Beware the self serving finger waggers

After the big bang of the final declaration at the Paris climate change conference we have barely heard a whimper. Yes, there have been distractions, with terrorism monopolizing headlines at least for the past few weeks. But have no doubt Climate change will return once again. Have no doubt we we will hear the all to frequent, the all too shrill calls to action supported by exhortations to save the planet before the rapidly approaching tipping point. Yes you detect my skepticism. My issue is not with Global Warming (see my earlier post Credo on Climate Change re my personal position) but with the whole circus that seems to be the way the modern world approaches and executes change.

Consider COP21. The wash-up is a range of 'historical', 'unprecedented', global commitments by almost 200 nations to stop the world heating by 2 degrees over the next 85 years. It sounds fantastic and I guess I believe it is. Without getting into the plausibility of the result, the real miracle of COP21 is not just getting any agreement at all, although that is admittedly an achievement, but the swifty that the largest emitters have pulled on the rest of the world. Yes I called it a swifty, a sleight of hand, a subterfuge. The largest contributors to global warming have gained commitments from smaller contributors that are clearly far in excess of their contribution to the problem.

"The largest emitters have pulled a swifty on the rest of the world"

Consider the facts

The greatest contribution to climate change since industrialization has come from USA and Europe with significant contributions by China , Russia and Japan. (see graphic below.)

China is most notable for the speed with which it has become the largest annual emitter and a significant driver of global warming in its own right, despite its much more recent industrialization.

The historical contributions of just 5 countries, if you will permit me to call Europe a country, to global warming is approx 75%. Three quarters of all global warming (to 2011) is due to just these 5. One would therefore expect that the contribution to the mitigation effort should be commensurate. Quite simply if you caused 75% of the problem you should clean up 75% of the problem. You clean up your own mess. Well, let's see.

A vast majority of the pledges made at Paris were based on a nominated percentage reduction of GHG emissions below some baseline rate by a nominated deadline. The actual percentages and baseline dates vary but do not really impact on the problem. At first glance it may seem quite reasonable that each country makes commitments that reduce their own emission rates, especially if the reductions are of the same magnitude, and indeed most countries have chosen roughly similar reductions. So each country is effectively making equal commitments based on their own contribution. That's ok, isn't it?
 No it isn't.
Climate change is the result of the cumulative impact of emissions over decades. So any mitigation should relate to the cumulative impact of a country.

But all Paris pledges are based on emissions rates as opposed to cumulative historical emissions.

And here is the problem. The large emitters, Europe and the US, and to a lesser extent Russia and Japan, went through industrialization a long time ago and have had high emissions for a much longer time. Their current annual emissions may still be high, but nowhere near their cumulative impact.

Lets look at the numbers. While the top 5 contributors to climate change represent 75% of cumulative emissions they only represent 50% of current emission rates. (see below)

Source  CAIT Climate Data Explorer

So pledges based on current emission rates will always favor the earlier industrialized countries. 

But wait there is more

If that were not bad a enough there is a second problem.  GHG emission rates do not take into account the impact of imports and exports. The GHG generated in the production of goods is generally not included in the emission rates attributed to a country. So the producing country  has the burden of the emissions which are enjoyed by the consuming country. Countries like the US and Europe are major importers of high GHG products and therefore benefit from this error, while exporters like China bear the burden in their emission figures.

China is the elephant in the room

But let's not start feeling sorry for poor China. Yes, China can rightly expect an adjustment in their emission rates for the impact of exports, and it is not insignificant. It amounted to some 22% in 2005 and would, I guess be similar today (see my earlier post Seeking a fair GHG reduction target - Part 5: Who is responsible? which presents some of these figures with sources). However, even after adjusting for the exports error, China remains the largest annual emitter, by far.

