All the talking, all the documentaries, all the international negotiations about climate change have resulted in a net achievement of less than nothing: Global emissions just keep going up and up. As Pete Postlethwaite’s character says in the film The Age of Stupid, “We wouldn’t be the first life form to wipe itself out. But what would be unique about us is that we did it knowingly.”
That’s the crux of it. We are the most intelligent creature yet to evolve. The first to understand how the overstretching resources to extinction pathway works, and the first with the potential to use our big brains to jump off that pathway before it’s too late.
To maximize our chances of preventing runaway climate change, we must quickly and massively cut global emissions. To do that, we need a binding international treaty, and the last chance we have to get that within the timescale of the physics of the planet is the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen in December. Hence the “Most important meeting in human history” moniker.
Clearly the treaty isn’t just made up on the spot: they’ve been working on it for years. The best deal currently on the table is that from the EU, which calls for a 30 percent reduction by 2020 (compared with 1990 levels). If this deal were to be accepted — which is a very big if, given that Japan argues for 8 percent, Australia for 5 percent and the US for between 0 percent and 6 percent — and if the emission cuts were then carried out — which is an even bigger if — this would give us about a 50/50 chance of not hitting the dreaded 2°C. Two degrees is where we trigger runaway climate change: two leads to three, three to four, four to five, five to six ... by which time it’s about over for life on Earth.
In other words, our elected leaders are giving us — at best — a coin-flip chance of avoiding catastrophe. It is hard to imagine a more total failing of our political system. Imagine if they were standing at a plane door. “Come on citizens, get on this plane — 50-50 chance of a safe landing: ... ”
All of which means that we non-politician humans who depend on the climate remaining habitable had best jump into action.
By signing up to 10:10, you will commit yourself, your school, your hospital, your church, your business, to cut 10 percent of your emissions next year. Which is easy. It’s at the level of changing lightbulbs, turning down heating, driving a bit less and maybe sticking in some insulation. Four of the big six energy companies in the UK have already signed up to help their customers cut their energy usage over the course of the year. Groups from E.ON to the Women’s Institute to Tottenham Hotspur Football Club to the Science Museum started rushing to sign up before we’d barely formulated the plan.
As well as being achievable for the vast majority of the population, 10 percent in one year is the kind of cut the science tells us we need.
Once we have a sizeable chunk of the UK signed up then the next step is to challenge the government to follow suit: to commit to reduce the whole country’s emissions by 10 percent next year. If one of the biggest historical culprits — that’s us — stepped forward and made the first move, it just might change the outcome at Copenhagen. International negotiations have long been hamstrung by “It’s all China’s fault,” or “We’re not playing if America’s not playing,” and so the UK going 10:10 may break the deadlock.
Two weeks after the talks in Denmark finish — whatever their outcome — on Jan. 1 next year the people of Britain will start getting on with solving the problem, supported by the Energy Saving Trust, the Carbon Trust and tonnes of online resources. Everyone who successfully completes their 10 percent cut should find themselves richer, as a result of saving money on their energy bills; fitter, as a result of the walking and cycling replacing some car trips; and with more friends — the colleagues they car-pooled with or the neighbors who helped walk all the kids to school. More important, everyone who takes part will know that their efforts are part of the nationwide effort to prevent catastrophe.
I was born in the early 1970s, part of the MTV generation who were told by a million advertisements that the point of our existence was to shop more. Daunting though the task ahead may be, I feel enormously inspired and quite relieved that it turns out that we have something important to do. The people who came before us didn’t know about climate change and the ones who come after will be powerless to stop it.
So it’s down to us. Other generations came together to overturn slavery or end apartheid or win the vote for women. There is nothing intrinsically more useless about our generation and there is no doubt about what we have to do. The only question that remains is whether or not we give it a go.
Many local news media over the past week have reported on Internet personality Holger Chen’s (陳之漢) first visit to China between Tuesday last week and yesterday, as remarks he made during a live stream have sparked wide discussions and strong criticism across the Taiwan Strait. Chen, better known as Kuan Chang (館長), is a former gang member turned fitness celebrity and businessman. He is known for his live streams, which are full of foul-mouthed and hypermasculine commentary. He had previously spoken out against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and criticized Taiwanese who “enjoy the freedom in Taiwan, but want China’s money”
A high-school student surnamed Yang (楊) gained admissions to several prestigious medical schools recently. However, when Yang shared his “learning portfolio” on social media, he was caught exaggerating and even falsifying content, and his admissions were revoked. Now he has to take the “advanced subjects test” scheduled for next month. With his outstanding performance in the general scholastic ability test (GSAT), Yang successfully gained admissions to five prestigious medical schools. However, his university dreams have now been frustrated by the “flaws” in his learning portfolio. This is a wake-up call not only for students, but also teachers. Yang did make a big
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) concludes his fourth visit to China since leaving office, Taiwan finds itself once again trapped in a familiar cycle of political theater. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has criticized Ma’s participation in the Straits Forum as “dancing with Beijing,” while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defends it as an act of constitutional diplomacy. Both sides miss a crucial point: The real question is not whether Ma’s visit helps or hurts Taiwan — it is why Taiwan lacks a sophisticated, multi-track approach to one of the most complex geopolitical relationships in the world. The disagreement reduces Taiwan’s
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is visiting China, where he is addressed in a few ways, but never as a former president. On Sunday, he attended the Straits Forum in Xiamen, not as a former president of Taiwan, but as a former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. There, he met with Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧). Presumably, Wang at least would have been aware that Ma had once been president, and yet he did not mention that fact, referring to him only as “Mr Ma Ying-jeou.” Perhaps the apparent oversight was not intended to convey a lack of
RSS