2008 Woodie Awards
Guest: No single strategy
Rachel Bergstein
Issue date: 3/6/08 Section: Opinion
This past January, I spent two weeks learning about environmental problems and policy in India, one of the world's largest and poorest countries. With the voices of Indian government officials and environmental advocates echoing in the back of my mind, I am deeply disturbed by Jay Nargundkar's declaration that global warming is "an issue of practicality, not morality" ("Chill out," March 4). If there is anything I learned in India - as well as from my experience in environmental justice activism - it is that the current global climate crisis is nothing but a question of justice and equity. And it most certainly necessitates immediate action.
The climate crisis is inherently unjust because of the glaring discrepancy between those who cause the problem and those who suffer the consequences. In the United States, with four percent of the world's population, our over-consumptive, fossil-fuel-intensive lifestyle leads to 23 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Contrast this to India, which contains 16 percent of the world's population but only contributes 5.1 percent of its greenhouse gases. Poor, developing countries such as India (as well as China, Brazil, South Africa and others) bear little historical responsibility for climate change, but because of their financial and infrastructural inability to adapt to climate change, they will be some of the first and hardest hit. For instance, even if global emissions were reduced to zero tomorrow, the Himalayan glaciers that feed the Ganges River, providing 37 percent of India's irrigation and drinking water for 500 million people, will be completely gone by 2030.
The ethical dilemma becomes even stickier when we consider that countries such as India have rapidly developing economies. To meet its development goals and raise its citizens out of poverty, India intends to triple or quadruple its energy consumption by 2026, but because most of this energy comes from dirty-burning coal, India's greenhouse gas emissions will also significantly increase. Under the current fossil-fuel-based global energy economy, if developing countries are forced to make and pay for steep greenhouse gas reduction commitments, it is unlikely they will also be able to meet necessary economic and social development targets. As citizens of an industrialized country who enjoy one of the highest qualities of life in the world, we cannot in good conscience deny our Indian counterparts the right to lift seven hundred million people out of a $2-per-day standard of living. Yet if developing countries follow our oil- and coal-based path, the world will not reach the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommended emissions reductions, levels in time to avert effects of climate change even worse than those that are already inevitable.
This most urgent need to enact responsible, pragmatic climate policies in the U.S. stems not from hyperbole or exaggerated doomsday prophecy but rather from the fact that, if we do not produce realistic capacity and technology for a renewable energy economy on our own shores, there is no way we will be able to aid developing countries in a low-carbon development trajectory. In an interconnected global economy, we are fooling ourselves if we think the economic disruption, global health problems and food and water scarcity caused by climate change will miraculously stop at our own borders. Climate crisis is not an American problem or a European one or an Indian one or a Chinese one. It is a global problem that requires globally appropriate policy solutions.
There is no silver bullet solution that will end the climate crisis in one fell swoop. I agree with Jay Nargundkar that the disadvantages of corn ethanol far outweigh its advantages. I also agree with Ali Adler that we must move as quickly as possible toward a solar-and-wind-based energy economy. Ultimately, however, we must not be so naive as to think that there is a single strategy that will cure all of our climate ills. Our policy demands must include a diverse energy basket that incorporates renewable energy from a variety of sources, and our social demands must include a paradigm shift toward an overall reduction in our outrageously excessive consumption level.
Most importantly, when we focus our efforts on the domestic climate agenda, we must not be so shortsighted that we cannot see beyond our own borders. While a national or transnational The Day After Tomorrow scenario is highly unlikely, the clock is certainly ticking. Restraint is simply no longer a feasible option.
Rachel Bergstein is a junior individual studies major. She can be reached at rachel.bergstein@gmail.com.
The climate crisis is inherently unjust because of the glaring discrepancy between those who cause the problem and those who suffer the consequences. In the United States, with four percent of the world's population, our over-consumptive, fossil-fuel-intensive lifestyle leads to 23 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Contrast this to India, which contains 16 percent of the world's population but only contributes 5.1 percent of its greenhouse gases. Poor, developing countries such as India (as well as China, Brazil, South Africa and others) bear little historical responsibility for climate change, but because of their financial and infrastructural inability to adapt to climate change, they will be some of the first and hardest hit. For instance, even if global emissions were reduced to zero tomorrow, the Himalayan glaciers that feed the Ganges River, providing 37 percent of India's irrigation and drinking water for 500 million people, will be completely gone by 2030.
The ethical dilemma becomes even stickier when we consider that countries such as India have rapidly developing economies. To meet its development goals and raise its citizens out of poverty, India intends to triple or quadruple its energy consumption by 2026, but because most of this energy comes from dirty-burning coal, India's greenhouse gas emissions will also significantly increase. Under the current fossil-fuel-based global energy economy, if developing countries are forced to make and pay for steep greenhouse gas reduction commitments, it is unlikely they will also be able to meet necessary economic and social development targets. As citizens of an industrialized country who enjoy one of the highest qualities of life in the world, we cannot in good conscience deny our Indian counterparts the right to lift seven hundred million people out of a $2-per-day standard of living. Yet if developing countries follow our oil- and coal-based path, the world will not reach the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommended emissions reductions, levels in time to avert effects of climate change even worse than those that are already inevitable.
This most urgent need to enact responsible, pragmatic climate policies in the U.S. stems not from hyperbole or exaggerated doomsday prophecy but rather from the fact that, if we do not produce realistic capacity and technology for a renewable energy economy on our own shores, there is no way we will be able to aid developing countries in a low-carbon development trajectory. In an interconnected global economy, we are fooling ourselves if we think the economic disruption, global health problems and food and water scarcity caused by climate change will miraculously stop at our own borders. Climate crisis is not an American problem or a European one or an Indian one or a Chinese one. It is a global problem that requires globally appropriate policy solutions.
There is no silver bullet solution that will end the climate crisis in one fell swoop. I agree with Jay Nargundkar that the disadvantages of corn ethanol far outweigh its advantages. I also agree with Ali Adler that we must move as quickly as possible toward a solar-and-wind-based energy economy. Ultimately, however, we must not be so naive as to think that there is a single strategy that will cure all of our climate ills. Our policy demands must include a diverse energy basket that incorporates renewable energy from a variety of sources, and our social demands must include a paradigm shift toward an overall reduction in our outrageously excessive consumption level.
Most importantly, when we focus our efforts on the domestic climate agenda, we must not be so shortsighted that we cannot see beyond our own borders. While a national or transnational The Day After Tomorrow scenario is highly unlikely, the clock is certainly ticking. Restraint is simply no longer a feasible option.
Rachel Bergstein is a junior individual studies major. She can be reached at rachel.bergstein@gmail.com.
Submit a letter to the editor or post a comment below.
Be the first to comment on this story