Peter_1
19-12-2007, 02:16 PM
Stop taking it out of the ground
George Monbiot interviewed by Sonali Kolhatkar
George Monbiot interviewed by
Sonali Kolhatkar
December 15, 2007
About ten thousand delegates from more than 180 nations are meeting in
Bali to attempt to extend the Kyoto Protocol Global Warming Pact beyond
2012. Opposition from the United States, Canada, and Japan is likely to
stand in the way of any attempts to include emission reduction targets
in a “road map” for future global warming talks. The US said a proposal
for wealthy nations to reduce emissions by 25-40% by 2020, was “totally
unrealistic” and “unhelpful”. Meanwhile climate change activists in
cities around the world held rallies and demonstrations on Saturday
December 8th to urge leaders at the Bali conference to take action
against global warming.
George Monbiot is a columnist for the Guardian newspaper and author
“Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning.” In Heat, Monbiot advocates
a goal of ninety percent reduction in carbon emissions by the year 2030
in order to save the planet.
Kolhatkar: Is it true that even the most drastic cuts being recommended
at the table in Bali are not realistic, not based on current science and
just not going to be good enough to save the planet?
Monbiot: That’s right. If you look at the latest report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it shows that if we’re going
to avoid 2 degrees Celsius, that’s 3.6 degrees Farenheit of warming,
above pre-industrial levels – and that’s really the critical cutoff
point; we have to avoid that level of warming – then we need a global
cut of 85% of carbon emissions by 2050. Now, a global cut of 85% means
that in the rich nations the cut has to be a lot higher if it’s going to
be distributed equally, if everybody’s going to produce the same amount
of carbon dioxide. And that means that in countries such as the United
Kingdom and the United States, we’re talking about the high 90s. My
calculation suggests 98.3% in the U.S. corresponds to an 85% cut
worldwide. So, we’re really talking about a complete de-carbonization of
the global economy if we’re to have a high chance of preventing 2
degrees Celsius of warming.
Kolhatkar: Why is it that even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) is looking at science that seems to be out of date?
Monbiot: One of the really frightening things that we’re discovering
about climate change is that the events are overtaking the science and
as quickly as people can research the events, the events move on. For
example at the moment, we have a rate of growth in carbon emissions
which outstrips even the IPCC’s worst case scenario. So, when the panel
says we’ve got this very high case where there would be a great deal of
emissions – and we call that the A1F1 case – we’re actually finding that
right now it’s worse than that.
But we’re also seeing that there are various effects called “feedbacks”
which the panel hasn’t yet taken into account - it intends to do so in
the future - but they greatly accelerate climate change. A positive
feedback is a process that accelerates itself and there are several of
these which take place as far as climate change is concerned. For
example, when the oceans get warmer, less carbon dioxide can be absorbed
in the water. It’s just like a bottle of Coca-Cola – as you warm it up,
the carbon dioxide outgasses because it’s a simple physical property of
water that it can hold less gas when it warms up. As that takes place,
that carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere and makes the oceans even
warmer and so less carbon dioxide is absorbed by them and thus the
process goes on. It’s these feedbacks that the IPCC admits have not yet
been taken into account when calculating the necessary cut. Taken into
account, the cut could be even worse.
Kolhatkar: Given the real numbers, the Kyoto Protocol and its call for
cuts of about 5% of carbon emissions below 1990 levels in the next 5
years, sound ludicrous now.
Monbiot: It’s a complete joke, to be honest. And, not only are the
numbers completely out of scale by more than an order of magnitude with
the necessary cut, but not even that cut is being achieved! Not even the
5% is being achieved! The Kyoto Protocol has failed. And, I hate to say
this but it’s failed because primarily of the position taken by the U.S.
delegation during the negotiations in 1997. And, I hate to say this even
more but that delegation was led by Al Gore. And what Gore negotiated
was the institutional failure of the Kyoto Protocol. And he undermined
it primarily by creating some different standards for different nations.
