Richard Parncutt: The Human Cost of Poverty and Climate Change
Time 2021-11-23 23:40:14Web Name: Richard Parncutt: The Human Cost of Poverty and Climate Change
WebSite: http://www.parncutt.org
ID:246524
Keywords:
Human,Cost,The,Richard,Parncutt,Climate,Change,and,Description:
keywords: description:Themain issues
HumanRights
Death penalty Condom ban Poverty Hunger Development Legal reform Pacifism Terrorism Xenophobia Racism Church of Human Rights A million refugees
Climate
Politics versus morality Just stop Climate ethics for dummies The mega-threat Global emergency? The Great Wakeup
Indifference Still driving? CO2 kills Cars versus guns Sustainable tourism Generatiocide Fossilcaholics Anonymous Academic denial Publikese and Scientese Save the riverMur in Graz Seminar climatepolicy Australian tour 2019
Politics
Left versus right EU-Wahl GLOP SAGE Life-and-deathvoting Sheep and goats Carrot-and-stickvoting Why I am aconservative Open letter to Christianconservatives Inequality and the far right Conflict resolution US presidential election Brexit versus climate What Europeans want Fascism
Finance
It's the economy, stupid Globalwealth tax Basic income + flat incometax Financialcrisis Taxation denial
Morality
Love Happiness Gratitude Children Christian atheism Victim mentality Doing nothing Laziness
Why bother? Human quantitative ethics The White Rose
Auf Deutsch
0,7% BIP frEZA Steuerreform Feinstaub?ffi-Ticketsfr Autos Fremdeln Sie? Kollegialitt "Todesstrafe-Forderung"? Kommunismusund Christentum Rettet die Mur! Nie wieder! Alarmglocken
Academia
Truth Careers Responsibility Ethics Intellligence Flyingto conferences Virtual socializing Keynote invitation Stop funding flying! The 21st-century conference
Research
Humancost of climate change Conference on AppliedInterculturality Research Forum for AppliedInterculturalityResearch 1st Conference onInterdisciplinary Musicology CIM04
Impressum
TheHuman Cost of Poverty and Climate Change RichardParncutt
B.Sc.(Hons., Physics), Ph.D.(Psychology, Physics, Music)
(University of New England, Australia) Don'tbe shy!
Send your comments, questions, and complaints to:
parncutt at gmx dot at
Indifference is anindicator of alack of conscience.Indifference has always frightened me. Indifference is a perfectbreeding ground for hatred. Indifference allows politics of hate toflourish. And that lays the groundwork for bigotry, racism and hate toseem reasonable to ordinary human beings. The results of politics ofhate are always horrifying and inevitably catastrophic.
-Lily Brett, grazkunst03.2017, p. 9
The greatestdamage arises from the silent majority that --just wanting tosurvive -- toes the line and goes along with everything. (Dergrte Schaden entsteht durch die schweigendeMehrheit, dienur berleben will, sich fgt und alles mitmacht.)
-Sophie Scholl, victim of thedeath penalty, 1943.
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but thesilence of our friends.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Theclosing window of opportunity
In adecade or two, or perhaps just a few years, when globalwarming is a serious problemeverywhere, and most people (not just the crazy "alarmists")aretalking about the point of no return, and we are allmourningwhat has been irretrievably lost, while trying to deal with theever-increasing global chaos, I will look at myfriends, family, and academic colleagues, and they will look at me, andwe will all ask ourselves: How could good people have been so evil? Howcould generouspeoplehave been so selfish? How could intelligentpeoplehave been so stupid? Howcould kind peoplehave been so cruel? How could courageouspeoplehave been so timid?
By then, it will be too late andtoo tragic for "I told youso".The window of opportunity will have closed. Theirreversible damage will be done. We won't be able to turn back theclock and try again.
My children will ask me: Why didn't you do something? Surely you knew?Why didn't youtalk to your family, friends, and colleagues? And I will say: I didknow. And I did talk. Again and again, in different ways. But even thenicest, kindest, mosthonorable people were not listening. Or if they were listening, theywere not responding.
Considering the consequences,this has been the most shocking experience of my life. And the shock isongoing. My friends, family, and colleagues will read the previousparagraphs and still won't get it. Nor will they get it after readingthis paragraph, or the next one.
