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.
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) arrest is a significant development. He could have become president or vice president on a shared TPP-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ticket and could have stood again in 2028. If he is found guilty, there would be little chance of that, but what of his party? What about the third force in Taiwanese politics? What does this mean for the disenfranchised young people who he attracted, and what does it mean for his ambitious and ideologically fickle right-hand man, TPP caucus leader Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌)? Ko and Huang have been appealing to that