August 30, 2009

Killing the Goose

It is important to read the following short article carefully to see how disjointed and illogical the entire AGW (climate change movement has become). The CSE is a large and respected environmental institution in India whose Director, Sunita Narain, is quite influential and a "global democracy" proponent. If you ever wanted a perfect example of how the theory of man made global warming has morphed into the more ambiguous "climate change" which in truth is just a means by which many of its promoters can achieve their true goals of social justice-this little article is it. The title of the article actually says it all.

FROM- Kuensel Newspaper

Climate change is about economics and politics
Developed countries must reduce emissions by at least 40 percent to prevent irreversible climate change

30 August, 2009 - Climate change is not about science, and politics is about economic growth and politics, according to the centre for science and environment (CSE) in New Delhi, India.

The director of CSE, Sunita Narain, said that climate change is related to carbon dioxide and other emissions, and in turn related to economic growth. “It’s directly linked to economic growth; so, when you report climate change, you’re reporting economic growth,” she said.

CSE defines climate change as the changing trend of changing weather. “It’s not only about rising temperature but about the extreme and variable weather events,” the director said to some 115 media personnel from South Asia, who had gathered at the India Habitat Centre in New Delhi on Thursday for a two-day briefing workshop on climate change.

Although, industrialised countries contribute more to climate change through greenhouse gas emissions, they experience less of an impact than developing countries, said environmentalists. The south Asian region is the worst hit by climate change, according to them.

Experts on climate change said that this is because developing countries, which are dependent on monsoon, have less capacity to cope with changing climate.

They emphasised collaboration among countries and collective effort in addressing the issue. “The impact of climate change is more on us. We’re victims of climate change for things we haven’t done,” said the associate director of CSE Chandra Bushan.

This can be addressed through negotiations among countries, they said. Reduction of emissions by countries mainly responsible for climate change is the only alternative to address the impact of climate change, said the special envoy of the Indian prime minister on climate change, Shyam Saran.

The minimum requirement to prevent irreversible climate change is to reduce emissions at least 40 percent by developed countries,” said Shyam Saran.

CSE’s associate director, Chandra Bushan, said that emissions could be reduced by using renewable energy instead of fossil fuel and by increasing the efficiency of cars. Increasing forest cover, organic farming, and grassland management, replacing incandescent bulbs with fluorescent tubes and by making nuclear energy more affordable, could also reduce it.

But experts said that reducing emissions still remains a challenge, because solutions are very expensive, even for the developed world. Negotiations on reducing emissions have come to a standstill.

Citing an example on affordability of options to reduce emission, Sunita Narain said that a unit of electricity today costs Nu 3.50, while a unit of solar energy costs about Nu 17. “The industrialised world has still not learnt the first lesson of climate change – to share atmospheric space, so growth can be shared equally,” she said.
Putting aside that the entire global warming mantra is at the least overblown the fact that the developing countries will soon overtake the developed countries in GHG emissions seems not to be relevant to the discussion of future restrictions. It is also irrelevant that the economic growth in developed countries is what has spurred the economic growth in developing countries. Without the economic growth in the developed countries their would have been and will be no market for developing countries.

The entire premise of this argument can be summarized in her final statement "so growth can be shared equally". The premise seems to be "let's kill the goose who laid the golden egg, so that we can all enjoy a litle meat with the omelette." The problem is that when you are finished with the omelette there is no more golden eggs and we all starve.


No comments:

Post a Comment