Right now, we can still do something. Will we? Or will we not?
Personalchange
We urgently needradical change on two levels: personaland collective (government, corporate). Both at once! The corporatelevel is more important because corporations got us into this messduring decades of denial. The responsible CEOsshould be triedforcrimes against humanity. But even if the fossil corporations suddenlygot their acttogether and went completely sustainable, we would still be leftwith the problem that individuals are burning large amounts of fossilfuels in their daily lives. The sum of individual emissions is far toohigh.
It's necessarybut not sufficientforcorporations to do everything in their power to reduceemissions. Individuals also have to reduce. This is simply a matter ofarithmetic: if we add up the emissions of individuals and get a largenumber, we have a problem.
So let's start withthe personal level, because that is where our power lies. We can easilyand quickly change many aspects of our personal behavior, and talk toother people about doing the same so that it becomes a collectiveeffort. When many peopledo that, they will infect others withtheir positive action. Political opposition to fossil-fueled capitalismwill grow, which will feed intocorporate-governmental level.Thatmay sound like a long shot, but what other chance do we have?
The personal level includes social movements that, unlike governmentsand corporations, are not hierarchically structured. A social movementis a network that is powered by grassroots individual action andmotivation. Past movements have fought for and achieved civil rights,women's rights, gay rights,and the rights of specific groups in specific countries.
We need a newglobal children'srights movement-- one that not only talks about a child's right to care, food,shelter, and education,but also to political andenvironmentalstabilityand hence quality of life in the future. One thatnotonly talks but also acts, showing people how to reduce their personalemissions and then actually doing that. The Wikipediapage on that topic currentlydoesn't mention climate change (5January 2020), nor does the Declarationof the Rights of the Child --not surprisingly, since it waswritten in 1959.
Saying goodbye tothe Big Four: Reproduction, flying, driving, meat
Currently, the average personis causing 5 tonnes of CO2to be emitted every year (more in richer countries, less in poorer).About half of that is being absorbed by plant life (on land and inoceans). The other half will stay in the atmosphere and oceans forcenturies.
Weurgently have to stop thatother half from getting into the atmosphere and oceans.Therefore, we haveto halve the mean global CO2footprint. To do that, we needa plan that will actually work. Here aretwopossibilities:
Everyone halves theirpersonal footprint. Problem: thatwould be unfair ondeveloping countries. Why should they halvetheir footprint if it is already low? To reduce the future impact ofclimate change, we must also alleviate poverty. Everyone approaches apersonal footprint of 2.5tonnesCO2per year (or even less -- 1 or 2 tonnes are often cited as goals).Problem: with the best will in theworld, people in rich countries can hardly reduce to that level,although many may come close. We are causing emissions indirectly inmanydifferent ways, over which we have varying degrees of control. Given the ethical problem in the first case and the practical problemin the second, the best solution isa compromise. In a firstpassat the problem, richer countries could try to halve their personalfootprints, and poorer countries could aim for2tonnesCO2per person per year. Countries in between (China, Brazil, Indonesia,Russia) could find a compromise. Altogether, that would not be enough,but we would be moving in the right direction.
The main contributors to the carbon footprints of people in richcountriescan be calculated and are well-known. There are four of them: havingchildren,flying, driving,and eating meat (more).Let's call them the Big Four. The best way to reduce personal carbonfootprints is to avoid all ofthese, as far as possible. If a lot of people did that we would be wellon the way to a solution.
Havingchildren. Peopleare scared to talk about this topic, but let us be clear: We aretalking about children's rights. Children are the most valuable thingthat we have. And that is the reason we need to stop reproducing -- toprotect the rights of those children that are already born. If you arelikely to become a parent in the next few years -- whether for thefirst time or again -- by far the best way to reduce your effectivecarbon footprint, and in that way to express your love for all childreneverywhere, is to change your plans. But there are two importantcaveats. First, this is a personal decision. No-one has the righttopressureothers into avoiding reproduction, and no-one should suffer as aconsequence of becoming a parent. Second, the children of environmentalcampaigners are likely to become environmental campaigners themselves,and every one of them counts!
