carbon tax; one has to start somewhere but the world is going to have to join together and address the larger issues or it’s adios amigo’s for all our wasteful life styles.
So the Dutch report does not include Australia’s “forestry emissions”? That is a shame, since they are NEGATIVE:
Most other countries talk about their emission from the 1990 levels, i.e. a 20% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020.
Both Liberal and ALP (Alternative Liberal Party), say they are committed to reducing Australia’s emissions by 5% from 2000 levels.
A look at the graph above of Australia’s emissions quickly shows why Australia is being devious by using the 2000 figure.
In addition to the factors mentioned above, a component of the falls in emissions can be attributed to the ongoing process of deindustrialisation, at least in the EU (euractiv.com/climate-environment/eu-energy-chief-warms-offshore-o-news-513990). Most this capacity is effectively going to China, where it contributes correspondingly to emissions there, making stuff that is exported back to…Europe.
It would also be instructive to examine which decarbonisation policies have been most successful, and the extent to which they can be emulated elsewhere. One such analysis (thebreakthrough.org/blog/2012/04/which_nations_have_reduced_car.shtml) concluded that “State-led investments in energy technology are the best way to reduce economic dependence on dirty fossil fuels”, at least in developed countries. The most successful: Sweden and France. And China is indeed adopting many of the same approaches. One of these is building significant numbers of atomic power plants, which the article strangely fails to mention.
BOBM - There is no other rich country which hides behind land clearing.
That in 1990 we were clearing huge amounts of Queensland means that our forestry emissions for that year were extremely high.
It was a trick of Howard’s to get this taken into account at the last minute in the Kyoto agreements (this was the “Australia clause”). To Rudd’s shame, when Labor ratified Kyoto, Labor still used this trick to enable Australia to substantially INCREASE its emissions when most other signatories committed to reductions.
Because Australia is playing such tricks in the international forums we have been a force against climate change action, and Australians should be ashamed of what our governments have done in our name.
MICHAEL WILBUR-HAM,
I tried to link to a graph to explain myself but it didn’t load.
What I was trying to point out is that forestry (ie wood production) and land clearing are two very different things. Forestry has been and will continue to be a net sequester of carbon over the long term. This is something many green leaning folks seem to have difficulty accepting. Look at climatechange dot gov dot au and search for forestry. It’s all there.
Cheers,
@ BOBM, how exactly does forestry sequester carbon for the long term (required) when a significant proportion of the timber cut goes to woodchips/paper/consumer goods (typically with a life span of 10 years)?
@Steve Grant
I just received the daily mail and was going to log in to make exactly that point! While it’s great that Europe has managed to reduce its emissions through the use of tightened laws on power generation and transportation, the movement of industrial production to China has to have contributed greatly as well. As companies do this, in order to avoid the labour market and environmental legislation that make Western nations worth living in, we have essentially outsources our industrial emissions to China along with our manufacturing jobs. It’s unfair, therefore, to simply point to an increase in Chinese carbon emissions, even if we use the per capita metric, because the outcomes of the processes creating these emissions are consumed elsewhere. If there is going to be an accurate accounting, it would need to incorporate the consumption of people in each nation and the industrial processes required to meet that demand.
It isn’t all that difficult despite the reluctance of politicians to listen: Australia needs to levy a CARBON IMPORT TAX, levied only on those countries which refuse to clean up their act, including the third world. The tax is NOT an import tax as such because it will fall away once the nation in question makes a genuine move to improve its emissions.
We all know that the cry will come up about tariff reprisals but this would not be a tariff. Governments also then protect Australian jobs from the higher cost which Australian manufacturers bear due to our compliance.
Foreign nations would not like it but then how else do you get nations which are happy to exploit our conscience to make gains for themselves.
MICROSERIS,
Simply? The trees are growing faster than we’re cutting them.
And before you ask, that does not include the large benefits available through substituting carbon intensive products such as cement and concrete.
The numbers are staggering, both in terms of the pace of climate change (over 3,000 temp. records broken in the USA this summer) and the huge difference between what CO2 we can emit and how much is already on the books of the hydrocarbon industries. In Rolling Stone, there’s a calculation that we will need to leave in the ground about $20 trillion dollars worth, so the scale of the problem is immense.
And if not? We will fry, along with everything else on the planet.
So what has energy density high enough to replace coal? Wind? Solar? Not unless we wish to cover half the planet with them, but even worse, they need storage, and as yet there is nothing to do this effectively, so for every watt of renewable energy there’s coal or gas backup.