He was talking about the U.S. making a cut against what it would
otherwise have produced, rather than a cut from the carbon levels which
were already taking place, which is a whole different ballgame. And he
also said there’s got to be emissions trading - we’ve got to be able to
buy cuts from other nations and that’s been incredibly destructive to
the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol.
Kolhatkar: And, ironically this week Al Gore accepted the Nobel Peace
Prize along with the IPCC. Gore is in Bali right now taking what seems
to be a different position than 1997. Is he actually backing the science
that you quote or are his numbers also an underestimate?
Monbiot: They’re still too low but there’s no question that Al Gore, in
common with almost every other leader, makes an awful lot better job of
governance when he’s out of office. Just like Clinton, just like Tony
Blair on this other side of the Atlantic - they say all the right things
when they can no longer influence the outcome. And, I’m sorry if I sound
cynical, you know. I don’t mean to pour cold water on his prize and all
the rest of it. I think he’s done some great stuff since he’s been out
of office but I also want people to remember what happened when he was
in office and he sunk the Kyoto Protocol.
Kolhatkar: What do you think about the discussions between finance
ministers during this Bali Climate Conference to have an exchange of
green technology and a trade in green goods? Developing nations are
calling on rich nations to share the technology that they say they
require in order to cut carbon emissions.
Monbiot: Well, fine, but I’ve had a horrible revelation over the past
few days and it’s something which has gradually been building up in my
consciousness and it suddenly hit home as I researched the figures,
which is that while there are plenty of schemes for sharing technologies
and for introducing alternative technologies and, indeed, for
encouraging consumers to reduce their demand for fossil fuels and all
the rest of it, as far as I can discover, nowhere on earth, in no nation
is there a scheme for reducing the supply of fossil fuels. You can say
what you like about demand but if you’re still digging the stuff out of
the ground - the coal and the oil and the gas – it’s going to get
burned! There’s no other reason it’s taken out of the ground. They don’t
get it out of the ground as a hobby. It’s going to get burned!
Kolhatkar: Now, aren’t we to assume that the supply will simply follow
the demand?
Monbiot: Well, the demand will follow the supply if the supply is there,
because we will use what energy is available to us. But, unless you have
a plan for reducing supply, your plans for reducing demands are a
complete waste of time. They’re just not going to materialize.
Kolhatkar: What about the assertion by the United States and other
nations that global warming reduction has to be somehow consistent with
their national economies? This is the main U.S, line, that the reason
they won’t accept these cuts is that it would impact the economy of the U.S.
Monbiot: Let’s look at the big picture here. At current rates of growth,
roughly 3% of the global level, the size of the economy doubles every 23
years. It’s an exponential function and this means that in the 92 years
between now and the end of the century, it increases by 16 times the
level of economic activity. Now, a very interesting series of equations
published recently on this side of the Atlantic prove that that level of
economic activity effectively equates into resource use. And, that a
doubling in the level of activity doubles the amount of resources that
human beings have ever used. What that means is that in the next 23
years between now and 2030, we will use as many economic resources as
humanity has used since it first stood on two legs – over 3 million
years or so. And this is simply unsustainable! We cannot sustain that
rate of growth. Even 3% is way beyond the levels of sustainability. By
the end of the century, we will have used 16 times the resources that
humanity has used since it first stood on two legs. There is not 16
times that level of resources on earth. They do not exist. Far from
allowing the rates of economic growth to dominate our policy on climate
change, our policy on climate change should dominate rates of economic
growth.
Kolhatkar: What about the United States saying that it would come up
with its own plan to cut global warming gasses by mid-2008? Any ideas on
what that might look like?
Monbiot: Yes, I have a pretty good idea of what it would look like. It
will be entirely voluntary. It would probably have to do with the carbon
intensity of the economy. This is the formula that George Bush keeps
using which is that we will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced
per unit of economic productivity rather than reduce it in absolute
terms (which is what we need to do), and it will be completely useless.