Flying.The effect of flying on climate is far greater than most people realiseand it is increasing faster than any other major contribution (more).Aviation iscurrently contributing 3% of global CO2emissions. Due toother greenhouse gases, the contribution to global warming is abouttwice that. These figures are increasing by 5% per year with no end insight. Less than 10% of all people fly. For those who fly, flyingtypically represents half of their personalCO2footprint. Half! But emissions must fall in all sectors, andindividuals with thelargest footprints must make the biggest cuts. Biofuels are noalternative: producing them means destroying rainforests andagricultural land. Electric flying has a bigenvironmentalcost ofits own and cannot scale up. Therefore, most flying will have to stop.Of those who fly, almost everyone is currently (2020) in denial aboutthis, but that does not make it any less true. Since climate change isamatter of life and death for billions of people, flying is onlyjustified if necessary to save lives.
Driving. Electric cars are astep in the right direction,provided the electricity is from renewable sources. But the emissionsproduced during production and the environmental impact of thebatteries mean that step is not especially big. The situation issimilar for solar-powered hydrogen cars. The best solution is to stopdriving.Cycling and walkingcan make you healthier and happier! We should especially avoid drivingalone or drivingdaily, and it is obviously wrong to do both. Exceptions: People withdisabilities, small children, heavy loads.
Meat. The optimal amount ofmeat and dairyconsumption on asustainable planet is not zero, but perhaps 10% of the current level.To get anywhere near that goal, a majority of people will have to govegan. The situation will be much improved if many people cut down onmeat, avoiding juicy steaks and instead adding a little bit of meat tootherwise vegetarian food (more).Whether you do it for your health or for the world'schildren,theresult is the same.
We also need to make buildings more energy-efficient,use less power for heating and cooling, avoid using drying machineswhen clothes can be hung out to dry, and so on. But these are not themain sources of personal emissions in rich countries. If we are seriousabout reducing global emissions, we must start with the BigFour.Recycling and avoiding plastic are also very important,buttheyare mainly about biodiversity, not climate. They are equallyimportant, but different.
For individuals, the bottom line is that we all have to drasticallyreduce or completely giveup reproducing, flying, driving, and meat.
Everydayobjections
Not surprisingly, we don't want to give up the Big Four. We like themtoo much. So westart looking around for reasons why the above arguments might beincorrect. It's anaturalresponse. Let's look at some of the most common counterarguments.
Some object that it is impossiblefor the average person in a rich country to give up reproducing,flying, driving, and meat, or to come anywhere near that. Therefore,the claim that we mustdothat cannot be correct. But that is notlogical. Whether aclaimis trueornot doesnot depend on whether it is possible.Those are two different things. Whether this particular claim is truedepends on (i) how muchgreenhouse gas people are producing, (ii) how much of that is beingabsorbed (e.g. by plants), (iii) how much is necessary to cause aglobal catastrophe and (iv) some simple arithmetic. It follows that IFhumanity is to have a reasonable future, or any future at all,THEN most people in the rich world must seriously reduceorgiveup the Big Four. Period.
In fact, the average person in a rich country cangive up reproducing, flying,driving, and meat -- remarkably easily. For many people, it is simply amatter of stopping, like smoking one's last cigarette. Regardingdriving, in most cases public transport is available. It may not beconvenient, but it is not impossible.In general, there will be different consequences for differentpeople,and we will all have to find our own path. In wartime,theaverage civilian often faced bigger challenges and survived. Today, weneed toradically reform tax-welfare systemstoeliminate poverty and enable everyone to do without fossil fuels. Thisis an essential aspect of system change that is urgently required. Buteven without such a reform almost everyone can do what isrequired.The question is,are we willing to doit?Said another way: Do we love our children? Do we care about children?Do we care about other people?
Some say it is unrealistictoexpect people to do these things. Of course, they are right. But thealternative is even more unrealistic. What could be more unrealisticthan self-destruction?
