Kyoto fail?
Re: previous post about the Kyoto Protocol.
Staunch environmentalist James Hansen speaks scathingly about the Climate Change talks in Copenhagen saying they must fail because they do not go far enough. The article goes onto argue that Hansen says it would be better to begin from scratch than to go down the disastrous path of the Kyoto Protocol.
What is more dangerous: being “half-assed” or “beginning again” and risking the collapse on the precarious foundations upon which these climate talks are based (an already near-impossible political game of diplomacy and self-interest)? We must agree on one thing: global warming must have a global solution. Something tells me that if governments were given the choice between ‘all’ or ‘nothing’, we’re headed towards the latter! Pragmatic politics leaves little room for the future.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
The Kyoto Protocol
On the 1st October 2009, I saw Graciela Chichilnisky, one of the founding architects of the carbon market, give a talk at the RSA. All climate change talks are charged with gloom and doom: the Kyoto Protocol is in peril – set to vanish in 2012 – it is not even near to achieving its targets. China and the US are on the verge of a new Cold War revolving around carbon emissions. And in spite of Obama’s warm and welcome words of global cooperation, the world’s biggest emitter of carbon has not even ratified the treaty. But there were green glimmers of optimism too – the possibility of carbon ‘air’ capture and solar power.
I knew very little of the Kyoto Protocol, only that it hasn’t worked – as Mark Lynas, the chair of the talk pointed out, since the Kyoto Protocol was signed and agreed in 1997, carbon emissions dramatically increased from the very countries bound by the treaty. Earlier in the year, I briefly attended Climate Clamp: the anger was targeted at authority and their failures – the failure of the banks, the failure of capitalism, the failure of a market-based solution to climate change. So it was a bit startling to see the mastermind behind the carbon market in front of me, defending the very protocol that has been attacked from all camps by all political persuasions. Could Adam Smith’s ‘invisible’ hand acquire a green hue?
But there are several things that I liked about Chichilnisky’s talk:
a) International development and ecological sustainability go hand-in-hand. So far, Africa and South America have not been able to participate in reducing carbon emissions because they only produce around 3% of the world’s CO2. As these continents do not produce enough carbon to reduce their emissions, they cannot be rewarded for reducing carbon under the protocol. Therefore most approved carbon offsetting projects or CDMs (clean development mechanisms) end up in China (because they are the biggest polluters of the developing world).
On Chichilnisky’s new proposal, countries in Africa and South America can participate more fully in the Kyoto Protocol through ‘air capture’ – a very recent technology that can capture carbon from the air and stored in ethanol and concrete. This way, Africa can potentially reduce 20% of the world’s carbon emissions while still only producing 3% of the world’s emissions.
b) rebuking the population myth: as Chichilnisky acutely points out, only 20% of the world’s population produce 60% of the world’s emissions – and the countries of that 20% have the lowest and decreasing populations. So those who claim that mass population is the biggest obstacle to climate change just have to look at the unequal production of carbon.
I’m reading her book, ‘The Kyoto Protocol’ at the moment; its lucid, paced tone marks a striking difference from George Monbiot’s Heat, a book that coruscates with rage. However, Chichilnisky’s conclusions are even more frightening. Unlike Monbiot’s book, which ends with rationed ‘ice caps’ and carbon-neutral lives, Chichilnisky implies that even this would not be enough. Stabilising carbon in the atmosphere is not sufficient: we must actively suck carbon out of the atmosphere. Chichilnisky’s optimism hinges on the combination of air capture (to stabilise the emissions) and solar power (to source eternal and democratically dispensed sunshine). Renewables and even nuclear alone won’t do.
But this is where I feel Chichilnisky’s strengths are also her weaknesses: her appealing optimism stems predominantly from an over-dependence on technology: what if it turns out, like biofuels and carbon capture for coal, that air capture only promulgates the problem instead of solves it? What if solar panels cannot overhaul entire global, energy infrastructures? What if the Kyoto protocol falls apart and geopolitical conflicts destroy any hope of cooperation even things become technologically feasible?
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
In 2007 the Guardian published this article.
It claimed that students who take “art” and “non-traditional” subjects, including traditional subjects such as English and History are going down an “easy path”. “Research” was undertaken that apparently proved that science, maths and languages were more difficult than arts subjects and therefore universities, when accepting students, should take science subjects more “seriously”. These standards of “difficulty” are based on those blunt things called grades: at pass and failure rates.
Now the results are actually OUT, published by the same media source (The Guardian) a couple of weeks later, let’s actually SEE which subjects are “easiest” according to these grade standards.
