A POLITICAL CRITIQUE OF THE SCIENTIFIC WORKING PARTY OF THE INTER-GOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE

i) The Establishment of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The ipcc scientific working group, the ultimate scientific authority on the greenhouse effect,[1] published the final draft of its first report in may 1990. The ipcc scientists issued a grim warning that a do-nothing, ‘business as usual’ strategy would mean the continuing build up of atmospheric Carbon which could lead to a rise in global temperatures and thus climatic disasters. It recommended an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions of 60-80% in order to stabilize the concentration of atmospheric Carbon at the 1990 level, “The long lived (greenhouse) gases would require immediate reductions in emissions from human activities of over 60% to stabilize their concentration at today’s levels.”[2] The report was virtually ignored at the second world climate conference where it was decided to leave any decisions about reducing Carbon emissions for the rio Earth summit to be held in June 1992.

In May 1992 the ipcc scientific working group published a second, updated, report in time for the rio summit. Despite the new scientific evidence about the greenhouse effect which had emerged in the intervening period, it reiterated its earlier recommendation. This had no effect on the world community at rio which refused to set targets and a timetable for the reduction of greenhouse gases.

ii) The Injustice of the IPCC's Recommendations for Global Cuts in Carbon Emissions.

There is not the slightest prospect of a global agreement over the ipcc’s recommendation for global cuts in Carbon emissions which requires all countries around the world to make the same percentage cuts in Carbon emissions. The disintegrating/industrializing countries regard this as unfair because it has been the over-industrialized nations which have been responsible for causing the most atmospheric pollution not disintegrating/industrializing countries, “Equal percentage emissions limitations for each nation may make international politics simpler, but from a global point of view, reducing emissions by a fixed fraction for all nations may be neither the most cost effective plan, nor the fairest.”;[3] “Across the board cuts in CO₂ emissions will not make much headway with Third World countries who currently consume 15 to 20 times less energy than we do.”;[4] “A study has been published by the Stockholm Environment Institute which suggests that total emissions from 1860 to 1986 were c.900 GtCO₂. It is based on records of production, imports and exports of fossil fuels. Of the 900Gt, about 80% has been produced by the industrialized countries.”;[5] “Between 1950 and 1986, 82% of cumulative emissions of CO₂ from fossil fuels came from the industrialized world.”[6] To insist that all countries reduce their Carbon emissions by the same percentage would thus be to reward the polluters and penalize the non polluters.

Given that half the Carbon released during the industrial revolution is still in the atmosphere, responsibility for preventing the pending ecological disasters clearly lays with the polluters, the over-industrialized countries. It is they who must take the main responsibility for reducing Carbon emissions.

iii) The Injustice of the IPCC's Concentration on Carbon Emissions.

The concentration of atmospheric Carbon is determined not merely by Carbon emissions (what can be called the supply side of the Carbon cycle) but by the amount of Carbon absorbed through Photosynthesis (the demand side of the Carbon cycle). The ipcc, however, ignored the role played by Forests in reducing global temperatures[7] and, despite the wholesale deforestation currently taking place around the Planet, made no recommendation about the scale of Forest cover needed to counteract global warming. This deliberate oversight led to a second injustice against disintegrating/industrializing countries.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the over-industrialized nations have not merely pumped far more Carbon into the atmosphere than disintegrating/industrializing countries, they have also absorbed far less atmospheric Carbon than disintegrating/industrializing countries. Over the last couple of centuries whilst the over-industrialized nations have been rapidly demolishing their Forests, and thus playing an increasingly minor role in extracting Carbon from the atmosphere, disintegrating/industrializing countries have absorbed huge quantities of Carbon because of their extensive Forests. The colossal scale of the deforestation which has taken place in the over-industrialized nations can be seen from the contribution it has made to boosting atmospheric pollution, “Until the mid 20thC, temperate deforestation and the loss of organic matter from soils was a more important contributor to atmospheric CO₂ than was the burning of fossil fuels.”;[8] “The destruction of forests in the past two centuries, mostly in temperate lands, has contributed almost as much to the greenhouse effect as the burning of fossil fuels.”[9]; “During the past ten thousand years, global forest cover has been reduced by about one third, from an estimated 6.3 x 10⁹ ha to about 4.2 x 10⁹ ha. A considerable proportion of the historic deforestation has taken place in the temperate and boreal regions to meet the needs of an expanding population. Recent FAO data indicate that seventeen countries account for about 75% of the global forest cover, and, of those seventeen, five countries, namely Russia, Brazil, Canada, the US, and Zaire, account for nearly 55%.”[10] The IPCC’s focus on Carbon emissions thus failed to highlight the vital role played by disintegrating/industrializing countries in moderating global warming and the dismal role of the over-industrialized nations in stimulating global warming through massive deforestation.[11]

