Order the autumn edition here

ZERO and the Nobel laureates

If you are one of those who think exhortations about environmental destruction are well exaggerated, you should not read on.

(PS. This article is machine-translated from Norwegian)

(For English version, click here)

Possibly skip the newspaper articles about ecosystems and about a new "Dark Age» Norway as an environmental sink, environmental prophets og eco-philosopher, CO2, technology optimists, the need for a green ruler, growth coercion og greenhouse effects.

The reason I cause you this discomfort is Zero conference which is held 7 – 8. November, a couple of Nobel laureates and the recently published IPCC report as a result of the Paris 2015 Environmental Conference.

I'll be brief, so let's start with the facts. Around 1200 people were in Oslo to hear about such things as green leadership, renewable energy, next generation solar cells, the plastic jungle, green transport, circular bioeconomy and emission-free travel. Norway's largest meeting place for climate, energy and green growth was initiated by Chairman Hoesung Lee of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their new report on 1200 pages was written by 91 researchers from 44 countries. They have since undergone the 6000 investigation since the Paris conference, according to The Economist. Thorough work – and if you think Glen Peters at CICERO in Oslo, there is only disagreement about 10 percent of the surveys – the remaining 90 should actually have 100 percent support.

So, let's get to the topic here – namely the roof of 1,5 rather than 2,0 degree warming (since the industrial age began). Half the degree too much can more than halve the scope of many insects, plants and vertebrates – or more complicated: 18 percent, 16 percent and 8 percent of these small creatures will struggle to survive, depending on the rise in temperature. The half degree also aggravates the situation with 50 percent for parts of the earth's surface – for example savannas that become desert. And corals? 99 percent of them will disappear unless future environmental programs keep the ceiling on 1,5 degrees, where then 10 – 30 percent will still survive. Mention should also be made of the millions of people who have to move due to increased water levels, or 420 millions who will have to live with new periods of heat and a few hundred millions more who will be affected by climate-induced poverty.

Consumption and growth

Two people just shared the Nobel Prize in economics: American Paul Romer received the award for researching what science and technology mean for long-term macroeconomic growth. To Die Zeit, he emphasizes that industrialization has produced the greatest growth, and now he is optimistic about urbanization – as it exists in the US and Europe. Environmentally, you save a lot of travel, and the density of the city provides savings due to short-lived energy or electricity. Well, he also sees that the increasing wealth of urbanization creates more consumption, which in turn emits more CO2. – Yes, both Zero, IPCC and Ny Tid know that 30 tonnes of CO are already emitted annually2 out into the atmosphere. Growing economy Rome concludes that the financial sector has harmed fewer people than nuclear energy.

A conference chair "molded" from plastic bottles, soft drinks / beer cans, food wrappers and shoe soles?

Let me think about it, and go over to award winner William Nordhaus – today economics professor at Yale – who was in fact the first to warn of an 70 degree limit for warming already in the 2 century. His research models calculate complex relationships between both emissions of CO2, global temperature and economic growth. Most of today's analyzes are based on his models for economically optimal emission models. He has also shown that it is difficult to estimate how much emissions lead to the change in temperature. Moreover, it is difficult to calculate how quickly we adapt to the powerful changes of the time.

Norway is trying to contribute with today's electric car development – just commented on in Danish Weekendavisen. Frede Vestergård mentions Norway in the context of the Paris Agreement: CO2The emissions should go down. Norway had in 2017 got close to 210 000 electric and hybrid cars on the roads – but at the same time criticized for unrestrained recovery and gas and oil exploration.

Several cannot be limited: New oil and gas fields have also been found in the Mediterranean, Guyana, Bahrain, Australia, Oman and Madagascar. Fossil energy consumption is steadily rising despite constant declarations, and hundreds of millions of people on their way out of poverty will have theirs. The 2 percent target's requirement to withdraw only one-third of the findings does not seem to hold. The Kingdom of Norway also hypocritically believes that the consumer is responsible – such as blaming children for eating sweets, if we should say so with Vestergaard.

And this brings me to better news. According to The Economist's report "A load of rubbish" (29.8.18), Taiwan was previously an environmental pollution. But today the growth economy's "take, make, dispose" of this large island country has been replaced by "reduce, reuse, recycle". The next time you go for a walk, you may want to sit on a conference chair "molded" of plastic bottles, soft drinks / beer cans, food wrappers and shoe soles. Or serve coffee in glass cups made from broken iPhone screens. Taiwan leads the recycling campaign: 52 percent of the country's household waste and 77 percent of industrial waste are recycled. South Korea and Germany follow closely, while the US is at a low 26 and 44 percent.

Well, you as a consumer are also involved in creating all this garbage, which globally accounted for 2 000 000 000 tonnes in 2016, and which is expected to double in 2050. Unlike industrial waste, it is only possible today to recycle 10 percent of consumer plastic. And if you bring the lecture about the plastic jungle at the Zero Conference 8.11., You should know that had you taken a trip to the beach in Mumbai for a few days this summer, you could have helped pick up 12 000 tons of garbage and scrap that was owed ashore there.

recycling

So is there anything positive to say in the end? Who wants to help lower western consumption by 10 – 30 percent? Then many will also lose their jobs. For example, in the oil sector, agriculture and other commodity extraction. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization also estimates that had food production been destroyed and thrown away, food producers would have suffered an annual loss against the Norwegian Oil Fund.

Nevertheless, now that China this year has stopped the West from still being able to send its waste there, the West has to think about recycling. In addition, such an initiative will possibly provide work for 20 times as many as the world's waste workers today. And so-called e-waste, such as gold in televisions and other things – provides large financial income.

Finally: The Norwegian parliament has decided that we must comply with EU environmental regulations. More than half of the EU environment ministers have, according to the IPCC report, adopted the 1,5 degree target. Anyone in the West who manages to think and act long term – will now understand that they must reduce, reuse and recycle what they consume.

See ZERO Conference.

Truls Liehttp: /www.moderntimes.review/truls-lie
Editor-in-chief in MODERN TIMES. See previous articles by Lie i Le Monde diplomatique (2003–2013) and Morgenbladet (1993-2003) See also part video work by Lie here.

1 comment

Comments are closed.

- Advertisement -spot_img

You may also likeRelated
Recommended