|
Climate deal failure 'could mean war'
And if pigs could fly..
IF the world fails to reach agreement on tackling climate change soon then it could end in war, climate scientist Tim Flannery has warned.
| And if that doesn't motivate us to do things his way, he'll threaten us with plagues, boils, locusts, bats, rats, salamanders and newts ... |
| *shrug* Water shortages are already leading to war, at least on a small scale. This is not new. |
Like many others, he is concerned at a lack of progress ahead of a crucial UN climate summit in Copenhagen in December. If there is no deal some time in the next year then there is a risk of momentum fading and the problem getting beyond the reach of world leaders, said Prof Flannery, who is in New York for climate talks.
"My greatest fear is that once people stop negotiating, once diplomacy fails, that's potentially a prelude for war."
| Only if someone sees war as being in their best interest. Humankind is screwy and I suppose it's possible that someone would go to war over not getting their way on 'climate-change'. Heck, look at Pakistain where people go to war over someone looking cross-eyed at someone else's cousin. But it's a real stretch to imagine that the progressive Left would go to war since that means that they'd have to do something other than talk and bluster. I don't see European or American leftist invertebrates as having the, er, spine for that. |
That could mean conflict over carbon tariffs, over the mass migration of climate-affected people or over serious water shortages, Prof Flannery said.
It might not happen for decades but it was a real threat if Copenhagen failed. "The triggers are there for conflict," the former Australian of the year said.
He gave some support for Australia's proposal to go easier on developing countries in the Copenhagen process, by exempting them from having to make economy-wide commitments to restrain emissions growth.
| He'd rather throw a thousand ropes over the American Gulliver ... |
The Greens say the plan is a cop-out but Prof Flannery said it should be looked at because current approaches were not working.
"It does hold the promise at least of unlocking further cooperation from those so-called developing countries," he said, adding that countries like China and Brazil were not really developing countries any more. "We haven't got time to let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
Prof Flannery strongly backed Australia voting in its emissions trading scheme before Copenhagen. The Opposition wants a vote delayed. But Prof Flannery also said Australia must cut emissions by at least 25 per cent. The Government's target is a 5 to 25 per cent cut.
| A 25% cut in emissions means either a 25% improvement in industrial efficiency, so as to make the cuts painless, or a 25% reduction in carbon energy use. Efficiency is something that happens incrementally and can't be scheduled. A 25% cut in energy usage would put the average first world country back to the 1950s or so in their economy and lives. I welcome someone else going first. |
Posted by: tipper 2009-09-21 |