In any case, China has virtually opted out of any reduction commitments. It has agreed to decrease the carbon intensity of its economy by 60-65% by 2030. But it had already committed to a 40% reduction by 2020, and it seems its extended commitment is really 'Business as usual', requiring it to simply continue along its current path of building more gas/nuclear power stations than coal fired ones.

China has justified its stance on the basis that its industrialization is relatively recent and that it should be accorded the same 'free emissions ' that the rest of the industrialized world enjoyed over the decades. That too may sound like a reasonable argument, but the figures don't stack up. China's Emissions per capita is already equal to that of Europe and also rising fast. So it should increase the standard of living of its citizens as is the case for Europe with no greater emissions than Europe's.

So like many arguments posed in this messy battle for the moral high-ground, it is self-serving, deceptive and false.

Everyone is complicit

Given these rather blatant errors in the accounting of emissions and the specious justifications for low pledges, why haven't the strong CC adherents and their media hangers-on called this out? Let's face it the chatterati are not really good at nuances. They don't fit well into a 15 second grab. As for the strong CC adherents, it is a silent acquiescence. Given that the errors in emissions accounting serve to apply more pressure to more countries for ever higher commitments, they choose to let it run. In short they are tacitly complicit.

So beware! Beware the self-serving finger-waggers wielding their dagger of shame at the smaller countries. Don't be seduced by false measures and beguiling justifications, and face the unpalatable truth, that despite the inspiring words uttered. Despite the wide acclaim by the cheering masses. Despite their much lauded commitments at Paris, our leading polluters, the United States, Europe and China, have not accepted their fair share of the burden of GHG mitigation. Shame on them.

Migration crisis

The scenes of the beleaguered migrants, asylum seekers, or refugees, in camps, in un-seaworthy vessels, and in the sea, drowned bodies, anguished and pained faces, children, mothers, grandmothers assail us. Who cannot be moved to demand action.
It is without doubt a reminder that this world can be a terrible place, if by chance you were born in the wrong time or the wrong place.There is nothing fair about this. Why can some humans live a civil life, without want for food or security, while others are deprived of these human rights. It is not a just world.

Taking stock in a troubled world

Our world is in a sorry state.Wars ravage too many countries, Somalia,Yemen, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Sudan,Ukraine, and others. The great strides in communication technologies have opened up a window to life in all parts of the globe. For the destitute peoples of Africa and Asia, the relative affluence of the developed world is a magnet. Large numbers of people either escaping persecution, and war, or just trying to improve their lives, are all too willing to leave their countries and seek 'asylum' elsewhere. The numbers are staggering, estimates give some 20 million currently living in refugee camps as at end of 2014, but most probably double that in various states of transit across the globe.

Most refugees simply escape war or persecution and join others in camps in the country adjacent to the conflict. They then seek to migrate to the more generous developed world. In response to the escalating need some developed countries have increased their refugee intake from but a few thousand to a few thousand more. Even Germany's dramatic increase to an unprecedented 800,000 this year is but a drop in the ocean when facing a total over 40m.

There is of course widespread media coverage with dramatic scenes of human misery. So we have full time coverage. Emotions in the electorate are running high, and politicians cannot avoid taking some action. But what can they and what should they do? Our government's widely welcomed commitment to resettle an additional 12,000 refugees from the camps is a token. In comparison to other developed countries it is perhaps generous, but it remains nothing but a token when looking at the size of the problem.

Lets face some facts

The current wave of migration is unusual in its extent and size. It has been compared to the wave of relocation following WWII. Yet all efforts to date have been insignificant. Until this wave of refugees broke the shores of Europe over the past 12 months, the West has ignored the problem.

Now, no longer. With tens of thousands of 'migrants' flowing into Italy, Greece, Hungary they are a very visible, ever-present and growing problem.

For Europe solutions are particularly challenging. The European Union was built on a respect for every individual and has long espoused universal human rights. However the large numbers present a problem for even the largest economies. There is of course the very real costs required to house, feed and integrate the new migrants. For the smaller economies who are struggling with their own welfare systems this is no minor issue. But the greater challenge for the largely Christian Europe is cultural, how to accept large numbers of Muslim migrants into your society without changing it.