The only way we’re going to crack this problem is through international
agreement and everybody setting the same standards for themselves. So,
in other words, a binding international agreement.
Kolhatkar: This past Saturday was declared a global day of action on
climate change and there were rallies and demonstrations in cities
around the world. Do you feel that that sort of protest is increasing in
intensity fast enough?
Monbiot: No, not fast enough. And, by itself, it doesn’t go far enough.
A group of us preceded that protest on Wednesday when we went down to a
large open-cast coal mine which is being built here in South Wales. We
occupied that mine and we sat on the excavating equipment and we stopped
it from operating for the day. And that’s what I want to see a lot more
of. This is the only way in which we’re really going to register our
protest is to get in front of the mining equipment and to stop this
fossil fuel from being extracted. Unless we do so, we are doomed to
runaway climate change. We cannot prevent it without stopping that
fossil fuel from coming out of the ground. Some of us are now prepared
to risk arrest and imprisonment in order to do that. It’s got to that
level of desperation and a group of us decided that we’re going to keep
doing this until we can no longer do it, in other words, probably until
we’re all in prison.
Kolhatkar: Is this an organized group or is it just individuals?
Monbiot: No, it’s self-organized. In this case, we simply put out a call
– this is where we’re going to be, this is what we’re going to do,
here’s the date – and anyone can set up their own group amongst people
they trust and come down and join us. And, it worked very well and
that’s what we want to see a lot more of.
Kolhatkar: Here in the United States, there were demonstrations but they
were not very widely reported. It was not something that necessarily
distracted most Americans from their holiday shopping. But based on what
you and most other people paying attention to the environment say, it’s
really here in the United States that there needs to be the most action.
Monbiot: Yes, it really is. And the U.S. sets the pace for everybody
else. It’s also the case that the United States is the place where
things happen. When you want something to happen, and when the
government in the U.S. is prepared to allow it to happen, it can happen
very, very quickly there because you remain the technological and the
economic powerhouse. You remain the place where things can switch.
We saw this most clearly when the United States entered the 2nd World
War. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, there was this extraordinary
economic and technological transformation which took place not within
decades, not within years, not within months, within days! It was quite
phenomenal! Now, this is what won the war for the allied cause. It was
the turnaround in the United States. And, we saw for example, a largely
civilian economy switched over to a military economy within 90 days. The
whole process really took place within 90 days. General Motors, which
never looked at a piece of military technology before then, suddenly
became a military technology company. It turned out a fighter bomber
within 90 days of having been given the instructions to do so. It
designed, it prototyped, it tested and then it was working at full
commercial operation turning out fighter bombers. Now, that was in 1942.
This was in the days before just in time production and modular delivery
and all the rest of it. This was in the days when industry and
manufacturing was quite primitive compared to today. We could turn the
whole global economy around within a month if we wanted to now. All that
is lacking is the political will.
Kolhatkar: In this final week of the Bali Climate Conference, if most
nations who are attending, minus, of course, the U.S. and perhaps Canada
and Japan, do turn out a document that has more drastic cuts than the
Kyoto Protocol, even if it is not going to save the planet, I’m assuming
you’ll think that it’s a step in the right direction? Are you hopeful,
at least, that the people are coming together at such a large scale to
discuss this issue on an international level?
Monbiot: Well, I suppose it’s what Gramsci says: it’s the pessimism of
the intellect and the optimism of the will. I keep hoping but I’m not
hearing the right signals coming from governments at the moment and I’m
hearing an awful lot of “greenwash”, an awful lot of discussion aimed at
assuaging public opinion, but very little aimed at actually dealing with
the problem. By greenwash, I mean environmental whitewash. That’s a term
used to denote an impression of action without creating any action and
so far that’s all we have seen from these negotiations and it needs to
go a heck of a lot further and faster than that.
This interview aired on Monday December 10th on Uprising,
www.uprisingradio.org. Special thanks to Julie Svendsen for transcribing
the interview. Uprising is hosted and produced by Sonali Kolhatkar.