English A grades: 23.2%
History A grades: 25.3%
Now for “non-traditional” subjects:
General Studies (the lovable punching bag for eye-rolling subject snobs): 12.3%
Psychology A grades: 19%
Sociology: 21.3%
Performing/Expressive arts: 14.8%
And now for these “more difficult” subjects (sciences, maths, languages):
Biology A grades: 26.2%
Chemistry A grades: 32.4%
Physics: 30.8%
Maths: 43.7%
French: 36.3%
German: 37.2%
Spanish: 38%
Clearly, sciences, maths and languages have got considerably higher grades than English, History and ‘non-traditional’ subjects. Unlike certain people in the media, I wouldn’t be dumb or superficial enough to regard these subjects are ‘easier’ just because more people got A grades. What pisses me off about the Guardian article is that people will read “students take soft a levels such as English and History” and further perpetuate the damaging stereotype that arts subjects are easier, and by inference, inferior. Employers, parents, perhaps even universities will take this nonsense into account and make students-to-be feel bad about doing ‘arts’ subjects.
As a side note, these results also overturn another stereotype: that women can’t do physics. Although females consistently perform better than boys in almost every subject and do so considerably, according to these statistics, 35.3% of girls got A grades for physics whereas 29.5% of boys did. As for English, a subject regarded as “female” and IS when you look at the gender ratio at university, females were only better than males by 0.3% instead of the gigantic 5.8% difference between the sexes in physics.
Inaccurate media portrayals of an utterly ridiculous “hierarchy” of subjects are not only misleading and condescending, but inaccurate and damaging. Furthermore, the grandiose claim that A-Levels are getting easier is certainly not backed up by the clearest and most damaging discrepancy of all: class. So while boys at Eton might collect qualifications like scouts badges, a large number of children out there from impoverished backgrounds have their problems drowned out by the sensationalist cry, “A Levels are getting easier!”
Filed under: education, gender | Leave a Comment
Tags: a levels, arts/science divide, british education, education, gender, gender stereotypes
Istanbul
Istanbul, so croons the guidebook, is a mish mash between East and West, Europe and Asia, rich history and modernity yadda yadda (what does that actually mean?). Tourism guidebooks are full of this kind of outdated, marketable anthropology with no self-critical awareness and with an irritating tenacity to describe things in banal, meaningless binaries (there are men and women, nights and days, cats and dogs…ohmigod). Mind you, I don’t expect my own travelogue to do much better – a trite warning – so I’ll just post a few highlights
Istiklal Cad.
As we strolled down this street, dazzled by the dangling lights, trendy bars and familiar-brand shops, Istanbul resembled a prettier, pedestrianised Oxford Street. There was music-blaring bar-cum-bookshops open past 1.30AM, cosy pubs with eclectic décor and mouth-watering sweetshops, it wasn’t difficult making oneself ‘at home’. It was, if anything, too homely, and we quickly found ourselves falling back into our old habits of spending our time in a trendy bar as we would in London, paying London prices.
Turkish Baths
Ever since I read Lady Mary Montague’s plush account of a Turkish Bath, I was compelled by the experience. Firstly, I had no idea what one was: would I be plunged in water? Expected to be surrounded by naked, beautiful women? All was soon to be demystified: under a dotted dome ceiling, a large marble decagon lay beneath on which two naked women (tourists) were lying. The heat hits first, a gigantic sauna: how long can one stand the pleasurable pain? I made my way to two bubbling pools, gingerly toeing the steaming water. The heat was simultaneously stifling and relieving. After inching my way into the water, my heart rate doubled once the submergence was complete. After doggy paddling rather awkwardly, I pulled myself out and hopped my way to the central stone slab due to the heat (ah, so that’s the reason they gave us sandals) and lay down on the sheet they provided me. The violent heat was unbearable, so I rather ungraciously spent a great deal of the rest of my time drenching myself in cold water, sheet and all, in a bizarrely happy reverie.
Hospitality
The other major thing that has to be mentioned is the hospitality of people. After getting lost on the wrong side of Topkapi – the supposed slums – rather than getting mugged by strangers, we were graciously guided back to the train station by an awesomely friendly father who took us down the endless capillaries of streets. There are too many instances of Turkish hospitality to mention – lest to say, I wish people were friendlier in this way in London (including myself). In one eaterie, we got free cay, baklava and the owner set himself on fire for our entertainment.
Strange demonstrations
One of the least explicable things of Istanbul was a demonstration where hundreds, if not thousands of people dressed as police officers carried a long, large Turkish flag and held banners glorifying the police. It was a river of red: but a very peaceful river red. It was difficult to interpret: was it a protest (one of the police officers said no) or was it glorifying Turkey? Lest to say, it was only until we left Turkey that we realised Obama was controversially visiting Istanbul the next day so it may have been held in his honour. However, it was a symbolic, striking, intimidating image with which to leave.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Search
-
Blogroll