In all these respects, this mass migration presents a complex dilemma to the developed world.

I do not claim a 'solution', but I think most of our commentators and much of the media seem to avoid some unwelcome facts. Perhaps this is due to political correctness. Perhaps it is hard to look dispassionately at human suffering. Perhaps it is a fear that any harsh judgment will result in criticism directed at the 'messenger'. Indeed this may well result from my voicing some of these issues. Nevertheless, I believe real solutions can only arise if we are honest about the size and nature of the problem. So let me venture some observations.

Borders should be closed 

• Not all 'asylum seekers' are refugees and they should not be treated in the same way.
• The world has too many people who if given the chance have the means to travel to countries which have open borders and which will offer a better life.  
• Germany opening its doors to some 800,000 has caused a virtual run at the borders. This is unsustainable and damaging to every country in the Eurozone. 
• Large and sudden increases in the number of migrants causes economic and social burdens on the receiving countries. Failure to manage the rate of increase and the integration can lead to social unrest, which manifests itself in increased poverty and crime rates and lowers living standards for everyone. 
• Responsible governments will limit their intake of migrants to ensure their own social structures remain intact. Even countries adjacent to conflict zones have enforced camps to limit the impact on their own populations. This is not racism and it is not unreasonable.

Refugees in camps should be given priority for resettlement

• There are millions of poor souls who don't have the means to pay people smugglers or who would not risk the lives of their families. 
• Those who are leaving the camps are trying to 'jump the queue'.
• Those who claim to be refugees and have already left a country where they were safe should be returned to a refugee camp, closest to their point of departure, before being processed. (I have specifically not mentioned the UN convention for refugees, which requires refugees to seek asylum from the first signatory country. It is a sufficient condition that a genuine refugee apply for resettlement from the first country where it has refuge. It goes without saying that those in camps in Turkey and Jordan are safe from the Syrian war.)
• Priority for resettlement should be given to those who have stayed in a camp the longest.

Refugees should not be allowed to chose the country into which they are to be resettled

• Refugees are escaping persecution or war. They are by definition looking for refuge and should automatically be satisfied by whichever country offers this.
• A UN body, most probably the UNHCR should manage the resettlement process. 
• All countries offering places for refugee resettlement should register these with the UNHCR
• Each refugee family should be offered a resettlement country randomly selected.
• A family should have the option to reject the country of resettlement but if they did so they would go to the bottom of the queue for the next selection, and may indeed stay in their camp for years.
• Countries accepting refugees for resettlement also retain their rights to select which refugees they will accept
• A vital consequence of this process is that economic refugees would NOT register as refugees

Funding for refugees has to be provided by the world

• All countries as part of their obligations to the UN should offer to fund the resettlement of refugees. 
• Quite separately all countries should also offer to resettle refugees.
• UNHCR should allocate a fixed US$ amount per person being resettled into a country. This should equate to at least the first 12 months cost of housing and feeding the refugee. This amount should be paid to the resettling country as an incentive for even poorer countries to accept refugees.
• There should in addition be a levy on all countries to ensure the refugee camps are maintained to preserve the well being and dignity of those who are forced to stay in camps till they are resettled.

Stop the wars

• Refugees are a symptom of failed states, and indeed a failed world system
• The world needs to be far more proactive in ensuring leaders do not threaten their own people.
• In many of the troubled areas of the world small groups of armed thugs hold their populations hostage to their whims. In most of these cases the UN and the West could very simply remove the tyrants from power and they should do so.
• I accept that with wars, especially where larger nations are involved, it is far more difficult and we are yet to develop a UN-like body that is effective in these situations.

Clear the camps

One of our millennium goals should be to clear the camps. Too many camps around the world have become the way of life for too many and for too long.