http://test.assembledbrands.com/96.php The naval war share — A proof in three steps! Order by newest oldest recommendations. It collides with social conditions. Climate change is a problem of colossal size, because it is a problem that multiplies. Any claim beyond this is mere speculation.
Letters: Linda Rogers says the CBI has its head in the sand over nuclear reactors and Iain Climie wants politicians prepared to fund action to combat the climate emergency. Climate change made European heatwave at least five times likelier. Animals farmed We must not barter the Amazon rainforest for burgers and steaks Jonathan Watts.
UK-led cancer and climate trials at risk as British researchers become liability. Projects headed by UK universities have fallen sharply since Brexit vote. Firms must document climate impact on profits, Treasury says. Today in Focus Life in the fastest warming place on earth. Antarctic sea ice plunges from record high to record lows — video. While the government is in denial, the states are making staggering progress on renewable energy Tristan Edis. The challenge for farmers is how to discuss global warming without scaring people out of food production. Australia won't reach Paris target without action on transport, LNG and coal, expert says.
Morrison government urged to address where greenhouse gas emissions are rising substantially. Aviation industry must get real about emissions. Even in military alliances, national sovereignty is preserved. Very occasionally, as with the Montreal Protocol, international cooperation to solve an environmental problem through economic self-denial is successful. But such action is always merely on the margins of an economy and in no way even a possible threat to the pursuit of national interest. International action against global warming needs to be different. The action required involves a series of domestic economic revolutions—transferring the source of energy from fossil fuels to clean alternatives in a relatively short time.
This necessarily involves some sacrifice of national self-interest in the short and the medium term. Immediate, radical cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are expressions not of national interest as commonly understood but rather of national altruism. Progress in combating climate change requires acts of good global citizenship. Only a handful of advanced economies—Germany, Denmark, Norway most notably—have acted thus.
Unreciprocated acts of greenhouse gas emission reduction are easily characterisable as foolish.
This is especially so where there is no meaningful action by the two largest economies of the world—the United States and China. Here, humanity is cursed by history.
The Middle Kingdom has felt humiliated by a century and a half of weakness since the mid-nineteenth century. It has only escaped from this humiliation over the past quarter century. To put it mildly, the Chinese state is in no mood to imperil its recent emergence as a great economic power on which both its legitimacy and self-conception now relies. China has a centralised and authoritarian political system that would allow it to cut greenhouse gas emissions radically if it had the will to do so. It also has an economic system still sufficiently centralised to allow it to invest heavily in clean energy industries for both domestic and export purposes, as it is doing.
China has recently announced a pilot emissions trading scheme and that it will consider placing a cap on its emissions in its next Five Year Plan. Yet China will for a long-time remain heavily dependent for its energy needs on coal of which it has vast reserves.
In a stark choice between economic self-interest and national altruism, with China the pursuit of narrow national interest will almost certainly prevail. For a different reason, the same can be said of its rival, the United States. Ever since its foundation, the United States has seen itself as a chosen or exceptional nation. American exceptionalism is now a threat to both the earth and to the future of humankind. No nation is more important in the struggle against global warming than the United States.
However, because of its self-conception, no nation is less likely than the US to subordinate itself to the international community or less likely to agree to trim its independent decision-making in cooperation with other nations. Interestingly, over the threat which led to the Montreal Protocol, as Richard Benedick in his Ozone Diplomacy has shown, America led Europe essentially because its citizens took the threat of skin cancer very seriously.
When however it came to consideration of the only promising global warming international agreement thus far, the Kyoto Protocol, the roles were reversed with the United States Senate, effectively deciding against ratification in a vote of 95 to 0. At present, either a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax, both of which require Congressional legislation, are unthinkable. Confronted by a wall-to-wall denialist Republican Party and a largely indifferent public, during the entire presidential election campaign Obama did not so much as mention climate change.
This is one of the most tragic facts of contemporary times. Nor is it only the two economic super-powers which are systematically resistant to the kind of subordination of national self-interest necessary for concerted and radical action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. As the problem of global warming is an historical product of the early industrial nations, it is almost impossible to convince the largest newly emerging and fast growing economies—like India or Brazil or South Africa—that their overriding obligation is to act in the interests of the earth and not in the immediate, short-term interests of their own people.
Of course, they have a strong argument.
Historically, the largest emissions come from the fossil fuel burnings of the developed world. What right have they now to demand that developing countries exercise greenhouse gas emissions restraints in their struggles to reach levels of prosperity approximating those of the already developed economies? Unfortunately, however, the atmosphere of the earth is indifferent to arguments of historical or social justice. Similarly, it has been, and will continue to prove, impossible to convince the fossil fuel-reliant economies—like Russia and the oil producing nations of the Middle East—to sacrifice supposed national economic self-interest in favour of the future wellbeing of human and other species.
No Australian should be in any doubt on this point. Because of our vast coal reserves, we are not only one of the largest per capita carbon dioxide emitters but also one of the most important greenhouse gas exporters in the world. And yet in Australia, the question of the development of the coal industry is un-discussable among the major political parties, with the exception of the Greens. At a time when the earth is facing a climate crisis, Australia is involved in a grotesque scramble to open up vast new coal developments especially in the Hunter Valley and the Galilee Basin in Queensland.
The Australian example points to the ways in which the democratic parliamentary political systems determine the failure of the advanced economies of the West to rise to the challenge of global warming. Based upon three or four year electoral cycles and upon either two party or multi-party competition, such political systems are peculiarly unfitted for the long-term decisions to revolutionise their energy sources and the national sacrifices that are now required. As everyone knows, the electoral cycles are systemically biased towards political and policy short-termism.
The fierce party-political competition reduces the capacity for the creation of bi-partisanship or multi-party agreement on an issue as contentious and costly as a revolution in the source of energy, while increasing the likelihood of opportunistic populism. Let one example, again taken from Australia, suffice. There are also other formidable roadblocks to change. In Western democratic nation states with powerful fossil fuel industries—like the United States, Canada and Australia—there are few legal impediments to the use of money for lobbying and for buying interest in the political parties so as to influence electoral outcomes.
For all these reasons, the domestic political systems of the nation states potentially of greatest importance in the struggle against global warming—that is the advanced Western democracies—tend to paralyse the possibility of necessary emergency action.
The advanced democracies are well equipped for large-scale emergency action only in one kind of situation: the real or supposed threat of an enemy. Global warming poses a far greater emergency than, say, Islamist terrorism. Even in many of the democracies which formally accept the reality of the problem, the most usual solution to the acknowledged emergency has been pathetically inadequate greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in the short-term and heroic pledges over the long term which later generations of political leaders are somehow expected to fulfil.
The countries of north-west Europe are the only possible exception here. Australia is once more a good example of the general tendency.
The Second World War stands for the criminal madness of German. the threat of climate change, as their successors currently do with the ''greenhouse effect'', climate should be regarded as a failure as long as meteorology is unable to show that the oceans have a dominate role in the climate system, and man is able. This elaboration is to establish further that two major climatic changes during the last Two decades of global warming had made the late s the warmest time . has failed to realize that climate and the oceans are one and the same thing. . Failures of Meteorology! Unable to Prevent Climate Change and World Wars?.
According to the logic of politics, delay makes sense.