Some object that there are other ways of getting greenhouse gases outof the atmosphere. There are, but none are realistic. So far, no methodhas been discovered that wouldsustainably and safely absorb the required amounts ofCO2orslow down global warming byany othermethod without existentially dangerous side-effects. In the absence ofa miracle, nothing else will work. That being the case, nothing couldbe more immoral than relying on a low-probability surprise solutionthat will somehow turn up in the nick of time, Hollywood style. Thereare good partial solutions, of course. Reforestation andrewilding are very important and should be promoted on a massive globalscale, but even that will not be enough. Researchon biological and technological solutions is ongoing and equallyimportant. But the basic situation is not going to change in a hurry.
Some argue thatgovernments, corporations, and deniers got usintothis mess, therefore it is up to them to get us out of it. Therefore,we don't have to reduce our personal emissions. Again, this isnotlogical. Of course the climate-denying corporate CEOs areprimarilyresponsible for the climate crisis and therefore should be first tochange, and of course the political-corporate transition is urgent. Butregardless of whether or how fast that transitionhappens,individuals will still have personal carbonfootprints,and those footprints will still have to be reduced to achieve therequired global reduction.
Taken together, these objections and counterarguments are a form ofclimate denial. They do not deny the reality of climate change and itshuman causes. Instead, they deny the availability and efficacy ofsolutions. Like other forms of denial, they tend to protect the fossilfuel industry from loss of profits, as if that were more important thaneverything else.
Astonishingly, some people don't care whether our children have afuture or not. (For examples of such people, just turn on your TV.)What if those people simply ignored this message? Do they have thatright? Clearly not,because there is no longer any doubt thatproducing excessive emissions is infringing the basic rights of otherpeople. Therefore, there is onlyone morally acceptable courseofaction, and that is for everyone to do what is necessary to save ourenvironments and ecosystems for coming generations. No exceptions! (Whyshould anyone be exempt? There is no clear criterion for exemption.)
If I am starting to sound bossy, please accept my apologies. Myintention is not totell anyone what to do. Nor am I playinggodor trying to exercisepersonal power. I am simply stating aconclusion that follows logically from a set of uncontroversialpremises.
Smart, well-meaning people will read these lines, understand them, and(regardless of whether they agree)refuse to change. In anattemptto alleviate their guilt, they will invent arbitrary justifications fornot changing.Iknow, because I am surrounded by such smart, well-meaning people.Denial is everywhere. Ifthat is not evidenceof humanity's inherent selfishness and stupidity, I don't know what is.What can I say? I am not trying to offend someone or start a fight. Noram Iinterested in "shaming" anyone. I am just trying to raiseawareness. Everyone agrees about the importance of defending theinalienable rightsof youngpeople. That means telling the truth about climate change.
Nor am I claiming to be perfect. I decided recently never to fly againand it seems likely that I will stick to that promise, but who knows,something unexpected might happen. Besides, I have flown an awful lotin my life, which puts me high on the guilty list. I don't own a car,but I do have a valid driver's license and occasionally borrow a carfrom a company or friend. I regularly eat small amounts of meat.Nobody's perfect! The main thing is to genuinely decide(ortry)to get rid of the biggest sources of personal emissions.
Theearth's surface is sick. Thediagnosis: cancer.
Many of us already know that we have to give up the Big Four, butsomethinginside us is resisting. Strongly! Where is the resistance coming from?Perhaps an analogy will help.
The existential threat of global warming involves self-reinforcing feedbackloops.Forest fires produce CO2,which in turn causes more warmingand reduced rainfall in dry areas, which in turn causes more forestfires. Melting ice changes the color of the earth's surface from whiteto blue, causing more heat from the sun to be absorbed and more ice tomelt (albedo). Melting permafrost causes greenhouse gases to bereleased, which causes more warming, causing more permafrost to melt.Hot weather means more air conditioning, which means moreelectricity,more emissions, and more hot weather. Thefeedbacksare called "positive" because the feedback reinforces the originalprocess, as opposed to "negative feedbacks" that slow it down. Allparts of the atmosphere are connected, so these processesinteract with each other.
This is already happening, and the process is already accelerating. Atsome time in the future, global warming will continue even after allhuman emissions have stopped, leading to warming of the order of10C, which will surely mean the end of humanity. To preventthatfrom happening, all human emissions must be stopped urgently.