Assistant Producer is Gabriel San Roman.
George Monbiot interviewed by Sonali Kolhatkar
George Monbiot interviewed by
Sonali Kolhatkar
December 15, 2007
About ten thousand delegates from more than 180 nations are meeting in
Bali to attempt to extend the Kyoto Protocol Global Warming Pact beyond
2012. Opposition from the United States, Canada, and Japan is likely to
stand in the way of any attempts to include emission reduction targets
in a “road map” for future global warming talks. The US said a proposal
for wealthy nations to reduce emissions by 25-40% by 2020, was “totally
unrealistic” and “unhelpful”. Meanwhile climate change activists in
cities around the world held rallies and demonstrations on Saturday
December 8th to urge leaders at the Bali conference to take action
against global warming.
George Monbiot is a columnist for the Guardian newspaper and author
“Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning.” In Heat, Monbiot advocates
a goal of ninety percent reduction in carbon emissions by the year 2030
in order to save the planet.
Kolhatkar: Is it true that even the most drastic cuts being recommended
at the table in Bali are not realistic, not based on current science and
just not going to be good enough to save the planet?
Monbiot: That’s right. If you look at the latest report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it shows that if we’re going
to avoid 2 degrees Celsius, that’s 3.6 degrees Farenheit of warming,
above pre-industrial levels – and that’s really the critical cutoff
point; we have to avoid that level of warming – then we need a global
cut of 85% of carbon emissions by 2050. Now, a global cut of 85% means
that in the rich nations the cut has to be a lot higher if it’s going to
be distributed equally, if everybody’s going to produce the same amount
of carbon dioxide. And that means that in countries such as the United
Kingdom and the United States, we’re talking about the high 90s. My
calculation suggests 98.3% in the U.S. corresponds to an 85% cut
worldwide. So, we’re really talking about a complete de-carbonization of
the global economy if we’re to have a high chance of preventing 2
degrees Celsius of warming.
Kolhatkar: Why is it that even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) is looking at science that seems to be out of date?
Monbiot: One of the really frightening things that we’re discovering
about climate change is that the events are overtaking the science and
as quickly as people can research the events, the events move on. For
example at the moment, we have a rate of growth in carbon emissions
which outstrips even the IPCC’s worst case scenario. So, when the panel
says we’ve got this very high case where there would be a great deal of
emissions – and we call that the A1F1 case – we’re actually finding that
right now it’s worse than that.
But we’re also seeing that there are various effects called “feedbacks”
which the panel hasn’t yet taken into account - it intends to do so in
the future - but they greatly accelerate climate change. A positive
feedback is a process that accelerates itself and there are several of
these which take place as far as climate change is concerned. For
example, when the oceans get warmer, less carbon dioxide can be absorbed
in the water. It’s just like a bottle of Coca-Cola – as you warm it up,
the carbon dioxide outgasses because it’s a simple physical property of
water that it can hold less gas when it warms up. As that takes place,
that carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere and makes the oceans even
warmer and so less carbon dioxide is absorbed by them and thus the
process goes on. It’s these feedbacks that the IPCC admits have not yet
been taken into account when calculating the necessary cut. Taken into
account, the cut could be even worse.
Kolhatkar: Given the real numbers, the Kyoto Protocol and its call for
cuts of about 5% of carbon emissions below 1990 levels in the next 5
years, sound ludicrous now.
Monbiot: It’s a complete joke, to be honest. And, not only are the
numbers completely out of scale by more than an order of magnitude with
the necessary cut, but not even that cut is being achieved! Not even the
5% is being achieved! The Kyoto Protocol has failed. And, I hate to say
this but it’s failed because primarily of the position taken by the U.S.
delegation during the negotiations in 1997. And, I hate to say this even
more but that delegation was led by Al Gore. And what Gore negotiated
was the institutional failure of the Kyoto Protocol. And he undermined
it primarily by creating some different standards for different nations.
