Blog
04.December 2010 - 22:38
Towards Cancun – Climate policy must be divided into parts
Sometime in the future when the historiography for the first decade of the 21st century is read, it will no doubt be called an era of climate hype, even climate mania. This period was characterised by the sudden conversion of politicians into climate activists and the great promises of restricting the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere.
An Emissions Trading Scheme was created which increased the price of electricity and the costs of industrial production. It was a massive income transfer from the production industry to electricity manufacturers. It was also a huge investment in bureaucracy: measuring, reporting, notifying, registering, buying, selling, auctioning.
At the same time, other environmental problems were seriously neglected, and the problems of developing countries at that time were forgotten – gazes were directed further, somewhere out there. People drowning in floods became symbols of the coming destruction; the distress of that moment as such was of no interest. Pop stars and cultural figures joined the efforts to save the planet, and local hot-dog stands created their own climate strategies. Children worried about the future and had nightmares. People began to measure each other’s carbon footprints, which became a new type of moralism. Whatever cause in the world one wanted to assist, it had to be wrapped in a package called climate change. Otherwise, it was not even interesting. Climate change became Climate Change with a capital c, part of entertainment culture. There was infinite faith in man really being able to return climate back onto the rails.
True, we did not know where the point was at which it would be possible to state that the problem has been defeated and that we could sigh deep. In fact, nobody knew. It had not even been defined. It was a wicked problem.
I think that I have already made it clear that after 11 years of climate policy-making I no longer believe in either the target setting or the means. What, then, should be done?
Let’s stop talking about “stopping” climate change. The climate has always been changing and will continue to change. We have erred in making the means into a goal. It would be more appropriate to ensure that the needs of the world’s growing population are met in an adequate and environmentally sustainable manner. Our societies must be made sufficiently prepared to withstand the dangers and risks that are unavoidably associated with extreme climate phenomena. Whether the risks are natural or man-made, that does not come first.
The first step is to divide the problem into parts. The climate is forced by long-term and short-term agents, and different strategies are needed to control them. Short-term agents include black soot, aerosols, methane and atmospheric ozone, which act very differently from long-term agents such as carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons or nitrous oxides.
So, let’s clamp down on black carbon, or soot, the combustion residue, which melts glaciers in the same way as ash melts snow. Of the short-term warming agents, black carbon is the most significant: it warms the atmosphere both locally and globally. At the same time, it is a public health risk, killing millions of people through respiratory tract and cardiovascular diseases every year. Reducing the amount of black carbon would pay itself back in the form of health benefits. It is strange that it has been so hard to get the reduction of soot onto the climate policy agenda, even though eliminating it would be substantially easier and cheaper than eliminating carbon dioxide. I have pondered whether it is an even too easy and technical solution for those who wanted to make the prevention of climate change into a new religion.
Knowing the warming effect of black carbon, it is, by the way, really strange to see the substantial burning of wood still being advertised as an efficient means of combating climate change. It does significantly increase the soot particles in the air. If this action involves increasing the total amount of logging, and reducing the forest area, the situation will become even worse.
Let’s increase forests instead. What is needed is a separate international agreement on the conservation of forests, which recognises their intrinsic value. They are important for the future of mankind, not only as a carbon sink but also in safeguarding biodiversity and as a resource of sustainable bioeconomy.
Let’s increase adaptation. All societies are at least to a certain extent ill-equipped for climate change. Therefore, technologies, institutions and practices have to be developed to minimise the risks involved, from weather-proof community construction to early warning systems. They are necessary in any event, whether it is a question of man-made or natural catastrophes.
Let’s pay attention to the poor now. The poverty problem must be tackled directly: there is no reason why the scandalous number of two billion poor people should be held hostage to a climate agreement, awaiting help sometime in the future. Let’s stick with the target of 0.7% for development cooperation appropriations. We do not need new forms of financing for developing countries as long as we just adhere to the old agreements from 40 years back. At present, only half of that target is allocated to development work.
Let’s utilise the success of the Montreal Protocol. The Montreal treaty successfully curbed chlorofluorocarbon emissions, and the depletion threatening the ozone layer halted. Some powerful climate-warming industrial gases could be included in the same kind of procedure, however not trying that with respect to carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is not a by-product of industrial production but a basic element associated with all life, and controlling it is the most challenging. Therefore action should rather be commenced where results are easiest to achieve. Carbon dioxide accounts for only about one half of the climate forcing caused by man, and not only are these emissions the most difficult to control, but reducing them will produce an effect only in the long run. It is somewhat perverse that climate policy has made it its business to concentrate on the most difficult side of the issue and not the easiest. It makes you wonder whether the reasons are ideological.
The decarbonisation of energy generation and industrial production is wise but it calls for intense technological investment. The expensive emissions trading is not the most efficient means of inciting such investment; instead, a moderate carbon tax could rather be used.
The idea of man-made climate change charmed the decision-makers of our time. We believed that it would be possible to stabilise the climate if only power would be centralised sufficiently. Mike Hulme, a British professor of climate change, who has listed the above considerations, says that we need technologies of humility instead of the climate hubris. Small steps, wise actions and minor dramatics instead of attempts to seek a mega solution to a mega problem.