Cancer is similar. It starts with benign tumours that do not spread andcan be treated. As tumours become malignant, the rate of cell divisionincreases, and the cancer spreads to other parts of the body(metastasis). At some point, treatment is no longer effective and carebecomes palliative. Positive feedback processes play an important rolein this ominous development (more).That's why early diagnosis and prompt treatment are so important.
Our beautiful blue planet got an early diagnosis when global warmingwas discovered and understood in detail several decades ago. Buttreatment has been consistently denied. If things don't changeradically, the cancer of global warming will bring about the extinctionof most species including humans. Climatic metastasis is alreadyunderway.
Eating a steak is like offering the world a puff on your cigarette. Itwon't hurt the world to take that puff. Actually, it's quite fun.You'll have to do it many times before there is a measurable effect. Atleast that is what we think, but we are wrong. In fact, every singlecigarette is bad: there is nohealthy level of smoking. Thesame applies to CO2emissions: every emitted tonne is contributing to the futureglobal catastrophe (link).
Continuing the analogy, driving around in a car for an hour or two islike offering the world a cigarette. A whole one, this time. Taking aflight in economyclass is like offering the world a packet ofcigarettes.Flying ina private jet is like offering a carton. Bringing a new human into theworld in a rich country, where personal carbon footprints are far toohigh, is like opening a tobacco shop. Don't get me wrong: a baby is themost wonderful and valuable thing. But "the road to hell is paved withgood intentions".
The solution, as we know, is to give up. It's very simple, and there isno other solution. Again, the comparison with smoking and lung canceris interesting. In many ways we are addictedtofossil fuels. We know we should give up, but we are very creative whenit comes to inventing reasons not to do so (climatedenial, addictiondenial). Strategies for givingup smokinginclude:
suddenly stopping,leading to withdrawal symptoms (imaginewhat would happen if flying was suddenly banned except in emergencies-- as it should be), cutting down thenquitting (what the IPCC has been advisingthe stubborn world to do for many years), behavioral counseling(reminiscent of those ridiculouspublic discussions between scientists and deniers), and nicotine replacementtherapy (like developing sustainableenergy sources when it would be better to use less energy or developlow-energy alternatives, e.g. to improve public transport ratherthanpromote electric cars). Clearly, carbon addictionand carbon abuse are big issues that need more attention. Humanity issick. It's time to admit that and accept the doctor's advice.
At the same time, humanity is suffering from another kind of cancer. AsGeorge Monbiot brilliantly explains in this video,"capitalism is theplanet's cancer, and just like cancer in the human body, it has to becut out.
The good news is that many of us used to smoke, gave up, and neverlooked back. We were confronted with the psychological barrier ofaddiction and somehow managed to break through it. If we can do that,we can give up fossil fuels.
As for capitalism, it needs to be tamed by following its ownprinciples. First, capitalism can only work in a democraticallyregulated marketplace, in which participants obey the law. That countsout tax havens and much else. Second, the marketplace should establishthe true cost and benefit of products. If capitalism does not recognizethe true environmental cost of fossil fuels, it will destroy itself andeverything else with it. Third, actors in the marketplaceshouldcompete on a level playing field. Their success shouldbedetermined by their good ideas and hard work and not by privilege. Tosolve this problem, we need universal basic income.
Howwill it work?
Giving up the Big Four is notas hard as it sounds. It's a change of lifestyle and a changeof attitude. It's about finding fun, happiness and fulfilment in newways.
Governments can and should help. Publiceducation campaigns (more)mightfor example explain that riding bikes, taking trains, and eatingvegetarian are funand good for your health and happiness.
We won't have to giveup everything at once. The mainthing is to make sustainable progress toward lower personal emissions.We all havedifferent constraints and can draw up own own personal plan. From a differentperspective, we should all be aiming for netzero emissions, Only that will allow the natural environment upon whichwe dependto return to the previous natural carbon cycle. (Perhaps that is stillpossible, if we hurry.) But to allow that to happen, we willfirst have to halve global emissions. One thing at a time! The stakes have never been higher, but so far almost nothing ishappening.When will people begin at last to reduce their footprints? If we failto drastically reduce family sizes, flying, driving, and meatconsumption,our grandchildren literally have no future.Anyonewho disputes the basic truth of this argument, and by doing so givesothers excuses not to change, is contributing to the future calamityover and above her or his personal emissions. Our words matter as muchas our actions.