Assume, however, that the ipcc had taken Forest cover into account and had estimated the scale of Forest cover needed to combat global warming. It would have recommended, just as it had done in the case of its recommendation for reductions in Carbon emissions, a percentage increase in global Forest cover which would have implied that every nation around the world should increase its Forest cover by the same amount. However, if it was unfair to demand that disintegrating/industrializing countries make the same percentage cuts in Carbon emissions as the over-industrialized nations, it would be even more nonsensical to expect them to take an equal role in Reforesting the Earth. Why should they be punished in this way when they have been the only countries preventing climate change from occurring decades ago? The over-industrialized nations have not only got to make the bulk of the reductions in Carbon emissions, they have also got to take primary responsibility for extracting Carbon from the atmosphere by carrying out massive Reforestation schemes. The over-industrialized world owes a double debt of ecological gratitude to disintegrating/industrializing countries.

iv) Historical Carbon Debtors and Historical Carbon Creditors.

Over the last two centuries, the over-industrialized countries have exported far more Carbon (through atmospheric pollution) than they have imported (through Photosynthesis) and can be defined as historical Carbon debtors, whilst disintegrating/industrializing countries have imported more Carbon than they have exported and can be deemed historical Carbon creditors. The difference between the Carbon debtors and the Carbon creditors, however, is much less obvious when seen over a short period of time, “Taking into account both emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes, the industrial countries are geographically the source of over 60% of CO2 releases between 1850 and 1985.”[12]

The over-industrialized nations have been exploiting disintegrating/industrializing countries’ resources for centuries but it is only now becoming apparent they have also been sponging off disintegrating/industrializing countries’ ecological resources. The over-industrialized nations are extremely well off financially because of their rape and pillage of disintegrating/industrializing countries. However, this wealth is merely a reflection of their ecological poverty. They are up to their necks in Carbon debts which makes the disintegrating/industrializing countries’ financial debts look like pocket money. It is time the over-industrialized nations started paying off their ecological debts.

The ipcc scientists’ failure to consider the role played by Forests in climate change, which would have highlighted the over-industrialized nations’ massive ecological debts to disintegrating/industrializing countries, was applauded, paradoxically enough, by disintegrating/industrializing countries themselves. The leaders of disintegrating/industrializing countries were fearful that the over-industrialized nations would pressure disintegrating/industrializing countries into using their forests as Carbon sinks for the pollution dumped into the atmosphere by the over-industrialized nations, “The main discord (over a forest convention discussed at the Rio Earth summit) is over whether the forests should be seen as global resources - mopping up excess CO2 - or national resources to be developed for each country's needs.”[13] Disintegrating/industrializing countries, led by Malaysia, successfully blocked a Forest convention, which was supposed to be signed at the rio Earth summit, because they wanted to use their Forests as national resources.

