Song for Jasmine

The United Nations Climate Change Conference gets under way in Copenhagen this week. There’s a lot at stake. We need a global commitment from all nations to adopt a low-carbon path for the future, and we need to get on that path fast. There’s simply no alternative if we want our children and grandchildren to live in a world that we would recognise.

I’m somewhat optimistic about the outcome. I certainly don’t think that the conference will result in an agreement that can prevent catastrophic climate-change in itself. Even if it did, we still have to make sure that it gets implemented, and that’s going to take decades of work. Signing a piece of paper this year will not be enough, even it if says all the right things.

So why am I optimistic? Grab a cup of tea, sit down, and I’ll tell you.

Most governments have made some form of commitment in recent weeks, even those that had steadfastly resisted pressure to do so in the past. The United States has pledged a 17% cut in emissions from 2005 levels by 2020. China will aim to reduce ‘carbon-intensity’ by 40-45% by 2020, and India will reduce its carbon intensity by 20-25%, also by 2020.

On the one hand, it’s great to see such statements in the leadup to the conference. On the other, of course, those levels of cuts are not enough to make any difference to the changing climate. Compared to 1990 levels, the US figure corresponds to a cut of just 2%, while the Chinese and Indian carbon-intensity targets mean even less.

Carbon intensity is like car mileage, you can drive more efficiently to improve your mileage, but if you drive further as well, you may still burn more petrol. China plans to grow its economy at 8% per year. That would mean that by 2020 Chinas’ emissions will be almost double the 2005 level.

Of course, there will be lots of finger-pointing, with people on all sides calling for others to do more, while claiming that they are doing their share already, or that they do not want to do more until other countries commit themselves to do more. Playing ‘chicken’ with the climate is not what we really want to see in Copenhagen. Some will point out that China emits more CO2 than any other country. Others will point out that the US emits more per person than any other country (sorry, almost any other country.).

You can see the emissions per person for a number of countries in the graph, below, taken from David MacKay’s free ebook, Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air. That graph is for the year 2000, and you can clearly see that the ‘developed world’ is emitting far more CO2 per person than China or India, for example.

Carbon dioxide (equivalent) emissions per country for the year 2000

So it seems to me that the developed world has a clear moral obligation to take the lead in cutting emissions. Of course, everyone has to play their part, but there’s no need for anyone to wait, we can and should be cutting deeply, now. Unfortunately, politicians end up discussing the financial cost of action instead, arguing about how much money it will take to change, and what will it do to their countries’ economy. Don’t be fooled into thinking that it’s your money they’re protecting either. No, it’s the money of big corporations that lobby hard to protect their interests.

Big corporations have always worked to protect themselves. The gas companies opposed Thomas Edison when he wanted to light the streets with electricity, for example. The reality is that every year of delay only increases the financial costs down the line. Will we have to change the way we live in order to tackle climate change? Yes, we will. Will it have an effect on our economies? Yes, of course. But will it hurt you, or me? Not necessarily.

Thomas Edison changed our lives for the better. Henry Ford changed our lives when he established the automobile industry. Other changes are more gradual, like from theatre to silent films, to talkies, to television, to videos, and now to satellite and internet TV. The entertainment industry has changed drastically in that time, and people have changed with it.

Changing our way of life is very much part of our way of life, and that’s a good thing. When we realise that fact, tackling climate change will not seem difficult or painful, it will appear as the opportunity it is. Unless you’re the CEO of a fossil-fuel company, of course.

So that’s one reason why I’m optimistic. I believe people can come to terms with the changes needed to tackle climate change, once they realise it is in their personal interest and the interests of their family to do so. For that to happen, we just need to look at who is behind the voices opposed to doing anything.

If you’re among those who think climate change is not a real problem, ask yourself this: where did you get the information that led you to that opinion? What motivates the person who tells you not to worry about climate change? What’s in it for them if you believe them?

Dig deep enough, and you’ll probably smell oil. Sometimes its obvious, such as the recent article in Scientific American, but often you have to dig deeper. If you do, you’ll probably find you are being conned by industry-funded PR campaigns.

Regular readers of this blog will know I’m fond of quoting President Nasheed of the Maldives. Well, I’m going to do it again. In a recent speech, he expressed himself very clearly:

Wouldn’t it be nice if a few other leaders could make a stand with President Nasheed, and offer us development, electricity, and transport, instead of coal and oil?

Earth Hour 2009 is fast approaching. On Saturday March 28th (yes, tomorrow), many people around the world will turn out their lights for one hour, from 8:30 to 9:30 in the evening (local time, wherever you are on the globe). Despite all the gossip about Earth Hour on the web, there seems to be some confusion about what it is actually about in some places.

Earth Hour is not about saving electricity. If you switch off your lights for one hour, you’re not going to save much. One hour every year is about one hundredth of a percent, so in the grand scheme of things that’s a drop in the ocean. No, that’s not what Earth Hour is about at all.

Earth Hour is about raising awareness across the world that people want action on climate change. A global, co-ordinated action to make it clear how strongly people feel that climate change needs to be tackled now.

The organisers of Earth Hour are hoping that 1 billion people will participate this year, which corresponds to about one out of every seven people in the world. That’s a huge number, and would make it one of the largest events in human history. Considering that the first Earth Hour was held only two years ago, in one city, that’s an impressive growth, and a strong statement about how people feel about saving our planet.

So who is that statement for? Well, I guess it’s for everyone, there are still a lot of people with their heads in the sand. With one billion people involved, Earth Hour must surely be difficult to ignore. Even the politicians will have a hard time claiming that nobody cares about climate change. More importantly, world leaders will be shown that it is not just people in rich or poor nations, large or small, developed or not, that care about climate change. Countries like China and India are participating, along with many other developing nations. Hopefully this will encourage leaders of nations everywhere to be more responsible about tackling the problem than they have been in the past.

One thing that intrigues me is, how exactly will the organisers figure out how many people participated, after it’s all over? It’s not like they’re going to have time to go round counting, they’ll only have an hour to check each timezone and I don’t suppose Father Christmas is on the team.

One way is to measure it indirectly from the utility companies. Providers of electricity have become masters of estimating demand to within one or two percent minute by minute, and if one person in 7 turns out the lights for an hour, they should be able to spot that rather easily (Toronto showed nearly a 9% drop last year). That’s still a lot of information to analyse, there are over 80 countries involved. If anyone out there has a clearer idea of how the Earth Hour organisers will make their estimate, please let me know!

However it’s done, the important thing is that people should participate. It’s not just about telling the politicians, it’s also about telling the other 6 out of 7 people, and encouraging them to add their voices too. Maybe there’s something special happening near you. If not, there’s a list of suggestions for things to do during Earth Hour on the Earth Hour site, some of which can definitely be more fun in the dark than with the lights on!