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.
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
Chinese Ministry of National Defense spokesman Wu Qian (吳謙) announced at a news conference that General Miao Hua (苗華) — director of the Political Work Department of the Central Military Commission — has been suspended from his duties pending an investigation of serious disciplinary breaches. Miao’s role within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) affects not only its loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but also ideological control. This reflects the PLA’s complex internal power struggles, as well as its long-existing structural problems. Since its establishment, the PLA has emphasized that “the party commands the gun,” and that the military is
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in