Political change: Bringing backdemocracy and honesty
It is essential, but not enough, to change our lifestyles. We must alsostriveforpolitical andsocial change.
According to IPCC (specialreport 2018), humanity hasuntil2030 to roughly halveglobal emissions and until 2050 to eliminate them (net zero). If wedon't achieve that, the probability will increase that global warmingwill take on a life of its own due to self-reinforcing feedbacks andhumans will bepowerless to stop it, even after all emissions stop. That is a veryreal possibility toward the end of the century and it could lead tohuman extinction in the following century, following a long period ofunprecedented (and presently unimaginable) global turmoil, conflict,and suffering.
To achieve this, we somehow need toconvince powerfulgovernmentsand corporations to make quite radical changes. How can that be done?
Each of us has manyrelationships with individuals and groups.Wealso have a relationship with humanity. Relationships are successful ifpartners seriously consider eachother'sneeds. For that to work,
partners should telleach otherclearly what they want, focusing on the most important points; partners should takeeach other's requests seriously; the requests should berealistic; and the requester shouldnot expect or rely on a positiveresponse. Sound familiar? That is also how peace negotiations should work; andwhen two political parties need each other to create an absolutemajority, that is how coalition negotiations should work.
In thefollowing, I have tried to formulate briefly what I wantfrominfluential people such as politicians, corporation CEOs, andthevery rich. All of these requests are urgent; the survival of everyone,including the rich, depends on them.
WhatI want from the rich andpowerful
Valuehuman life. Everyhuman has the same inherent value, regardless of wealth, culturalbackground, skin color, gender, ability, and so on. The value of achild isequal to or greater thanthat of an adult because a child thatdies loses more life-years. Protecting human life should be our toppriority. That includes protecting the earth's complex systems thatmake human life possible. Therefore, ecocide should be part of nationallaw,everywhere.
Stop the killing. Half of theworld agrees that the deathpenalty is never justified. That's a great start. No-one should bekilled for any reason. The only exceptions apply at the very start andthe very end of life (legally and ethically controlled abortion andeuthanasia). But many governments arestill killing their own citizens. China and the USA should agree to endthe death penalty, inspiring the world to follow suit. Their leaderscould actually just do that. In addition,enormous numbers ofpeople are being killed violently (e.g., Iraq).Military "defence forces" should stick to true defence and peacekeeping. International arms trading should be universally banned -- itis not enough to stop illegaltrading.If you want peace, make peace. World leaders should be demanding thatfrom their international colleagues. We should be electing them on thatbasis.
Recognizethe urgency of theclimate crisis.We are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction event. A millionspecies are at risk, and one of them is Homo sapiens.Theglobal climate system is approaching multiple tipping points, afterwhich the damage will be irreversible. Enormous areas will becomeuninhabitable due to rising sea levels, unprecedented droughts, heatwaves, forestfires, storms, and water/food shortages. The details may be hard topredict, but scientists agree about the general tendency and extremeurgency.
Stoppremature deaths due topoverty and climate change.Roughly ten million people are dying prematurely every year inconnection withpoverty. In addition, roughly ten millionfuturepeople are being killed indirectly every year by current greenhouse gasemissions.Every 1000 tonnes of carbon burned today is causing a future prematuredeath (more),and altogether ten billion tonnes are burned every year. In this way,richer people are currently causing the premature deaths of twentymillion poorer people everyyear. That'smore than the death rate due to violence during the Second World War.No one is intending to kill anyone (premature future deaths are aninevitable futurebyproduct of burning fossil fuels) but totheextent that these cause-effect relationships are obvious (and theysurely are) we are talking aboutunprecedented negligence.Thisindirect, unintentional, mass killing has to stop. Povertycan and must be alleviated globally. All greenhouse emissionscan and must stop. Not in 2050, not in ten years, not even next year.Now! What are we waiting for? Even the 1.5C goal (IPCC; Paris)isnot ambitious enough. Alleviating poverty means many things, including closing tax havensandstopping the exploitation of developing countries by multinationalcorporations. The Sustainable Development Goals need much morefinancial support from rich countries. Most richer countries agreedlong ago to contribute0.7% GDP to international development aid and then failed to dothat. Within countries, tax-welfaresystemsneed to be reformed to alleviate poverty and reduce the wealth gap.