It has to be suggested that this strategy was nothing less than a political (and not merely an ecological) disaster. Disintegrating/industrializing countries believe they will gain more from ransacking their Forests than they will from forcing the over-industrialized nations to repay their ecological debts. They seem to be willing to accept piddling amounts of money for turning their Forests into chopsticks when, as james lovelock has calculated, the Amazon’s global refrigeration role alone is worth in the region of £150 trillion. However, given that many of the ruling elites of disintegrating/industrializing countries are little more than puppets at the behest of the over-industrialized nations, it is not surprising they chose to chop down the Trees and grab the money - but then again, even if disintegrating/industrializing countries’ elites were not corrupt they simply do not have the clout to establish a new ecological order in which their ecological assets would be properly recompensed.

v) No Equitable Political Mechanism for Reducing Carbon Emissions.

The ipcc scientific working party had no remit to propose a political mechanism to determine how much each country should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to meet the global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 60-80%. All it could do was make a global recommendation and leave the politicians to sort out how to achieve this target. Politicians in the over-industrialized nations, however, took the ipcc’s recommendation to mean that all countries should reduce their emissions by the same amount. So, even though the ipcc scientific working party had no political remit it was still exploited politically.

Even if the ipcc had wanted to suggest a political mechanism to determine countries’ reduction in Carbon emissions (although there is no evidence that it did) none of the mechanisms, whether conventional measures such as a carbon tax, nor sustainable development’ measures such as Carbon targets, per capita Carbon limits, tradeable Carbon permits, etc., would have been satisfactory. They would not have stopped global deforestation; they would not have determined the scale of global reforestation; and, they would not have been acceptable to disintegrating/industrializing countries because they would not have redressed historical ecological grievances.[14]

vi) Historical Ecological Debts.

The only way the global community can combat global warming is through the establishment of a new ecological order based on global ecological equity between all countries. If there is no equity between the over-industrialized countries and disintegrating/industrializing countries there will continue to be conflicts which will destroy the Planet’s life support system. The only way to create global equity is to redress historical inequalities by ensuring that all countries balance their historical Carbon budgets i.e. balance their Carbon imports and exports.[15] This means that whilst the Carbon debtors (mainly the over-industrialized nations) would have to repay their debts by importing an amount of Carbon equivalent to the surplus they have released over the last two centuries, the Carbon creditors (mainly disintegrating/industrializing countries) would be able to continue exporting Carbon, i.e. continue to develop, until their net emissions were equal to the net amount of Carbon they have absorbed over the last couple of centuries. Balancing Carbon budgets would have the effect of forcing the over-industrialized countries to repay their historical Carbon debts to disintegrating/industrializing countries and, perhaps most importantly of all, to the Earth.

A global scientific body like the ipcc would be needed to calculate every country’s Carbon import-export record over the last two centuries to determine how much Carbon each one would have to import, or would be allowed to export, to balance their Carbon budgets. It would also have responsibility for supervising countries to ensure they balanced their Carbon budgets.

Historical Carbon debtor countries would repay their Carbon debts through a combination of emissions’ reduction, Reforestation and, if necessary, deconstruction to create the room to plant the additional Forests needed to soak up more atmospheric Carbon. Given the scale of the over-industrialized nations’ historical Carbon debts, the only way they could repay their debts, and thereby play their part in combatting global warming, would be by digging up some of their industrial infrastructure. The only issue involved here is how they would find enough land in their own countries to repay their huge ecological debts, “Having released over the last 100 to 200 years perhaps 120 x 10⁹ tons of carbon from the biosphere, can we put carbon back into the biosphere at a rate approaching 5 x 10⁹ tons yr^-1?”[16] The scale of land they would have to find will be enormous given that it has been estimated that the Earth is one continent short of the quota needed to avert global warming.[17] One of the most obvious ways by which it would be possible to assess an over-industrialized nation’s commitment to combatting global warming would be by measuring the extent to which it was deconstructing its profligate, Carbon exporting industries.

One of the main advantages of this approach to combatting global warming is that when countries have balanced their historical Carbon budgets, this would, eventually, reduce the level of atmospheric Carbon to that which existed prior to the industrial revolution, thereby avoid many of the climatic problems entailed by the ipcc’s attempt to stabilize the concentration of atmospheric Carbon at the 1990 level.

vii) The Creation of a Global Carbon Budget to Balance Carbon Budgets.

