{"id":819,"date":"2019-03-06T16:26:44","date_gmt":"2019-03-06T16:26:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wsm.prolerat.org\/?page_id=819"},"modified":"2019-10-20T13:27:40","modified_gmt":"2019-10-20T12:27:40","slug":"profit-depleting-agreements-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/profit-depleting-agreements-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Profit-depleting agreements"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Climate Change\u2014The Facts <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Global mean temperatures have increased by between 0.3 degrees \nand 0.6 degrees Celsius since the late 19C\u2014global sea levels have risen \nby between 10 and 25cm over the past century” The 1980s were easily the \nwarmest decade on record and exhibited an unprecedented number of \nextreme climatic events such as storms and droughts.(1)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most scientists agree that these rises in the earth’s temperature \nhave, at least partly, been caused by humans. The International Panel on\n Climate Change (IPCC) at a meeting in November stated that the \ntemperature rise in the past century (a rise of about 0.5 degrees \nCelsius) is<\/p>\n\n\n\n

unlikely to be entirely due to natural causes, and that a pattern of \nresponses to human activities is identifiable in the climate record”(2).\n Their report in June stated that “The balance of evidence suggests a \ndiscernible influence on global climate.”(3) In 1990, they warned that \nglobal warming caused by a build up of carbon dioxide and other \n‘greenhouse gases’ would worsen seriously unless strong action was taken\n to halt the rise in emissions of these gases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Nature<\/em> magazine,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

the accumulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the \nEarth’s atmosphere means that there is a higher chance, perhaps 80% or \nso, that there will be an increase of average surface temperature of \nabout one degree or thereabouts in the next half century(4)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to a report to the 1988 conference on the subject:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally \npervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to\n global nuclear war\u2026 Far-reaching impacts will be caused by global \nwarming\u2026 as a result of the continued growth in atmospheric \nconcentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The best \npredictions available indicate potentially severe economic and social \ndislocation for present and future generations, which will worsen \ninternational tensions and increase risk of conflicts between and within\n nations. It is imperative to act now.(5)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Which are the ‘Greenhouse Gases’? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The single largest contributor to global warming is carbon dioxide. Rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are cause mainly by (Deforestation)<\/a> and the burning of fossil fuels. Concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 1985 had increased 25% since pre-industrial times. If present trends continue this will increase 40% by 2050.(6)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The additional warming effect of other trace gases, especially methane, nitrous oxide, and CFCs are expected to be about equal to carbon dioxide (Ozone Depletion)<\/a> .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consequences of Global Warming <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the UN, the consequences of global warming include \nthe exacerbation of problems of such as drought, desertification, \ndeforestation and soil erosion. A higher sea level would influence \nhabitation patterns, agriculture, industry, particularly in river \ndeltas, flood plains and other low-lying coastal areas.(7) While we \ncannot be sure what the exact extent of these problems will be it is \ngenerally agreed that action is needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fossil Fuels and the Profit Motive <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The burning of fossil fuels represents a cheaper source of energy\n and any attempt to ‘clean up’ this practice currently has a cost that \nboth governments and industry have been not only unwilling but also \nunable to meet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After a series of non-binding international agreements on the \nissue of climate change, the Framework Convention on Climate Change was \nestablished at the Rio summit in 1992. The FCCC aimed to return \ngreenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. It was signed \nby 166 nations (including the EC).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An article in International Environmental Affairs<\/em> warned \nthat many of the national targets set in accordance with the FCCC were \nnon-binding (implicitly or explicitly) and governments could retract \npledges if other nations did not introduce changes commensurate with \ntheir own.(8) This warning was later vindicated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most industrialised nations now seem likely to miss the target, \nagreed in Rio, of stabilising emissions of carbon dioxide at 1990 levels\n by 2000. They are also under pressure from industrial and power \ncompanies to reject further cuts in emissions.(9)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Few countries have established a genuine, detailed vision of how they\n will reach their targets. Czech, Hungarian & Polish delegations \nhave said they cannot predict their future emissions nor whether any \npolicy measures to control emissions would be needed, wise or \npolitically feasible.(10)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oil prices have remained low, reducing the incentives for saving \nenergy and spurring growth in the global economy. Economic barriers to \nreducing fossil fuel emissions have therefore remained. The FCCC itself \nacknowledged that measures “should be integrated with national \ndevelopment programmes” and should “take into account the need to \nmaintain strong and sustainable economic growth”\u2014hints that a conflict \nof interests was to be expected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So what exactly are the costs entailed by the FCCC? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the basis of historical responsibility and ability to pay, the\n net incremental costs to the North of global warming mitigation and \nadaptation programmes in the south has been estimated as $30bn per \nyear.(11)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps Environment<\/em> magazine is under-stating the problem \nwhen suggesting that the task of “dividing this ‘net responsibility’ \namong the donors and the resulting funds among the claimants is likely \nto be a contentious and drawn-out affair.” (Environment<\/em> April \n1994). Internationally raised funds for the FCCC to come from the Global\n Environmental Facility (GEF) were just $281 million between 1991 and \n1994. Clearly, the burden was to be largely with national governments if\n the FCCC was to be implemented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An IPCC report translates this cost as 1.5\u20132% of gross world product (GWP) (Nature<\/em>\n 9\/11\/96). While the environmental lobby rightly object to the value of \nhuman life being reduced to it’s profitability it seems that it is this \nprofit\u2014oriented logic that is all too visible in the aftermath of the \nFCCC and it’s failure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anyone doubting the conflict between profits and the environment \nshould take a look at America where the vested interests of the coal, \noil and electricity industry set up the Global Climate Convention in \n1989. Its role is<\/p>\n\n\n\n

