Is It Possible for Social Justice to Promote Social Inequality?

The United Nations today released its annual Human Development Report, warning that climate change will affect poorer countries far more adversely than it will affect affluent countries. The report also pushes those latter countries to aid the former countries in their eco-friendly development, citing the fact that it is primarily the affluent countries who are responsible for the enhanced global warming enigma.

The HDR devotes significant space to the issue of social justice. Featured in the report's summary is Desmond Tutu, Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town, who argues that climate change is just as much a moral issue as it is a scientific one. He warns of "adaptation apartheid", a loaded term designed to goad people into an emotional response, presumably against those countries who, by virtue of their massive greenhouse emissions, are responsible for this de facto segregation of prosperity.

Having witnessed Tutu speak in person, I can vouch for his words' power, and his prominent positioning in the HDR proves his international recognition and appeal. But by aligning itself with Tutu in this way, the UN is (intentionally or not) endorsing his views as congruent with its own. This takes the UN out of its non-partisan box and thrusts it into the more ambiguous realm of social politics. This is not to say that the UN shouldn't tackle social issues. Clearly, that's part of its mission. But Tutu's ambitions are a bit presumptive and potentially dangerous.

To bastardize the HDR's and Tutu's assertions for the sake of space and argument, it boils down to this: rich, developed countries have, by virtue of their enormous growth, contributed the vast majority of greenhouse emissions to our atmosphere, and thus must take the equal amount of responsibility to deal with those emissions' consequences. Is it fair to ask a poor Egyptian to learn to tread water while letting a wealthy Dutchman build a floating house instead? Both are means of coping with a flood, but the inequity is painfully clear.

There are two conclusions that the HDR spins off from this situation. The first is to maintain that the responsible countries must decrease their emissions not just for their own sake, but for the poor Egyptian's as well. After all, they have the wealth to do so. I agree. Large change of any kind, especially climate change, can only occur if it has the support of large institutions. Yes, an avalanche can be started by tiny pellets of snow, but to have a full-on mountain-slide you need some big blocks to break off and come along for the ride as well. What I'm wont to dispute, however, is the second conclusion: that it's those same countries' responsibility to pay for not only the Egyptian's swimming lessons, but to pay for his lifestyle change as well; that is, to help so that he can possibly afford his own floating house. Tutu would call this social justice.

Let me be clear, I am no scrooge. Some type of redistribution of wealth is vital in any society and situation. Without charity, the world would be a sad, sad place. But charity and moral obligation are two different philosophical and pragmatical ideas. If I pass a homeless man on the street, must I give him change? If I can afford it, sure, I would. But there is no law, no civic dictum that says I must. To put this more in perspective, say I passed a group of twenty homeless men with but a spare dollar bill in my pocket. Should I give it to one of the men, possibly securing his next meal? What then of the other nineteen? They have as much need as the man I helped. And also, what situation and danger in which I am placing this man? Now he has food, and the others don't. Desperation leads to violence - could I have potentially caused this man harm?

The above situation is much too simple to apply to our world problems of monetary inequity, but it still holds some good questions that we should be asking. And it also brings up an important but depressing truism of our world: for some to survive, some must perish. Put another way, our world depends on having a spread of wealth, and that means that some will draw the short lot. No climate scientist or social scholar would argue that every man and woman should be as wealthy as an American, certainly not at current world population levels above 6 billion. Lord knows we have plenty of those running around as it is. More would just completely destroy our planet through intense resource usage. But what some scientists and scholars argue is that we should all perhaps learn to live as 3/4 of an American -- not on a racial level, but an economic one. This would free up some extra money for those who need it most, reducing the chasm between rich and poor but still maintaining the vital division of labor and resources.

This is a view I respect, and at least in theory, support. After all, as someone in my twenties, I'm the one who's going to have to deal with the climate problems of the future. But I must play Devil's Advocate with Tutu again. I believe that I, having worked hard for my wealth, I own a certain right to use it as I choose. I have always planned on giving a portion of my excess wealth to charitable causes. But be in not for anyone else to dictate this to me. Yes, the poor Egyptian didn't ask to be born to a poor family in a floodplain, but I didn't ask him to be born there either.

My goal would be to give him enough to sustain a comfort level relative to his own, not to mine. It would do him no good to buy him a floating house when the rest of his village lives in squalor. But to teach his village to irrigate more efficiently, thus increasing his farm's output and increasing the village's wealth, this would have a greater moral affect.

Developed nations are no doubt responsible for the current climate conundrum. But we must first fix our own house, and that is a challenge in and of itself. Are not the survival of some better than the survival of none? It's a reality that we don't often like to confront, because it isn't often socially and politically acceptable. One can very easily spin moral yarns about social justice, but they'll never amount to anything without an underlying thread of pragmatism.

If we can all live with a little less, we can all have a little more. If only the HDR's advocation were so subtle.

