Comments on: We want Climate Justice, there is no Planet B

By: Michele

Michele — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:15:07 +0000

Sharing an opinion piece about climate change and development – just to keep things in perspective:

http://pambazuka.org/en/category/panafrican/60929

Dictatorship more dangerous than climate change

The inconvenient truth about Africa today is that dictatorship presents a far more perilous threat to the survival of Africans than climate change. The devastation African dictators have wreaked upon the social fabric and ecosystem of African societies is incalculable. Over the past several decades, bloodthirsty dictators like Uganda’s Idi Amin, Zaire’s (The Congo) Mobutu Sese Seko, Central African Republic’s Jean Bedel Bokassa, Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir, Chad’s Hissiene Habre, and the political fraternal twins Mengistu Haile Mariam and Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia have been responsible for untold deaths on the continent.

Millions of Africans have starved to death because of the criminal negligence, depraved indifference and gross incompetence of African dictators, not climate change. Millions more suffer today in abject poverty because corrupt African dictators have systematically siphoned off international aid, pilfered loans provided by the international banks and plundered the tax coffers. Africans face extreme privation and mass starvation not because of climate change but because of the rapacity of power-hungry dictators. The continent today suffers from a terminal case of metastasised cancer of dictatorships, not the blight of global warming. …

By: Philip

Philip — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:02:45 +0000

OK, I found a figure for the proposed Kyoto Protocol II: 1.9 trillion dollars or 3% of the world GDP in order to lower temperature by 0.15 degree celsius over NINETY years.

You can reduce that to 1% of world GDP, at a cheaper rate of ‘only’ 500 billion dollars, but your impact on global temperature will be zero.

By: Philip

Philip — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:59:10 +0000

I don’t agree, Andrew. I don’t believe that we will have to pay more later simply because I don’t believe in the doomsday scenarios, period.

I have heard such stories since twenty years ago, and every year, we’re told that things are about to go very very bad. Guess what? We’re still here and doing quite comfortably, thank you.

Another thing: whatever we do now, will have little impact overall on changing the climate. Even if the Kyoto Protocol is fully implemented, how much will the temperature change even by the most optimistic projections? 0.1 degree celsius? And how much will that cause the global economy?

If global warming is really so inevitable, and the consequences really so bad, and we can do so little about it, isn’t it better to have unfettered economic growth in order to have sufficient wealth to overcome those consequences?

And wouldn’t it be better to help those countries affected directly through aid, rather than by having a huge international agreement on carbon emissions?

By: exaggerated economic machine

exaggerated economic machine — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:06:46 +0000

Global warming is as issue but exaggerating it to urgency is a conspiracy. It is to make rich nations and individual like Al Gore wealthier. Wake me up when pig fly.

By: andrew leung

andrew leung — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:14:38 +0000

We may pay more now or pay later. Higher temperatures can lead to droughts and higher food prices or higher aircon bills etc. More companies are realising the need for corporate social responsibility and protecting the environment.

By: Philip

Philip — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:26:00 +0000

Once again, let us be clear eyed about Copenhagen and the Kyoto Protocol. “Climate Justice” mustn’t turn into “distribution of wealth from successful nations – like Singapore – to less successful nations”.

I already pay enough for using electricity, public transport etc. I DON’T want to pay more.