If carbon dioxide is the enemy, then nuclear is the answer for producing the 80% of what’s called baseload, and if we don’t start expanding the 14% of global nuclear generation, and quickly, it will be too late.
All the FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) pumped out by those who think nuclear power is unsafe is simply helping us cook the planet. The quantifiable facts say nuclear is the safest and greenest power source and we have it in abundance. (Just remember that no one has, or probably will die from the release at Fukushima. Coal kills, in large numbers)
It really is way past time to start doing what’s rational, and not letting the religious purity of ill-informed tree huggers stop us from doing what is absolutely necessary. With our level of emissions, it truly is appallingly selfish to pontificate.
Something that is seldom discussed or considered in this debate is the fact that Australia is a very large country with a very small population. Hence to do ordinary things we use more energy just to get somewhere. Additionally, we are financially reliant on heavy resource industries.
I’ll bet that tourists who visit here are responsible for more carbon emissions while here than when at home.
Hands up all those who think we should stop mining and cluster our entire population down into the bottom right hand corner of the country and live of sustainably grown vegetables.
Back to the caves anyone?
What is with the moderation? Bio-sequestration of carbon through the dead bodies of artificially grown microscopic sea creatures is potentially actionable and Crikey must protect itself? Really?
@BOBM I suppose thats why forestry agencies like VicForests keep overestimating the available resource and the Victorian govt has to argue against additional reserves of high conservation value forests by stating there is insufficient resources available to satisfy existing contracts..
Whilst plantations could satisfy demand, you need to factor in the carbon footprint of forestry activities including initial cutting machinery, burning the residual waste after logging, transport, processing, shipping, distribution and ultimately release of CO2 when the item reaches the end of its life expectancy. Hardly a win win.
OK let’s ignore the fate of the planet and suggest that the marine deserts be ferilised with missing elements so that depleted fishh stocks can be restored. (with increased biosequestration of oceanic carbon.
Buy that would be “Human Intervention” now wouldn’t it?
Are we at all sure that what is going on here is not a “Subconscious ‘Humans Must Be punished’ Religion” at work? Now we haven’t seen that elephant before have we?
Does Cathy have a da xiang in her garage?
I have a problem with some of the figures she quotes.
Such as: China’s emissions are similar to Europe’s though greater than that of France, Italy and Spain.
Surprise, surprise! China’s population is eight times the population of those three countries.
She says Australia’s per person CO2 emission is over two and a half times China’s - 19 versus 7.2: Shame on us.
Oh Oh
More science.
Don’t let the Parrot or Tony Abbot see it. They’ll only deny its existence.
That’s the real da xiang in the room
MICROSERIS,
I’m not aware of the situation in Victoria. But I don’t think a biased sawlog yield estimate in one agency has much bearing on the carbon budget for a whole industry. The carbon footprint of activities is included in the calculations, i.e. there are NET gains, as stated (emission - sequestration < 0) .
The real elephant is the huge number of people on earth, discussion of which is of course forbidden by political correctness.
Currently the population is increasing by around 1.3% each year, so the population will double every 50 years. In 100 years there will not be enough arable land to feed the people, and that assumes that we still have enough oil for fertiliser production and fuel required for broad-acre farming.
I would think that within 50 or so years wars and famine will cause the human population to crash to no more than that of medieval times. Of course some desperado could push the nuclear panic button and then homo sapiens would join the billions of already extinct species.
Lampreys, cockroaches and tardigrades would survive so in a few hundred million years of continuing evolution, another “smart” species could evolve. And they could repeat the whole sorry cycle by using up the renewed supply of fossil fuels.
MURUK,
Plenty of people talk about population. And there are well known ways that reduce population growth.
But when it comes to preventing global warming we have to make huge cuts in our emissions in the next few years.
Population growth is a relative long term problem. Acting on climate change is a short term problem.
And CHRISTOPHER DUNNE, for Australia Nuclear is only a long term possibility. It could be discussed as part of our long term actions, but until we take the short term seriously, nuclear for Australia is only a distraction.
@MWH, consideration of nuclear as only a long term possibility for Australia is an indication that the short term is not being taken seriously enough.
I think, on current projections, climate change will take care of our population problem. I am not sure of the time scale, but the current projections of climate change suggest a planet able to support a few hundred million people (less than a billion, anyway), living at high latitudes. Assuming the really serious effects don’t hit much before the end of this century, population projections are that world population will peak at around 11 billion or so in the middle of this century. I would guess that by the end of this century population will be in a massive decline through starvation, flood, extreme weather, disease and war. We might be able to avoid the worst of it, but I doubt it. It requires serious change now. Too few people seem to accept just how serious the problem is. By the time it becomes so obvious that the penny drops, even for terminally stupid people like Tony Abbot, it will be too late.