Sometime in the future when the historiography for the first decade of the 21st century is read, it will no doubt be called an era of climate hype, even climate mania. This period was characterised by the sudden conversion of politicians into climate activists and the great promises of restricting the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere.
An Emissions Trading Scheme was created which increased the price of electricity and the costs of industrial production. It was a massive income transfer from the production industry to electricity manufacturers. It was also a huge investment in bureaucracy: measuring, reporting, notifying, registering, buying, selling, auctioning.
At the same time, other environmental problems were seriously neglected, and the problems of developing countries at that time were forgotten – gazes were directed further, somewhere out there. People drowning in floods became symbols of the coming destruction; the distress of that moment as such was of no interest. Pop stars and cultural figures joined the efforts to save the planet, and local hot-dog stands created their own climate strategies. Children worried about the future and had nightmares. People began to measure each other’s carbon footprints, which became a new type of moralism. Whatever cause in the world one wanted to assist, it had to be wrapped in a package called climate change. Otherwise, it was not even interesting. Climate change became Climate Change with a capital c, part of entertainment culture. There was infinite faith in man really being able to return climate back onto the rails.
True, we did not know where the point was at which it would be possible to state that the problem has been defeated and that we could sigh deep. In fact, nobody knew. It had not even been defined. It was a wicked problem.
I think that I have already made it clear that after 11 years of climate policy-making I no longer believe in either the target setting or the means. What, then, should be done?
Let’s stop talking about “stopping” climate change. The climate has always been changing and will continue to change. We have erred in making the means into a goal. It would be more appropriate to ensure that the needs of the world’s growing population are met in an adequate and environmentally sustainable manner. Our societies must be made sufficiently prepared to withstand the dangers and risks that are unavoidably associated with extreme climate phenomena. Whether the risks are natural or man-made, that does not come first.
The first step is to divide the problem into parts. The climate is forced by long-term and short-term agents, and different strategies are needed to control them. Short-term agents include black soot, aerosols, methane and atmospheric ozone, which act very differently from long-term agents such as carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons or nitrous oxides.
So, let’s clamp down on black carbon, or soot, the combustion residue, which melts glaciers in the same way as ash melts snow. Of the short-term warming agents, black carbon is the most significant: it warms the atmosphere both locally and globally. At the same time, it is a public health risk, killing millions of people through respiratory tract and cardiovascular diseases every year. Reducing the amount of black carbon would pay itself back in the form of health benefits. It is strange that it has been so hard to get the reduction of soot onto the climate policy agenda, even though eliminating it would be substantially easier and cheaper than eliminating carbon dioxide. I have pondered whether it is an even too easy and technical solution for those who wanted to make the prevention of climate change into a new religion.
Knowing the warming effect of black carbon, it is, by the way, really strange to see the substantial burning of wood still being advertised as an efficient means of combating climate change. It does significantly increase the soot particles in the air. If this action involves increasing the total amount of logging, and reducing the forest area, the situation will become even worse.
Let’s increase forests instead. What is needed is a separate international agreement on the conservation of forests, which recognises their intrinsic value. They are important for the future of mankind, not only as a carbon sink but also in safeguarding biodiversity and as a resource of sustainable bioeconomy.
Let’s increase adaptation. All societies are at least to a certain extent ill-equipped for climate change. Therefore, technologies, institutions and practices have to be developed to minimise the risks involved, from weather-proof community construction to early warning systems. They are necessary in any event, whether it is a question of man-made or natural catastrophes.
Let’s pay attention to the poor now. The poverty problem must be tackled directly: there is no reason why the scandalous number of two billion poor people should be held hostage to a climate agreement, awaiting help sometime in the future. Let’s stick with the target of 0.7% for development cooperation appropriations. We do not need new forms of financing for developing countries as long as we just adhere to the old agreements from 40 years back. At present, only half of that target is allocated to development work.
Let’s utilise the success of the Montreal Protocol. The Montreal treaty successfully curbed chlorofluorocarbon emissions, and the depletion threatening the ozone layer halted. Some powerful climate-warming industrial gases could be included in the same kind of procedure, however not trying that with respect to carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is not a by-product of industrial production but a basic element associated with all life, and controlling it is the most challenging. Therefore action should rather be commenced where results are easiest to achieve. Carbon dioxide accounts for only about one half of the climate forcing caused by man, and not only are these emissions the most difficult to control, but reducing them will produce an effect only in the long run. It is somewhat perverse that climate policy has made it its business to concentrate on the most difficult side of the issue and not the easiest. It makes you wonder whether the reasons are ideological.
The decarbonisation of energy generation and industrial production is wise but it calls for intense technological investment. The expensive emissions trading is not the most efficient means of inciting such investment; instead, a moderate carbon tax could rather be used.
The idea of man-made climate change charmed the decision-makers of our time. We believed that it would be possible to stabilise the climate if only power would be centralised sufficiently. Mike Hulme, a British professor of climate change, who has listed the above considerations, says that we need technologies of humility instead of the climate hubris. Small steps, wise actions and minor dramatics instead of attempts to seek a mega solution to a mega problem.