Can't Win for Losing — Why Do We Ignore the Principles of Sustainable Development at Our Peril?

from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

As reported by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (June 2010, No growth in total global CO2 emissions in 2009), the economic downturn in late 2008 and 2009 meant that the world's developed countries (OECD nations and Russia) spewed 7 percent less carbon dioxide than the year before — a dramatic decrease. This is the first time since the 1992 recession that global CO2 emissions have not increased. Good news, right? (Oh yeah!) "This would have been the largest drop in more than 40 years because the global recession froze economic activity and slashed energy use around the world."


However, the CO2 emissions of China and India increased 9 percent and 6 percent respectively — strong increases. 


The result? No growth in CO2 emissions last year, but no decrease either. China and India completely nullified the drop in emissions in the developed nations. Global emissions of carbon dioxide have therefore remained constant. (And if we want to avert global climate catastrophe, we have to get our carbon emissions down to virtually zero. Obviously, our math sucks.)


This also means, obviously, that we have done a very poor job of teaching about and insisting on sustainable development and its principles as a discussion, planning and decision-making framework. Sustainable development, which was introduced to the world at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, has been around for almost 20 years — and still we have developing nations developing in ways that aren't sustainable ... while we in the developed parts of the world continue with our unsustainable growth. 


Ah, it's all nuts. Just nuts. Why can't we all grow up and learn to get along ... like Wombat says?

159 Days - What Role Does Trust Play in Our Climate Change Solutions?

"Trust" has been a recurring theme in my life these last few days (including in my dreams at night), and maybe that's for a reason. What role does, or should, trust play in our climate change deliberations?

I keep reading reports from high level United Nations meetings or OECD meetings that underscore a perverse sort of trust: We can definitely, it appears, trust developed nations to ignore their role in the climate crisis (not to mention the economic crisis), and to do whatever they can to not have to change.

But that's not the kind of trust I mean.

Wouldn't it be great to be able to trust that politicians at all levels will remember their humanity and act as human beings (there is certainly reason to doubt this at times, when we witness their staunch refusal to grasp that human life is dependent on the rest of Life), with children and grandchildren whose future they care about?

Wouldn't it be great to be able to trust that our neighbours and friends and fellow community members will always (well, almost always) put the collective benefit before their own personal desires? ("I need chocolate chips... I must have chocolate chips NOW... I'll just run —read: burn fossil fuels by driving — to the store and get some" becomes "Oh well, I'm out of chocolate chips. The next time I'm out shopping, I'll buy some. Tonight, I'll make oatmeal raisin cookies rather than chocolate chip cookies.")

And finally, how do we come to trust ourselves, so that when that choice point comes (flying away on vacation or staying close to home, for example), we do what is for the greatest good of everyone, and not just our small circle of family and friends?

In other words, how do we become trustworthy in the face of climate change? Is it like forming a new habit? They say it takes three weeks to form a new habit, whether good or bad — so how about saying no to driving, flying, heating, burning, buying for 21 days, to see how it feels? How about if we spend three weeks always putting the face of an African child in our mind's eye when making a decision that could release carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases into the (our shared) atmosphere? What about discussing every climate-change-related decision with someone else before making it?

And what if, when we write to politicians and others (climate scientists or environmental groups? big banks and big corporations?) in whom we must entrust our future, we use the language of trust? For example, "Dear Mr/s. President or Prime Minister, may I trust that you will do everything — absolutely everything, at every opportunity — you can to safeguard the future of your children and mine?"

Let's plant the seed of trust ... and maybe those in charge of our climate future will become truly worthy of our trust.

197 Days - Support for Zero Emissions Comes from an Unlikely Place - Reader's Digest!

Someone put a copy of the April 2009 issue of the Canadian edition of Reader's Digest in my mailbox at school — I suppose because I'm the "green teacher" there.

I didn't open it up until today, and what did I find on page 71? An excerpt of an interview in the Indian edition of Reader's Digest with one of the most influential men alive — Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

And what did Pachauri say in India that our news media in the West did not pick up on? Exactly what we've been trying to communicate for months! He was asked whether it's possible to reverse global warming. Here's his response:

"Theoretically, yes. You will really have to bring down your emissions to below zero and find ways by which you can absorb existing carbon dioxide. Technologically, that's entirely possible."

Pachauri isn't asked how quickly we have to get to zero emissions, but he does explain something important:

"If you look at projections for the future, even if we were to stabilize the concentration of atmospheric gases today, climate change will continue for several decades." He explains that it's mainly the developed world that is responsible for current global warming: "You are not dealing with today's emissions. It's the cumulative effect of emissions over time, for which developed countries are responsible."

That means that today's emissions — our greenhouse gases, emitted today knowing full well that we are killing the future — haven't had their impact yet. That safer, cleaner, healthier, more equitable and more peaceful world of renewable energy looks good right now, doesn't it?

So my action today is to get Pachauri's response out there, first on my Climate Primer webpage, next on the Climate Change Emergency Medical Response homepage, and then on various listserves. People around the world have to hear and understand that ZERO is the only viable target, the only target that will give us a chance at safeguarding the future.

Spread the word. And the word is "zero"!