Muruk, heartily agree, the more people this planet has to support the greater the environmental degradation will be. Of course it is not PC to suggest major changes in pupulation policies, we are breeding ourselves into oblivion.
C Dunne, to achieve the energy and carbon targets there needs to be a total turn from Carbon to a Hydrogen energy base. Alternate energy will assis,t but large gains will be made when the developed economies start to change to electricity supplied by H2 fuel cells which can power vehicles, aircraft and ships as well as supply power and heat.
I agree that nuclear fission is not the way, nuclear Fusion is a possiblity but not in the short term unless major funds are put into the research.
As I read once, there needs to be a Manhattan type project to save the planet and supply clean power. Frankly, from articles such as this, it seems to be economics is winning out over science.
The four horemen of the apocalypse, see above post, are you all at all sure that you do not harbour an almost religious desire to punish “”humanity” for some subconscious reason?
Look they’re not listening! Kill them all! Kill them All!
Feeding the shock jocks here.
Bio-sequestration of carbon in the oceanic depths? Nah, we’re all stuffed anyway!
Pathetic, really pathetic.
It is looking likely that some parts of the world, including parts of Australia, will become inhabitable for humans without artificial cooling.
At present the hottest places on earth are all dry. But when you combine heat with greater humidity, a human in the shade will overheat and die.
As Scott says, by the time it become obvious to the deniers that climate change is real it will be far too late.
@Mark Duffett - Until we sort out our plans for urgent action for the next ten to twenty years, discussing nuclear is just a distraction. Because it would take many years to plan then build nuclear, we have to make huge changes before any nuclear plant would be turned on. What should we do this year and next are urgent questions from which discussing nuclear is just a distraction.
@ MJPC - Energy is needed to create hydrogen. So the question remains - now do we get that energy?
The economics have been clear since the Stern report - it is cheaper to take action to prevent climate change than to deal with the consequences. The real costs of taking action are, compared to the consequences, fairly mild.
So it is not economics that is winning over science, it is vested interests winning over rational economics.
MWH
Population growth is not a relatively long term problem. As I noted above, the human disaster horizon is set by food availability and lies at about the year 2060. The population has to decrease, not stay the same and certainly not increase at all. With respect to climate, the disaster horizon is somewhere on the far sided of 2100. In 50 years the world’s climate will still be quite reasonable even if the most alarming current warming forecasts are exceeded.
What currently feeds the people is the conversion of oil to food via fertiliser and fuel. No other raw material allows so much food to be produced. The oil reserve in the ground is now well known and very limited - peak oil production was in 2007. It is currently estimated that by 2060 oil production will be about 30% of what is currently produced. At present about 40% of the oil supply is devoted to agriculture and food distribution. In 50 years time the total available oil will not support the food needs of the current population. It will absolutely not support an expanded population.
Replacing oil with bio-fuels is a pipe-dream because the source materials displace food production. If we slaughtered every single baby born in the next 50 years, the normal mortality rate of the remaining aging population would not reduce it sufficiently to avoid catastrophe from starvation.
There are numerous sources of relevant data, and the arithmetic is simple. For your own edification I suggest you get the data and do the sums - you will find as I did that the ruling classes have hoodwinked all the rest of us. The elites have every intention of surviving, as they always have.
@MWH, the ‘urgent action’ for Australia is to develop something like 20-25 GW of low carbon, high capacity factor generation. Any means of achieving that goal is going to ‘take many years to plan then build’, so nuclear should be in the mix from the get-go.
I can think of rather a lot of things that should be done now. So first lets:
Scrap all fuel subsidies,
Stop funding roads,
Massive increase to public transport and cycling,
Carbon tax on petrol,
No exceptions for carbon tax and increase the tax to much higher,
Scrape all the compensation and use money to do the things on this list
Match world’s best practice for energy efficiency of all new cars
Match world’s best practice for all building and product efficiencies
Massive wind, solar, and perhaps other technologies (which can be built quickly)
(and as this is just of the top of my list, add much more).
Once all these are on the go I’ll be happy to discuss why I think nuclear is not part of the answer for Australia.
MHW,
Vested interests and ideology trump the evidence and rationality, that’s the problem.
MARK DUFFET,
Nuclear materials themselves, apart from all their other problems, are just finite resource themselves which would rapidly deplete if they were used on a significant scale to replace other non- renewables.