He was talking about the U.S. making a cut against what it would
otherwise have produced, rather than a cut from the carbon levels which
were already taking place, which is a whole different ballgame. And he
also said there’s got to be emissions trading - we’ve got to be able to
buy cuts from other nations and that’s been incredibly destructive to
the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol.
Kolhatkar: And, ironically this week Al Gore accepted the Nobel Peace
Prize along with the IPCC. Gore is in Bali right now taking what seems
to be a different position than 1997. Is he actually backing the science
that you quote or are his numbers also an underestimate?
Monbiot: They’re still too low but there’s no question that Al Gore, in
common with almost every other leader, makes an awful lot better job of
governance when he’s out of office. Just like Clinton, just like Tony
Blair on this other side of the Atlantic - they say all the right things
when they can no longer influence the outcome. And, I’m sorry if I sound
cynical, you know. I don’t mean to pour cold water on his prize and all
the rest of it. I think he’s done some great stuff since he’s been out
of office but I also want people to remember what happened when he was
in office and he sunk the Kyoto Protocol.
Kolhatkar: What do you think about the discussions between finance
ministers during this Bali Climate Conference to have an exchange of
green technology and a trade in green goods? Developing nations are
calling on rich nations to share the technology that they say they
require in order to cut carbon emissions.
Monbiot: Well, fine, but I’ve had a horrible revelation over the past
few days and it’s something which has gradually been building up in my
consciousness and it suddenly hit home as I researched the figures,
which is that while there are plenty of schemes for sharing technologies
and for introducing alternative technologies and, indeed, for
encouraging consumers to reduce their demand for fossil fuels and all
the rest of it, as far as I can discover, nowhere on earth, in no nation
is there a scheme for reducing the supply of fossil fuels. You can say
what you like about demand but if you’re still digging the stuff out of
the ground - the coal and the oil and the gas – it’s going to get
burned! There’s no other reason it’s taken out of the ground. They don’t
get it out of the ground as a hobby. It’s going to get burned!
Kolhatkar: Now, aren’t we to assume that the supply will simply follow
the demand?
Monbiot: Well, the demand will follow the supply if the supply is there,
because we will use what energy is available to us. But, unless you have
a plan for reducing supply, your plans for reducing demands are a
complete waste of time. They’re just not going to materialize.
Kolhatkar: What about the assertion by the United States and other
nations that global warming reduction has to be somehow consistent with
their national economies? This is the main U.S, line, that the reason
they won’t accept these cuts is that it would impact the economy of the U.S.
Monbiot: Let’s look at the big picture here. At current rates of growth,
roughly 3% of the global level, the size of the economy doubles every 23
years. It’s an exponential function and this means that in the 92 years
between now and the end of the century, it increases by 16 times the
level of economic activity. Now, a very interesting series of equations
published recently on this side of the Atlantic prove that that level of
economic activity effectively equates into resource use. And, that a
doubling in the level of activity doubles the amount of resources that
human beings have ever used. What that means is that in the next 23
years between now and 2030, we will use as many economic resources as
humanity has used since it first stood on two legs – over 3 million
years or so. And this is simply unsustainable! We cannot sustain that
rate of growth. Even 3% is way beyond the levels of sustainability. By
the end of the century, we will have used 16 times the resources that
humanity has used since it first stood on two legs. There is not 16
times that level of resources on earth. They do not exist. Far from
allowing the rates of economic growth to dominate our policy on climate
change, our policy on climate change should dominate rates of economic
growth.
Kolhatkar: What about the United States saying that it would come up
with its own plan to cut global warming gasses by mid-2008? Any ideas on
what that might look like?
Monbiot: Yes, I have a pretty good idea of what it would look like. It
will be entirely voluntary. It would probably have to do with the carbon
intensity of the economy. This is the formula that George Bush keeps
using which is that we will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced
per unit of economic productivity rather than reduce it in absolute
terms (which is what we need to do), and it will be completely useless.
The only way we’re going to crack this problem is through international
agreement and everybody setting the same standards for themselves. So,
in other words, a binding international agreement.