Reduceemissions and convert tosustainable energy asquickly as possible without causing additional deaths. Inrichcountries at least, reducing energy consumption is even more importantthan the conversion to sustainable energy. For example, houses shouldbe energy-efficient and located not far from workplaces. Beyond that,allthose currently working in the fossil fuel industry need newjobs, e.g.in sustainable energy; the world's richest people are in a goodposition to financethe transition. Governments can and should demand the finance. Thetransition should not cause power shortages thatcauseadditionalhuman deaths (e.g., hospitals should not run out of power). The mainpoint is to minimize the number of preventable human deaths. Weurgently need new leaders to motivate and organize this massiveproject. Ban all new fossil fuel projects and close downall existing ones. Tax flying, gradually increasing the tax untilglobalemissions from flying start to fall steadily. Same for meatconsumption. Alleviate poverty at the same time by returning part ofthe proceeds to the people ("fee and dividend"). Ban private jets, andban any advertising thatencouragespeople to burn large amounts of fossil fuels, e.g. ads for cars ordistantholidays. Corporations, businesses, and universities should stopfundingflying for any purpose and use electronic media instead. Those who flyshould pay for their own tickets. Offsetting should be required by law.Asrespected places of independentlearning and freedom of speech, universities should be leading theworld out of this crisis (at the moment, up to one half of the carbonemissions of a university are from flying).Governments shouldbeusing proceeds fromenvironmental taxes to buildfasttrains that criss-cross all continents, powered byelectricity from sustainable sources, and toreviveinternationaland intercontinental commercial sailing, supported by solar-poweredelectric motors. They should be financing the end of deforestation andthe reforestationof a billionhectares. They should besubsidizing the construction ofcarbon-neutralbuildings, and radical improvementsin public transport and bicycle infrastructure. All emissions sectorsshould have legally enforceableplans in place tohalve emissions by 2025 and reachnet zero by2030; from a human rights perspective, anything else is too slow.
Restartdemocracy by reducingthe wealth gap and eliminating poverty. Climatechange may belargely caused by capitalism, but a communist revolution is not theanswer -- the risk of massive violence and corruption is too great. Weneed to transform and tame capitalism. Democracyis being undermined, both globally and within countries, by the risinggap between rich and poor. It may be ok for the rich to have ten timesthe income or wealth of the poor, but not ahundred or a thousand times, let alone a million. One solution is wagetransparency: all tax declarations in all countries should be publishedin the internet, to help reduce pay gaps (gender,"race") and tax evasion. Another form of transparency is a radically simplified tax-welfaresystem thateliminates poverty and reduces the wealth gap. We need more progressivetaxes, those that arepaid mainly by the rich (wealthtaxes,environmental taxes, financial transaction taxes) in every country(internationally harmonized). We don't need regressive taxes thatmainly affect the poor, such as consumption tax (value-addedtax, VAT) on everyday non-luxury goods. People cannot contribute oradapt to massive social changes if they are preoccupied with makingends meet; for this and other reasons we need a universal,unconditional basic income that practically eliminates poverty. This ispossible in an country by drawing a straight line through the currentcomplex relationship between income before tax/welfare and income aftertax/welfare (detailshere).Then and onlythen will it be appropriate to introduce and/or gradually increasecarbon taxes. In the US, Bernie Sanders has shown thatpeoplewill vote for changes of this kind if they are clearly explained.
Reducepopulation growth. Whilereducing or eliminating poverty is necessary for ethical andhumanitarianreasons, and anyone who claims to be anti-racist can only agree, it isalso the best way to reduce populationgrowth in developing countries. That is essentialto getclimate change under control and reduce the magnitude of futurehumanitarian crises.African's population is currentlyexpected totriple, reaching 4 billion by 2100, with unimaginably catastrophicconsequences. We must reduce population growth while at the same timerespecting human rights, especially the rights of women and children(no-one anywhere should be penalized for having children). Birth ratescan be reduced by improving education (for girls and boys equally),standard of living, andpublicawareness. An unconditional basic income or pension can alleviate thefear of poverty in old age. Population growth must also bereducedin richercountries where individual carbon footprints are high. Regardless ofsocioeconomic status, there are two good reasons for not havingchildren: they will not have a rosy future and they will furtherincrease emissions. If youlove children, don't have any.