to coordinate business participation in the scientific and policy debate on the global climate change issue<\/p>\n\n\n\n

– in other words, to ensure the protection of their interests. \nAlternatives to fossil fuels are not employed on any wide scale today \nbecause they would add to production costs and so are ruled out by the \neconomic laws of capitalism. Governments and industry have been not only\n unwilling but also unable to meet targets that have been set to reduce \ntheir use. This is borne out by the outcome of two international \nattempts to achieve a clean up\u2014the FCCC and the failed European carbon \ntax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

European Carbon Tax <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One suggested means of restricting carbon dioxide emissions has \nbeen a carbon tax. The European Commission have discussed the \npossibility but refrained from implementing it due to concern about how \nit would affect their international competitiveness. The European Union \n(EU) would certainly look to other member nations of the Organisation \nfor Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD), particularly the US \nand Japan, to also implement such a tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some have argued that while countries with a carbon tax or energy tax\n need not be worse off relative to nations without a tax, they admit \nthat particular industries would still be resistant to the policy. \nLobbyists from these industries could still prevent governments agreeing\n to the policy (International Environmental Affairs<\/em> 6.1). Most \nstudies have concluded that the tax would adversely effect the \ncompetitiveness of some countries. The US, among the major economic \npowers, would experience the greatest loss from such a tax. Domestic \ncoal reserves provide more than 56% of US electricity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If forced to reverse this situation, the US economy would probably \nsuffer, and become more vulnerable to severe energy shocks. Certain US \nregions that rely disproportionately on coal could be severely \naffected.(13)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, the US, as well as Canada and Australia, may be \nnaturally pre-disposed by geography and natural resources, to a certain \ndegree of specialisation in energy- intensive industrial goods\u2014thus the \ncompetitiveness of its exports would be harmed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The perceived effect that unilateral and even multilateral actions to\n mitigate GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions would have on the international\n competitiveness of a country’s products, as well as specific action and\n regions, has clearly become the overriding concern for OECD \ngovernments.(14)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An international agreement involving nine countries was reached \nduring the early 1990s. They pledged to bring sulphur dioxide emissions \ndown to less than half their 1980 levels by 1995. Austria, Sweden and \nthe Federal Republic of Germany were committed to reducing them by two \nthirds. On nitrogen oxides, twelve West European nations agreed to go \nbeyond the freeze and reduce emissions by 30% by 1988. The high costs \ninvolved have worked against adoption of a programme of retrofitting \nexisting combustion facilities. (Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, \nDenmark and the UK all adopted programmes requiring major retrofit \ninvestments.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At a recent meeting, 15 EU states concluded that the negotiations were not advancing as needed, if objectives are to be met. Predictions for 2000 vary from a 3% rise in global temperatures to a 1% cut. A 50% cut would be needed of over 2C in global temperatures is to be avoided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Return to The Environment menu<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Climate Change\u2014The Facts Global mean temperatures have increased by between 0.3 degrees and 0.6 degrees Celsius since the late 19C\u2014global sea levels have risen by between 10 and 25cm over the past century” The 1980s were easily the warmest decade on record and exhibited an unprecedented number of extreme climatic events such as storms and…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"magazine_newspaper_sidebar_layout":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-819","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/819","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=819"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/819\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2580,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/819\/revisions\/2580"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=819"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}