Kolhatkar: This past Saturday was declared a global day of action on
climate change and there were rallies and demonstrations in cities
around the world. Do you feel that that sort of protest is increasing in
intensity fast enough?
Monbiot: No, not fast enough. And, by itself, it doesn’t go far enough.
A group of us preceded that protest on Wednesday when we went down to a
large open-cast coal mine which is being built here in South Wales. We
occupied that mine and we sat on the excavating equipment and we stopped
it from operating for the day. And that’s what I want to see a lot more
of. This is the only way in which we’re really going to register our
protest is to get in front of the mining equipment and to stop this
fossil fuel from being extracted. Unless we do so, we are doomed to
runaway climate change. We cannot prevent it without stopping that
fossil fuel from coming out of the ground. Some of us are now prepared
to risk arrest and imprisonment in order to do that. It’s got to that
level of desperation and a group of us decided that we’re going to keep
doing this until we can no longer do it, in other words, probably until
we’re all in prison.
Kolhatkar: Is this an organized group or is it just individuals?
Monbiot: No, it’s self-organized. In this case, we simply put out a call
– this is where we’re going to be, this is what we’re going to do,
here’s the date – and anyone can set up their own group amongst people
they trust and come down and join us. And, it worked very well and
that’s what we want to see a lot more of.
Kolhatkar: Here in the United States, there were demonstrations but they
were not very widely reported. It was not something that necessarily
distracted most Americans from their holiday shopping. But based on what
you and most other people paying attention to the environment say, it’s
really here in the United States that there needs to be the most action.
Monbiot: Yes, it really is. And the U.S. sets the pace for everybody
else. It’s also the case that the United States is the place where
things happen. When you want something to happen, and when the
government in the U.S. is prepared to allow it to happen, it can happen
very, very quickly there because you remain the technological and the
economic powerhouse. You remain the place where things can switch.
We saw this most clearly when the United States entered the 2nd World
War. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, there was this extraordinary
economic and technological transformation which took place not within
decades, not within years, not within months, within days! It was quite
phenomenal! Now, this is what won the war for the allied cause. It was
the turnaround in the United States. And, we saw for example, a largely
civilian economy switched over to a military economy within 90 days. The
whole process really took place within 90 days. General Motors, which
never looked at a piece of military technology before then, suddenly
became a military technology company. It turned out a fighter bomber
within 90 days of having been given the instructions to do so. It
designed, it prototyped, it tested and then it was working at full
commercial operation turning out fighter bombers. Now, that was in 1942.
This was in the days before just in time production and modular delivery
and all the rest of it. This was in the days when industry and
manufacturing was quite primitive compared to today. We could turn the
whole global economy around within a month if we wanted to now. All that
is lacking is the political will.
Kolhatkar: In this final week of the Bali Climate Conference, if most
nations who are attending, minus, of course, the U.S. and perhaps Canada
and Japan, do turn out a document that has more drastic cuts than the
Kyoto Protocol, even if it is not going to save the planet, I’m assuming
you’ll think that it’s a step in the right direction? Are you hopeful,
at least, that the people are coming together at such a large scale to
discuss this issue on an international level?
Monbiot: Well, I suppose it’s what Gramsci says: it’s the pessimism of
the intellect and the optimism of the will. I keep hoping but I’m not
hearing the right signals coming from governments at the moment and I’m
hearing an awful lot of “greenwash”, an awful lot of discussion aimed at
assuaging public opinion, but very little aimed at actually dealing with
the problem. By greenwash, I mean environmental whitewash. That’s a term
used to denote an impression of action without creating any action and
so far that’s all we have seen from these negotiations and it needs to
go a heck of a lot further and faster than that.
This interview aired on Monday December 10th on Uprising,
www.uprisingradio.org. Special thanks to Julie Svendsen for transcribing
the interview. Uprising is hosted and produced by Sonali Kolhatkar.
Assistant Producer is Gabriel San Roman.