Who Will Pay For Saving the Planet?

In a letter to his brothers in 1817 John Keats, referring to the quality possessed by Shakespeare, wrote, “I mean negative capability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.” The thought is relevant to the international discussions now taking place about climate control. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, at the opening address of the COP 26 conference in Glasgow on October 31, 2021, spoke of the need to defuse the doomsday clock on climate change, and that he and fellow global leaders are roughly in the same position as James Bond, except that the tragedy is not a movie and it is one minute to midnight on the clock. He urged a deal to restrict global warming. The non-political Queen Elizabeth II called for the leaders at the Conference to rise above politics and achieve true statesmanship by agreeing to climate change deals.

However, negative capability and inconsistency are at the heart of the issue. For centuries fossil fuels have been crucial for economic development, but they have also increasing rapidly the level of carbon dioxide making the earth warmer, as has the release of other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide, and deforestation.

Several problems and paradoxes are present.  First, Can the world leaders make deals to reduce the intake of and to stop subsidizing of fossil fuels and to move their countries to renewable energy, wind and solar, while they satisfy their constituents with lower energy prices?

Secondly, proposals call for a halt in new gas, oil, and coal development, and an end to financing of new plants, but since gas prices in the world are rising, President Joe Biden and other Western leaders have called on energy producing countries, both OPEC and Russia, to  boost production of fossil fuel, not reduce it. A third problem is that the economies of developing countries, Asia and India, will probably be slowed by reducing the use of fossil fuels.

On June 12, 1992, a UN Convention was signed in Rio de Janeiro by 154 nations which committed them to reduce concentration of greenhouse gases to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with earth’s climate system.”

This was to be done in a way that would not threaten food production and not slow economic development. The doomsday clock has been ticking to stabilize the climate. On December 12, 2015, 196 parties in Paris adopted an agreement which aimed at limiting global warming to below 2C and preferably to 1.5C, compared to pre-industrial levels.

On October 30, 2021 at a two day summit in Rome the leaders of the Group of 20 major economies which account for about 75% of global emissions discussed how to adhere to the 2015 Paris  climate agreement, to limit the rise in average world temperatures to below 2C, and to aim to achieve zero  emissions by 2050. But, in reality the meeting was disappointing, there was limited, if any progress. There were no agreed commitments to phase out coal use or fossil fuel subsidies, or cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, which according to scientists must be cut by 45% compared with 2010 levels to limit the rise of global temperature to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. If this is not done, they argue, the planet will change with melting glaciers, rising sea levels, increase in heat waves, droughts, floods, storms, disappearing forests, and polluted oceans.

The unsolved problem was stressed by UN secretary general Antonio Guterres who said on November 1, 2021, at the COP26 summit that the climate situation was not improving, and who accused countries of “treating nature like a toilet,” as he warned of a looming climate catastrophe. He declared that the heads of government had “to safeguard our future and save humanity, not continue to be addicted to fossil fuels. It is an illusion to think we are on track to   turn things around.”

This COP26, (Conference of the parties to the UN framework convention on climate change,) in Glasgow is the 26^th time leaders have gathered to discuss the issue. It opened on October 31, 2021 and will last 13 days. More than 100 world leaders together with scientists and business people, are attending the event, as are some of the usual suspects including the irrepressible Greta Thunberg, the 18 year old poster girl morose princess of protest who denounced those leaders and shouted “no more blah, blah, blah,” and called for blocking roads, The leaders are, among other issues, discussing a pledge to end deforestation  by 2030, endorsed by controls of the cathedrals of nature, the Amazon rainforest, Canadian boreal forest, and the Congo Basin rainforest. Optimistic expectations are that the countries will follow the lead of Britain that has legally mandated reductions in greenhouse emissions, and reduced emissions by 44 % from 1990 levels.

It is undeniable that greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere, remain there for a long period, and cause global warning, that sea levels are rising, and that warming waters have disrupted ecosystems. Americans are aware of this in the rise in price of lobsters and soft-shell clams. Recent years have seen more abnormal phenomena than customary in climate, but it is significant there is no consensus on global warning. Rather, there is controversy over man-made climate change, and unfortunately conspicuous hypocrisy.

It is useful to assess the present ongoing spectacle of the process to save the planet. The objectives are obvious; limit the rise in temperature, to phase out coal power stations, speed up the switch to electric vehicles, protect and restore ecosystems. to end deforestation by paying poorer countries not to fell trees. Yet, whether the motives are sincere or not, hypocrisy is evident. The leaders came from all over on an estimated 400 private jets, rather than by commercial airlines, with huge traffic jams in the sky, and gushed out colossal amounts or carbon. A typical private jet produces two tonnes of carbon dioxide every hour.

Even the Conference host Prime Minister Boris Johnson flew from London on Airbus A321, but his plane had to circle Glasgow for more than 20 minutes because of the number of jets arriving.

For meetings, President Biden arrived in Europe with his fleet of four planes, Boeing 747, Air Force 1, identical decoy, the Marine One helicopter, two large Globemaster planes for cars and helicopters. Estimates are that the jets will produce 13,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Jets belch out on average 54 pounds of carbon for every mile flown. At first, Biden was in Rome visiting Pope Francis, who told him he was a good Catholic, and was escorted into Vatican City by 85 cars including ambulances and communication systems which generated an estimated 2.2 million pounds of carbon. In Scotland, his similar huge motorcade was escorted by police outriders from Edinburgh where he stayed to Glasgow. The cars, the Beast and its decoy, heavily armed limousine go eight miles a gallon, and generates 8 lb carbon a mile, ten times more than average cars.

Problems of different kinds abound. Less developed countries want financial help. In 2010, wealthier countries promised to pay $100 billion a year to poorer countries to help them address climate change. In decisions of cutting emission, countries have to consider the impact of action on their economies at a time when nationalism in most countries is increasing.

The leaders of two major players, China and Russia, are not attending the Conference. In contrarian fashion, China, responsible for the largest current share of emissions. is increasing its coal-fueled power plants and its daily coal production and says its emissions will continue to grow.  The Russian economy depends on oil and gas production. India, with its large number living in poverty, and which is the third largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, has said it will not agree to net zero emissions, yet is expecting U.S. funding.

Is the die cast and are we crossing the Rubicon? Will the global economy reduce the use of fossil fuels, and investment in coal, gas, and oil so that wind and solar become the major sources of electricity? Is the international discussion on Glasgow and elsewhere and the pledges that may be made more gesture or pious aspiration than meaningful substance?

An answer to the question might come from Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va),  who may have a large climate conflict of interest when there are calls for changes in climate policies which affect his state in which 99% of generated electricity comes from coal.