The Climate Challenge: Saving ourselves
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•444 views
The Climate issue will only be solved, if it can be solved, by the major nations taking a stand on production of fossil fuels, just as they did for the elimination of CFCs through the Montreal Protocol in 1987. Setting limits on production will drive the behavioral and technological change needed to really bring about a shift in our global emissions profile. While we wait for that to happen, we need to get on and start creating long-term adaptation and resilience strategies. Forget about saving the planet, it's time to save ourselves. Speech notes here: http://www.slideshare.net/rafmanji/hillary-cc
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to The Climate Challenge: Saving ourselves
Similar to The Climate Challenge: Saving ourselves (8)
The Climate Challenge: Saving ourselves
- 1. SSaavviinngg OOuurrsseellvveess By Raf Manji
- 2. TThhee EEnndd iiss AAllwwaayyss NNiigghh
- 4. SSeettttiinngg SSyysstteemm BBoouunnddaarriieess We need feedback loops and limits.
- 5. CClliimmaattee CCoonnttrrooll Manji, R (2008) “Climate Control: A proposal for controlling global greenhouse gas emissions”, The Environmentalist, 64.
- 6. Setting limits aanndd aalllloowwiinngg mmaarrkkeett ttoo sseellff-- oorrggaanniissee tthhrroouugghh pprriicciinngg mmeecchhaanniissmm..
- 7. GGlloobbaall FFuueell PPrroodduuccttiioonn ((%%)) Top 5
- 8. MMoonneeyy aanndd CClliimmaattee Correlation between Money Supply and CO2 emissions.
- 9. DDiissccaarrdd GGrreeeenn AAggeennddaa aanndd SShhiifftt ttoo PPrriicciinngg IInncceennttiivveess
- 11. Falling RRaattee ooff SSmmookkiinngg aanndd PPrriiccee IInnccrreeaasseess
- 12. CClliimmaattee EEqquuiittyy TThhrroouugghh DDTTQQss//TTEEQQss DTQs are tradable and shareable quotas.
- 13. LLeett iinnnnoovvaattiioonn aanndd tteecchhnnoollooggyy aannsswweerr tthhee qquueessttiioonn
Editor's Notes
- There is no recorded time in human history where there has not been some type of religious or secular apocalyptic vision…..the world is always just about to end due to some imminent disaster. In recent times this has manifested in a new form of utopianism, where we are starting to see new movements proclaiming some promised land, second coming or techno-utopia. Who knows, they may be right but history shows an inexorable but snails pace march forward towards a better world. As humans, we are on a quest for both survival and self-improvement. This is built into our DNA but is always a work in progress.
- But our fascination with saving the planet, as part of this process, is, I believe a deeply flawed distraction. Of course we need a healthy and functioning ecosystem, in order to survive and progress but the earth does not need saving, we do. The earth has been around for billions of years and will likely be around for billions more. It has survived constant climatic changes and seen life forms, such as the dinosaurs, come and go. Humanity, as we know it, will be no different. The earth, I’m sorry to inform you, has no interest in whether we are here or not. It is governed by complex and interactive systems, which will keep going, in some form or other, regardless of famine, wars, asteroid strikes or major climate change. It’s time to drop this narrative and get on with saving ourselves.
- Now we’ve got that out of the way, what’s the problem? Simply put, we have broadly defined some ecosystem limits that we need to live within, in order to support our current life forms and styles. This is arguable at the small scale but from a global perspective, there is some number of GHG emissions that we need to stay within in order to avoid a catastrophic breakdown in our life support systems. 350ppm or 450ppm…there’s a number somewhere, that will likely fluctuate as new information comes into the global climate model.
- As long as we have a number, we can work to stay within it. Currently, we try to apply a patchwork of binding and non-binding cap and trade type models, hoping that magically people will stop consuming as they are now and that countries will somehow limit their own emissions without specifying how they might do that. What I am proposing, and did so firstly in a 2008 paper, is that we limit production of fossil fuels rather than consumption of them. In this way, we know exactly how much is coming out of the ground and therefore how much could possibly be emitted. We can then control the global emissions profile very efficiently at the macro level and not worry about what individual countries end up emitting.
- In other words, we create a tap mechanism, which we can use to control the path of emission reductions, thus knowing we can achieve any target we set. But, how do we get an agreement on production? We see the shenanigans around OPEC and their inability to agree supply targets. Nevertheless, there is precedent for this with the 1987 Montreal Protocol, where producers came together and agreed to phase out ozone depleting chemicals. The key advantage there was that there was a small group of producers and so agreement wasn’t too hard to come by. It may seem far fetched to think fossil fuel producers could come to any kind of agreement but when we look at the data, they may be hope.
- As we can see the key group here is G20, which is fast becoming the key group for global cooperation. It’s also worth looking at the three key producers who are the US, China and Russia. They are all permanent members of the UN security council and with climate change becoming more of a global security issue. Ultimately, this suggests that the key to any serious attempt to control global fossil fuel production lies with the global leadership group, especially the Us, China and Russia. Without them, no sustainable solution is likely to be found. If there can be an agreement on global production, then that will allow the market to re-price emissions and start to send the appropriate price signals to the consumer. With a limited quantity of inputs available, behaviour will change rapidly.
- It’s important to note that this is no different to how the monetary system works. We have had a 25 year inflation targeting program, which has supposedly kept prices stable but in fact has allowed for enormous asset and credit bubbles to emerge. It is no surprise that money supply growth and global emissions are highly correlated. They are both a result of unrestrained consumption. We saw recently here in NZ what happened when the RB limited the quantity of credit for home buyers with the loan to value restrictions. Prices in many regions dropped.
- Supply has a big impact on both demand and on prices. The sooner we get clear ecosystem based price signals into the global fossil fuel market, the sooner consumers can see the true cost of their activities. Like the money supply, a lack of quantity control does not impede consumption.
- And anyone who thinks price doesn’t matter.
- It’s the must effective way to bring about change, even where demand is relatively inelastic. We will also start to see price signals being sent by the insurance market as the risk profile around climate changes.
- So where does a global cap on fossil fuel production leave us? I think there are 3 opportunities to come out of that. One is the opportunity for climate equity to take shape. I see this potentially happening through domestic tradable quotas and tradable energy quotas, where people receive a an energy quota and can trade that with others.
- Changes in the price signal will allow for the full force of creativity and innovation to be applied. Currently, we rely on subsidies to make alternative energy products really work. Once we have a more transparent pricing system, entrepreneurs and investors will be more likely to enter the market and really drive innovation.
- And finally, and probably most importantly, we must adapt to the coming changes. There is no point waiting to see what global agreements manifest. There is no point wailing about saving the planet. What we have right in front of us now are some major challenges around flooding, coastal erosion, and severe wind damage. We should stop worrying about our emissions. They are insignificant. It’s clear that any global agreement will have to come from the major political players. We need to focus on our own problems and hopefully drive some innovation through adaptation solutions we create. The Netherlands has a 200 year Climate Strategy. They are addressing their challenges head on. They are not wringing their hands about saving the planet, as they are too busy trying to save themselves. And so should we.