MHW (earlier post),
There is nothing wrong with addressing the population problem at the same time as the consumption and energy problems. In fact it’s imperative if we are to be succeeded by more than one or maybe two viable generations.
Ian,
As well addressing the wold population problem (usually giving women better education, health, and access to contraception very quickly reduces family size), we should look in our own backyard.
The very best thing you can do for the environment is to have one less child. Yet Liberal and now Labor have lots of policies in place encouraging people to have more children. Consequently Australia’s natural population increase is one of the highest in the rich countries.
My last post is still begin held for moderation. Hopefully this one will get through.
Australia doesn’t have an overpopulation problem. In around 30 years the crusties will be leaving the building leaving a depleted generation x as the top tier. Also When 56% of Australia’s increase in population is coming from net overseas migration, you know that it’s not the birth rate that is the problem.
As for carbon emissions, I think most people have see the emperor’s underwear in regards to climate change and realize it isn’t as bad as the deep ecologists have claimed. Sure, something to keep an eye on and worthy of more research, but no need to start stock piling canned goods just yet.
Scott - With our current use of natural resources, Australia is already overpopulated.
And, if your figure is correct, then 44% of our population increase is natural increase and this proves my point - compared to most rich countries we are having more children (many rich countries have a natural decrease in population).
And it is very obvious to anyone following the facts of climate change that overall things are much worse than was earlier predicted.
If Scott has any evidence that climate change is nothing to worry about, please let me and others know.
That Carbon Import Tax that JJMICK mentions sounds good and would be an easy sell. I read that some European contries have proposed this idea.
What also needs to be looked at is a Carbon Cost applied to any new item that reflects the Carbon Contribution over the life of that item.
This would be known as a Carbon Contribution Tax.
It would mean good quality long lasting items have a lower tax applied and low quality short life items have a higher tax applied. As a side benefit it would help local manufactures compete with the rubbish imports.
Once again it will be an easy sell.
I look forwards to one if the parties incorporating this idea into their policy.
That Carbon Import Tax that JJMICK mentions sounds good and would be an easy sell. I read that some European contries have proposed this idea.
What also needs to be looked at is a Carbon Cost applied to any new item that reflects the Carbon Contribution over the life of that item.
This would be known as a Carbon Contribution Tax.
It would mean good quality long lasting items have a lower tax applied and low quality short life items have a higher tax applied. As a side benefit it would help local manufactures compete with the rubbish imports.
Once again it will be an easy sell.
I look forwards to one of the parties incorporating this idea into their policy.
Reminded me of this one:
Anyone else remember that? Goodness, that was funny.
China is doing much better than Australia and most other countries in increasing its percentage of clean energy.
So what is your point Patriot? That China should have stayed in poverty? That China shouldn’t have produced any emissions to make the products that we in the West buy?
In a hundred or so years time, when people look back to see how it was we knowingly destroyed the planet when we knew what would happen, and it was relatively easy to prevent, Australia will clearly be one of the main offenders. So don’t blame China.
The problem Michael is that worrying is all you do.
Leadership doesn’t include a lot of worrying, (quick, everyone, let’s follow the worrier).
The “what problem” crew are just as useless, not leading anywhere at all.
If I may be so bold, no-one is going to start dismantling civilization forthe sake of an apocalyptic vision.
No matter how true it may be.
Adaptation is the hall mark of civilisation, it is the only weapon in the arsenal and instead, by way of “leadership”, we get mindless bickering about who to blame and punish.
Pathetic, truly pathetic.
If you are not going to do anything about this problem except bicker you’d be better off crawling under a rock to die, taking your f — -ing infectious negativity with you.
Do the planet a favour and start doing something positive.
Hamis, I posted a list of things that should be done NOW at 6:10, and this post is still being held for moderation.
Proper action on climate change is not dismantling civilisation. Neither is changing our economy so that we no longer reduce our natural capital. But it does involve some of the vested interests having to make major changes.
I’m not sure what negativity you are accusing me of. I’m facing the reality. If you are not alarmed by what is likely to happen then you are not informed.
My point is simply that Gillard is deceitful. I’ve got a good campaign slogan for you Greens, Michael:
Be alarmed, not alert!
Both Gillard and Abbott are deceitful - a 5% cut of 2000 levels by 2020 is far too little far too late.
So why don’t you start building a bunker or running around with a sandwich-board like the rest of the “end is nigh” nutters?
Because I’ll be dead before I’ll need a bunker.
Who is more evil - a man who kills 14 people in a cinema or those who publicly lobby against action on climate change?
This is a serious question.
My view is that those speaking out against action on climate change are more evil.