Considerthe true selfish interestsof therich.For better orfor worse, that is our only politicallyrealistic option. Our world is also their worldand their children's world. There is indeed no planet B, and no amountof money can change that. At the rate we are going, in a few decadescivilization and global capitalism will be collapsing, wars (likehurricanes) will be getting more frequent and more serious, and moneycouldbecome worthless. The rich will lose their quality oflife.Whenthe Titanic sank, rich and poor died together. Today, the rich canserve their own long-term interests by promoting political changes thatreduce poverty and the wealth gap in exchange for a significantproportion of their wealth. Money can indeed buy love! After thetransition, the rich will still be rich. Applied fairly, wealth taxeswill hardly change the pecking order of wealth. As more rich peoplerealise this, regarding it is a new challenge to their entrepreneurialskills and their ability to "think big", more willjoin theglobalfight to save the globalclimate.
Theseare not radical demands.It is not "radical" to try to prevent mass suicide, generatiocide,or human extinction bythe most reasonable and realistic means available.
Theopinions expressed onthis page are theauthors' personalopinions.
Suggestionsfor improvingor extending the content arewelcome at parncutt@gmx.at.
Theaim of this page is to defendthebasicrights of a billion people who are currentlyliving inpoverty in developing countries. That's a thousand million people!Their lives are threatened by a combination of poverty denial andclimate denial. Poverty denial is denial that poverty is caused by theus, the rich. Climate denial is denial that climate change is caused byus, the rich.
All over the world, influential people are refusing tospeak openly and honesty about poverty and climate. If things don'timprove,hundreds of millions of people will die in comingdecadesas a result of the negligence of the rich countries. Every human lifehas thesame value, and every unnecessary death is a tragedy.
I am one of the lucky ones.By accident ofbirth, I am part of today'swestern middle class.By comparison to all other people who have every lived anywhere on thisplanet, we of the western middle class are living in luxury, likeFrench royalty before the revolution.
LikeFrench royalty before therevolution, we are being warned, but we are not responding.Most of us who read the previous paragraphs (and countless similartexts) are doing nothing (or almost nothing, which is little better) tochange the situation within our sphere of influence, which is generallymuch bigger than we think. We then pretend to be innocent, which isobviously untrue. Logically and objectively, this "normal" behavior canbedescribed as stupid, evil, or both.
Please excuse me for trying to tell the truthabout this. Honesty can be a bit of a shock, I know. The rationalresponse is not denial or guilt. The rational response is to act.
TAGS:Human Cost The Richard Parncutt Climate Change and
<<< Thank you for your visit >>>
Websites to related : HillZoo.com - The Home Page of C
keywords:
description:Internships and Jobs on and off Capitol Hill in Washington, DC
HillZoo.com - The Home Page of Capitol HillCapitol Hill Internshi
keywords:
description:
RayID: 6b2b498c2bb561cb
IP: 103.127.124.163
keywords:automated plating equipment, PCB plating lines, PCB plating equipment, solar panel plating equipment, solar panel plating machinery, circuit
Graca Machel Trust Home keywords:
description:
Skip to content Contact +27 (0) 11 325 0501|foraccert. FacebookTwitter
keywords:
description:Capital Equipment Exchange is an SMT equipment supplier serving the PCB a
keywords:flight training CT, private pilot license, flight school CT, instrument rating, private pilot, commercial pilot, pilot training, aircraft ren
Olympic Peninsula Region Porsch keywords:
description:
Olympic Peninsula Region Porsche Club of America Skip to content HomeAbout Le
keywords:
description:
Copper Beech Institute ONLINE OFFERINGS
keywords:Idaho, school, CapEd, teachers
description:We Love Teachers is a partnership between CapEd Credit Union and DonorsChoose to support our local
keywords:Elenaciric.ro, visualization
description:Traffic visualization for Elenaciric.ro.
home | faq | contact | submit url | Goo
Hot Websites