A Climatic Shift
Our very good friend and band mate Brady sent this one in. Enjoy.
In recognizing equality, we invariably accept some level of responsibility to that those we consider equal. Injustice cannot morally or even logically be committed against one’s perceived equal; to do so would undermine the integrity of one’s own self. Not every individual will be able to maintain this sober of a perspective all the time, so it is a concept enshrined in legal and social systems.
With each new social system, we have gradually extended equality to more and more people. Some 4,000 years ago, it was not uncommon to consider a neighbouring band to be unequal or to or, more bluntly, less human than one’s own. As bands turned to tribes turned to cities turned to kingdoms turned to states, the notion of equality spread between larger and larger groups of people. Though the British Empire was systematically racist and heavily stratified, the Brits generally believed themselves to have equal basic human rights. With this came a sense of responsibility for one another on a larger level: the idea of a nation.
We are getting beyond that now; most educated people will agree that all humans in the world are equal, regardless of gender or ethnicity, and our concept of what exactly are basic human rights has expanded as well. With this acceptance, however, comes a greater responsibility for each individual. Defining what each individual is responsible for in a global context will be one of the great debates of the 21st century.
It isn’t all morals, and there is a pragmatic reason for this as well. The once disconnected regions of the world are moving closer and closer together. Their self-sufficiency is no longer guaranteed and their individual problems are no longer self contained. Global cooperation is necessary to ensure mutual survival. Furthermore, the environmental footprint of humans has become so great that it is beginning to disrupt and challenge the natural systems of Earth. All human activity up to the present has had climactic consequences – and we were indeed geo-engineering before the concept was ever truly realized – but we are now moving towards a threshold beyond which deliberate interference in and regulation of planetary systems may become necessary just to keep Earth habitable. This solemn obligation cannot be accomplished by any less than every person.
Climate change, specifically, is one of the first (but not likely the last) completely global environmental challenges we must face, and it is a make or break deal for our species. Forget about losing polar bears – the real consequences of runaway global warming would be a loss of life much worse than all the wars of the twentieth century. If the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere isn’t capped (at most at 450 parts per million – we are at 390 now and rising by 2 per year) and gradually reducing soon enough, we run the risk of triggering the planet’s positive feedback mechanisms and losing control of the situation completely. Action must come quickly and radically. Unfortunately, all the developed countries of the world are run by democratically elected politicians whose hands are tied by (to name a few things) special interest groups, ideological subscriptions, short terms in office and volatile electorates.
Most of the greenhouse gases presently in the atmosphere were produced during the now-developed world’s industrial revolution. In the future, the majority of greenhouse gas emissions will have come from what is now the developing and newly developed world – the big economies of China and India in particular. The developed countries argue that there is little point in cutting their emissions if the developing world just fills the gap, and one cannot just deny the developing world their right to economic development, either. The solution will be complicated and will require a lot of trust between a lot of rivals, but everyone knows roughly how it might be accomplished.
The Centre for Science and Environment, an influential thinktank based in Delhi, has pointed out that “the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere was built up over centuries in the process of creating nations’ wealth. This is the natural debt of nations, and they must pay up.” Sound expensive? It probably won’t be, and since cost is a relative concept, it’s a pretty good deal when compared with the consequences of inaction.
The idea of a carbon debt is likely the one that makes the most sense. If we truly believe in equality, we cannot deny the third world a chance to develop in the same manner as we did. At the same time, this is not more important than the survival of the planet. As such, the developed world should now accept their debt and begin rapidly refitting their economies. The expenses associated with green technology will drop as soon as real investment goes into it, and it will help these countries stay competitive in the future.
At the same time, the developing world should keep track of their own emissions and accept the debt they themselves are accumulating. A peg-system should be pursued, where developing nations pledge to invest more and more into green energy as their growing economies permit. Some of the developed world’s “debt” could be paid off through subsidizing the developing world’s early investments in green energy, and their own economies would benefit over the long term from the massive green-industry that could be built.
What excites me most about this is what it may mean for the individual’s responsibility and rights in a global context. When the deal is made it will be based off of implicit and explicit ideas about what the rights and limits of each individual life ought to be. It will be in the form of regulations regarding pollution and consumption, but because they will stretch internationally and effect everyone, it may prove eventually to be a great equalizer in standards of living and concepts of mutual responsibility. The prospects for a more equal global system are there, and we might be able to save the polar bears, too.
-Brady