And as for running around with a sandwich-board …
I stood as a candidate for the Greens in Higgins back in 2007, spent one months worth of time (i.e. 31 x 24 hours) campaigning, with my major issue being climate change.
It didn’t make much difference, but at least I tried.
Wow! If climate change denial is worse than mass-murder what are your thoughts on murdering prominent deniers to save the planet? Would you condone it as a form of activism?
I would not condone it, but I’m surprised that it has not yet happened.
And climate change is mass murder - where the numbers will be measured in millions (or possibly billions).
There’s another elephant in the room and it’s that partisan politics is the main obstacle to progress on emission reduction (as well as on many other fronts)
see colflower.blogspot.com.au
Col - I think that the Greens have a conscious vote on every issue. So they are close to independent.
The Liberals are fairly locked - crossing the floor is very rare. And with Labor crossing the floor can have you expelled from the party.
I wonder what would happen if something like the asylum issue was a conscious vote for all parties? The Greens would not change because they already have this. But I suspect that there would be a few Liberal and Labor members who would no longer support offshore processing.
With climate change I also wonder. There must be at least a few Liberals who understand the reality of the threat. And perhaps there is even a glimmer of decency hidden away within Peter Garret and a few other Labor members.
The only hope is when a few Liberal and Labor people say “Look, this climate change is real. The carbon tax is only a small first step. Now we need to urgently decide on our second and third steps.”
Population growth on a planet with finite resources is only one part of a long-term problem: another other factor that goes hand-in-hand with growth is increasing material consumption and a third is unequal distribution of that material wealth. Most people in most “developed” nations have more than enough, those without want what most of us have and those in “developing” nations want for a lot. We are all individually to varying extents locked into an insane and insanitary race to better our material circumstances and it’s a race that’s very hard not to take part in (and I have tried). Aside from some clear-headed thinkers and a minority of the population who understand enough to want to fight for something less self-destructive, none of the major political parties in “developed” nations will even acknowledge the problems, let alone address them, and it is often a lot worse (often by necessity) in “developing” nations. Increasing material consumption is a global problem and all “developed” nations are doing is shifting the blame to nations like China and India, the same nations we export raw materials to to make the material things we are only willing to pay sod-all for. So-called “externalities” - like air and water pollution, land degradation, loss of species, loss of social and ecological amenity and, dare I say it, climate change - are either never considered in the “triple bottom line” (i.e. money, money and money) or given trivial values that don’t reflect the real cost.
So there will be 8+billion people locked into a system that they hardly understand and have almost no control over whose effects on the natural systems that really support them they only begin to understand when those natural systems start going haywire. Then the full cost (and I don’t mean $$$, by that time money won’t mean much) will begin to become apparent. Then behaviours and attitudes will - slowly at first - inevitably change. But that widespread mass change will be far far too late, since once natural systems go haywire there is no turning back. What we can see - if we stop to look - right now are natural systems breaking down, at species and community and biome levels, but these are not generally cataclysmic events like say a volcano or an earthquake. These breakdowns are the result of often gradual and subtle shifts and interactions but the combination of the spread of effects and further interaction over time is almost unstoppable. Think of weeds in a patch of bushland - they didn’t just appear and get a stranglehold on the area overnight, it would have taken 20, 30 or 50 years but it was so gradual we hardly noticed. Now expand that to the entire planet and enlarge the timeframe, then add in pollution, land clearing, weed and feral animal invasions, habitat fragmentation, soil loss and degradation, over-harvesting and so on, then add in changes wrought by climate disruption, all over a century. Then try to imagine how all those factors and more will interact and combine.
With the exception of minor parties like the Greens politicians are useless for this sort of long term planning because it requires long term vision and principles. And anyway Big Business dictates the agenda, governments are mere facilitators and elections are a sideshow designed to keep the punters quiet. The last thing Big Money wants is a government with Principles and Ideas cos the next thign you know they’ll be mountign serious challenges to the sacred notion that economic growth is the answer to everything. As far as Big Money is concerned there is no alternative, either because they can’t conceive of one or they will have it dragged out the back and shot if they see one.
In part the planet and its future human cargo are already partly screwed, simply because of the time it takes to get a large enough proportion of the population to stop, look, think and act (assuming no economic and political interference), and partly because of the time it takes for disrupted large-scale ecological systems to settle into a less unstable and disruptive pattern. And all of that assumes sufficient global will. And that means all of us giving shit up, most of all beliefs and habitual actions, and that means challenging first ourselves and then others and then - collectively - whoever it is who’s running the place and running it into the floor.