Let us start with this table, which I compiled using data available on the world bank website.
|
Per Capita Metric Tons (2011) |
Population (Millions) |
Total (Million-Tons) |
% |
US |
17 |
311 |
5287 |
15% |
India |
1.7 |
1200 |
2040 |
6% |
China |
6.7 |
1340 |
8978 |
26% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
World |
4.9 |
7000 |
34300 |
|
So, the top 3 contributors to CO2 emissions are China, India and the US.
Now, let us view this a little differently. The chart above shows the per capita emissions, comparing India, China and the US. Quite a striking difference, isnt it ! Is there any moral implication of this chart ?
To do that, let us look at a different chart. One that compares per capita GDP emissions with income (or per capita GDP). This chart (below) looks quite striking… there is a strong correlation.
So, it appears that there is a very good chance that the prosperity we enjoy in the US (we are the large green bubble on the top right quadrant of the chart above) is linked to the amount of CO2 we have emitted into the atmosphere.
You can draw your own moral conclusions from it ~ as I have done for myself. I dont want to get into a discussion of the morality, but of practical solutions. So let us discuss the problem with some guiding principles in mind.
- We are enjoying a prosperity in the US that is likely linked to the amount of damage we have done to the environment. Others in the world, are less fortunate, but they have also done less damage to the environment.
- Going forward, they have the option of developing in a “green” manner (ie with renewable resources). Or they can do it the way we did ~ by burning coal. Both India and China are quite capable of burning a lot of coal to power their own prosperities ~ and eventually Sub Saharan Africa will also be quite capable of doing that. In addition, India is a democratic country ~ it’s leaders are obliged to deliver verifiable gains in per capita income to it’s people every 5 years… and the easiest way to do this is by burning coal. If the rest of the world develops the way we did, then we are all toast.
- Looking at the total emissions (the Table up top), it is no longer sufficient for the US to cut per capita emissions. That is necessary, but not sufficient. The US must cut per capita emissions, and convince India/China to maintain current levels. This is a morally difficult proposition ~ how are you going to convince India to emit 1.7 tons per capita while you continue to spew out >10 tons per capita. You cannot...unless you offer them something in return.
And, in fact China has been using a lot more coal recently (see the chart below), even as the US reduces per capita emissions.
Now, let us turn to what the current political campaign is about. Bernie Sanders is proposing a plan that, if successful, will reduce US emissions by 40% by 2030. Hillary Clinton is proposing a plan that, if successful, will reduce US emissions by 30% by 2025. Here, I understand that supporters of Sen. Sanders are suggesting that Secy Clinton’s plan is inadequate, and we cannot afford her plan (or else the world will come to an end). I suggest that you stop and rethink your rationale here ~ neither one of the two plans are going to suffice by itself…. if that is the sum total of what the candidates did while in office.
So, to those who are supporting Sen. Sanders purely on climate change… let me put this bluntly. If your candidate is successful in his plans, and nothing else happens, then the world will likely come to an end. Okay, that was a bit melodramatic ~ and it is not quite accurate. The more accurate phrasing is that if your candidate is successful, and nothing else happens, then climate change will be a lot worse than it would otherwise be. I don’t believe the world will come to an end.
So what else needs to happen ?
The next President, if he/she is serious about climate change, must pursue a 2 pronged approach to climate change:
- Reducing US emissions by becoming a leader in the creation and implementation of green technologies. This reduction has to be significant ~ it has to be meaningful enough.
- Offering India and China something, so that they do not unduly increase their per capita emissions. That something has to be tangible enough ~ I do not know what that is, but it wont be lollipops.
Now, you probably know where this is headed. The 2nd part is all about negotiations ~ and we do happen to have one candidate who is fairly good at that. This is what she has previously said about the problem. From the CNN debate in October 2015.
Well, that -- that's exactly what I've been doing. When we met in Copenhagen in 2009 and, literally, President Obama and I were hunting for the Chinese, going throughout this huge convention center, because we knew we had to get them to agree to something. Because there will be no effective efforts against climate change unless China and India join with the rest of the world.
They told us they'd left for the airport; we found out they were having a secret meeting. We marched up, we broke in, we said, "We've been looking all over for you. Let's sit down and talk about what we need to do." And we did come up with the first international agreement that China has signed.
Thanks to President Obama's leadership, it's now gone much further.
I care about climate change… and that exchange above illustrates why Secy Clinton deserves my vote on this particular issue.
Now, to be fair to Sen. Sanders, he does understand that any viable solution will require sacrifices in India and China. It is just that he does not appear to be quite capable of pulling those negotiations, and has taken other positions (on free trade, for instance), that are quite hard to reconcile with him driving a hard bargain with China/India on climate change.
You can make of this what you will...but I would request that you at least consider this while you gauge the two candidates.
Peace.