Us vs. Them

I’m astonished by how quickly the divisions over climate policy have become pointed between the East and the West, the Rich and the Poor, the Developed and the Undeveloped, or whatever other pair of euphemisms you care to trot out so you don’t have to say Us and Them.

A perfect example comes from a Guardian article, Leave population out of climate talks, Indian minister says (emphasis added):

Western nations are trying to use India’s “profligate reproductive behaviour” to force Delhi to accept legally binding emission reduction targets, India’s environment minister said today.

Speaking at a conference in the Indian capital, organised by Delhi’s Centre for Science and Environment, Jairam Ramesh said there was a “move in western countries to bring population into climate change [negotiations]. Influential American thinktanks are asking why should we reward profligate reproductive behaviour? Why should we reward India which is adding 14 million people every year?”

…

India’s population of over 1 billion means that while it is the world’s fifth biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, its per capita emissions are just one-twentieth of the United States. However, its population is rising quickly and the United Nations predicts India will have 1.7 billion people by 2050 – while China will by then have a population of 1.4 billion.

It is understood that American diplomats had raised the issue of overpopulation with the Indian delegation during talks when US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, visited New Delhi earlier this year.

Ramesh said that at “today’s state of development” India could not and should not accept “legally binding reduction targets”. The minister added that the Indian government saw per capita emissions rising from one tonne of carbon dioxide to “three or four” by 2030.

“For us this is about survival. We need to put electricity into people’s homes and do it cleanly. You in the west need to live with only one car rather than three. For you it is about luxury. For us survival.”

The Indian government – along with 37 other developing nations – has argued that rich nations such as the US should set a goal of cutting emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2020.

…

Finance is one of the key sticking points, as poorer nations demand huge amounts of cash to buy technologies and adapt their nations to climate change. Richer nations have proved reluctant to commit. One recent estimate, highlighted by Pakistan’s chief Copenhagen negotiator, Farrukh Iqbal Khan, who has worked closely with Indian counterparts, put the cost at £265bn a year.

…

Ramesh, who has just returned from Beijing, said that India and China had agreed to “coordinate all actions” before multilateral meetings. He said that the only difference was that a Chinese thinktank had called for Beijing to “peak emissions” by 2030. Ramesh said the Chinese chief negotiator on climate change had assured him that this was “thinktank policy not government policy”.

Ouch. Where to begin with this extra crispy bucket of multilateral, cringe-inducing rhetoric?

Which “influential American thinktanks” are talking about India’s “profligate reproductive behavior”? That’s a pretty pointed statement, and I don’t doubt for a nanosecond that there’s at least one or two thinktanks that would say something like that, given some of the whackloonery that passes for American thinktanks these days, even if not using exactly those words. But some substance to back up that claim would be very welcome.

Minister Ramesh, can we talk? Don’t you think it would be just a little bit better for your own interests, if you didn’t, you know, go out of your way to poke the West in the eye with a dirty stick? I’m not saying India or China or anyone else should give in the requests of other countries, just that there might be more productive, less provocative ways to go about it. (Unless you’re playing Bad Cop to someone else’s Good Cop, in which case you’re doing a bang-up job. But even in that case, try not to overplay the role, OK?)

And Minister Ramesh, since your country and some others have a prescription for the US–a 40% CO2 reduction from 1990 levels by 2020–surely you won’t mind if we try to impose our own prescriptions on your country, right? (Yes, I know that I’m about to incur the wrath of the camp that points to the huge share of anthropogenic emissions that the West is responsible for since 1750 or 1850 or whatever date you choose. There’s no sense in reasoning with either side of this debate, so I won’t even try. But the leaders from all countries should show some leadership and find ways to reason with each other.)

Not only do you want us to give up some of our cars and pay billions to help you to grow with clean energy, but you’re also now saying that India and China will “coordinate all actions” in multilateral talks? And you spilled the beans that even China’s recent far too weak statement about their emissions peaking in 2030 was not government policy? Do you have the slightest clue how those statements will play in the West, particularly in the US, where we’ve raised acting like idiots and defeating our own causes for stupid reasons to high art?

As for the US: Does anyone on this planet really think that we’ll be able to get the kind of policy changes we truly need through both the House and the Senate? Right now–3:55PM on August 28, 2009–I don’t. We’ll get something passed, but I’m convinced it will be so watered down and riddled with holes that it will be considered a “good compromise” only in the eyes of those who had to pass something with “climate” in the title and those who didn’t want anything passed at all.

To all sides: How much worse does this crappy movie with its cheap demonization of all sides by all sides get before we get to the part where the Rocky music plays and we see heroic efforts by international leaders at Copenhagen (or some other meeting) that results in a sweeping agreement that leaves even the members of Greenpeace, the NRD, the EDF, Sierra Club, etc. weeping with joy?

The brutal truth is there’s a small group of countries, most obviously the US, India, and China, that can single-handedly derail humanity’s response to climate chaos. The US can do it by sticking to business as usual or not reducing emissions quickly enough, and India and China can do it by letting their emissions grow too quickly as they continue to develop economically.[1] Until we, as in all of humanity, get a handle on all of those problems (because each one in isolation is necessary but not sufficient for success), we’re in incalculable trouble.

[1] Consider what happens if India’s per capita emissions rise by a factor of 3.5 (splitting the difference between the quoted three to four times), and their population increases by 70% from now until 2050, as projected. This would make their current CO2 emissions from energy use, 1,293 million metric tons/year in 2006 grow to roughly 7,700 million metric tons/year (1293 * 1.7 * 3.5). China’s 2006 emissions were 6,017 million metric tons, and the US’ were 5,902. Add to that China’s restricting their emissions only to the point where they equal their 2005 emissions in 2050 (see China emissions to peak in 2030?), or the US getting egregiously stupid in the next election cycle or two and refusing to anything of substance on climate policy, and you have one heck of a nightmare scenario, regardless of what the rest of the planet does.

Visit Lou's Graphs Page.

TCOE is on Twitter, too