In order to achieve this objective the revamped ipcc would have to calculate short, medium and long term, global Carbon budgets to ensure that countries eventually balanced their Carbon budgets and thus prevent both global deforestation and a dangerous rise in the concentration of atmospheric Carbon. The scale of Forest cover and the concentration of atmospheric Carbon would be used as a thermostat to control the Planet’s temperature and thus protect both its health and Biodiversity.

Balancing Carbon budgets would not be easy either for the Carbon debtors or the Carbon creditors. The historical Carbon debtors would not be expected to repay their Carbon debts at such a rapid rate that they would have to carry out massive Reforestation schemes covering the whole of the country and be prevented from releasing any further Carbon emissions. And the historical Carbon creditors would not be expected to spend their Carbon savings all at once and enormously boost their Carbon emissions. The revamped ipcc would draw up a global Carbon budget and work out a feasible rate at which Carbon debtor countries had to Reforest their lands and a feasible rate at which Carbon creditor countries could spend their surplus Carbon to prevent any significant damage being inflicted on the Planet’s life support system. There is a degree of injustice in this since it would stop disintegrating/industrializing countries from spending their Carbon surplus in an orgy of industrial development but, the fact is, the over-industrialized nations are crippling the Planet’s life support system and if disintegrating/industrializing countries are not careful they will deliver the fatal blow. Disintegrating/industrializing countries probably wouldn’t mind slowing down the rate of their development as long as they knew their surplus was ‘in the bank’ and could eventually be spent and that the Carbon debtors would, eventually, have to pay off their Carbon debts. What disintegrating/industrializing countries find unacceptable is being forced to do things they don’t want to do (i.e. curbing their Carbon emissions and protecting their Forests) without any prospect of global justice and a new ecological order. Besides, whilst they might find the idea of foregoing some of the more extravagant forms of development somewhat irksome, the sight of the over-industrialized nations deconstructing their profligate Carbon exporting industries and Reforesting large tracts of their land would convince them they were moving closer to a just world.

A second problem is that there are, unfortunately, a number of over-industrialized countries which have dumped so much Carbon into the atmosphere and carried out such wholesale deforestation they are virtually ecologically bankrupt e.g. hong kong, israel, haiti, singapore and england, etc.. The rest of the world would have to pick up their Carbon tab during the time it took such countries to repay their Carbon debts.

viii) The Global Carbon Budget Needed to Maintain a Sustainable Planet.

Once all countries around the world had balanced their Carbon budgets, the ipcc would have to create a new global Carbon budget to maintain a sustainable Planet. The global community would manage the global Carbon budget by controlling both global Carbon emissions and global Forest cover. It would give each country an equal share of this global Carbon budget (proportioned according to their land area because of the vital role of Reforestation in controlling global temperatures) and each country would have to live within their allocated budget. This would mean that countries would lose a considerable part of their sovereignty but the idea that each country in the world is free to pump as much Carbon into the atmosphere as it wants and to decimate its Forests as much as it wants, is a free market recipe for a global ecological collapse. It is ludicrous for countries to act as if they could be ecologically self-sufficient and thus capable of creating their own climate. The Planet’s climate is a unitary entity and each country has to make an equal contribution to maintaining the Earth’s Forest cover and the concentration of atmospheric Carbon at a level which protects the Earth's life-support system.

Some of the biggest Carbon debtor nations have got to implement huge Reforestation and deconstruction programmes which would require wholesale sacrifices from their overprivileged, over-wealthy, denatured, Planetless consumers. If the over-industrialized nations do not repay their historical Carbon debts then disintegrating/industrializing countries will make no effort to reduce their Carbon emissions and preserve their Forests and a global ecological collapse will be inevitable. It has to be admitted that the chances of avoiding this nightmare are negligible. The human race is heading for oblivion. As more and more research on the Planet's ecology is carried out, it will eventually become possible to predict exactly when this disaster will occur.