The World Energy Outlook: we don't have enough time

The IEA (International Energy Agency) just released the 2007 edition of the World Energy Outlook (WEO) which makes projections about the world energy market to the year 2030.

The report predicts an "earthquake" in energy markets (under current policies) due to

- drastically increased energy demand (but limited ability for supply and distribution to meet that demand)

- increased risk of climate change (up to a 6°C rise in global temperature)

China and India are the focus of this report because they are projected to be the greatest contributors to increased demand as they grow their economies in the coming decades. However, "blame" is not placed on these countries because in 2030, when they are the largest energy consumers, many Indians and Chinese still will not drive cars or have access to electricity. So it is clear that clean energy must be developed and implemented so these nations can continue to grow and meet the needs of their citizens without contributing to global climate change and energy market problems.

In a CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) seminar last Friday, IEA executive director, Nobuo Tanaka emphasized that we have enough money, we have the energy sources/technology, but we don't have enough time to address the problems. He pointed out that to achieve the IPCC recommendations, emissions must peak in 2012. This means that every power plant built after 2012 must be carbon free, and some carbon-emitting plants must have early retirements. That means we only have a short amount of time to proliferate relatively expensive technologies - so based on past and current trends of technology development and transfer, we don't have enough time. The only way we can meet these goals is to make drastic policy, research, lifestyle, and business changes.

While the WEO leaves us with a grim outlook under current policies, Tanaka posits recommendations based on projections using alternate scenarios.

-Price carbon

-Enforce regulations (especially in China and India) on

-air conditioners

-refrigerators

-building standards

-cars

*If all Chinese bought air conditioners and refrigerators that had at least US efficiencies, 85 TWh of electricity could be saved (this is as much as is produced by a large hydroelectric dam).

-Improve efficiency

-Increase use of renewable energy

-Use more nuclear power*

* (I personally am very wary of the prospects of investing in nuclear unless and until we can safely manage all waste produced from every plant.)

The WEO (and the IPCC report) make it clear that we are in dire need of global proliferation of clean energy - now. The world's economy and environment – and our future - desperately depend on it.

Happy Thanksgiving!

If you need some light reading to do after all that food, check out an article in today's Washington Post editorial page entitled "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It".

It is by a professor at Allegheny College in Meadville, PA. My favorite part -

"This Thanksgiving, the greatest environmental problem confronting us isn't melting ice, faltering rain, or flattening oil supplies and rising gasoline prices. Rather, it's that when Americans ask, "What can I do to make a difference?" we're treated like children by environmental elites and political leaders too timid to call forth the best in us or too blind to that which has made us a great nation."

So two questions to ask yourself today:

1) What can I do to make a difference?
2) What am I thankful for this Thanksgiving?

UN to World - Look out!

The official title is "UN Panel Gives Dire Warming Forecast" - but my title works too. Actually, UN to China/United States - DO SOMETHING! might be more appropriate.

The second paragraph of the article sums it up best:
"As early as 2020, 75 million to 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages, residents of Asia's megacities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding, Europeans can expect extensive species loss, and North Americans will experience longer and hotter heat waves and greater competition for water."

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said climate change is "so severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action will do."

So, what can we do? Well, China and the United States can start to lead the way, seeing as they are the number 1 and 2 contributors of carbon emissions. "The report says emissions of carbon, which comes primarily from fossil fuels, must stabilize by 2015 and go down after that."

Lastly, the UN said "Unless action is taken, human activity could lead to "abrupt and irreversible changes" that would make the planet unrecognizable."

Hate to say it, but isn't the planet already unrecognizable from just a few years ago?

International Student/Young Pugwash Conference Breaks Boundaries, Fosters Friendship

Parthiban Rajasekaran describes an ideal place where young people come together with top scientists to discuss solutions to world issues. This is not just a dream, it is the International Student Young Pugwash (ISYP) conference that took place last month.

"The most exciting part of all for me was the discussions we had in our young Pugwash conference. People of my generation talking about global issues and providing possible solutions bodes well for the future of the world."

Click on the title of this entry to read more about this amazing event on "Mindfull", the blog of Student Pugwash USA (SPUSA).

Another Tragedy of the Commons: Chinese waters suffer from unregulated pollution and fishing

In China's race to catch up, industrial areas are growing the Chinese economy, but it's not good for all Chinese people. While factory owners and big business owners rake in the money, increasing China's GDP, much of the rest of the country still struggles. The environment is one victim of rapid industrialization, and its destruction is already hurting many Chinese people.

This article (click on the title to link to the article) describes how industrial waste is destroying the sea that used to provide many Chinese people with a source of food and income. Here are 3 examples listed in the article:

Yangjiao Port, located in Shouguang City of Shandong province, was once the area’s leading wholesale seafood market. Nowadays, business has nearly dried up. “There are no fish,” complained local fisherman Wang Dayou. “What is the use of this fish market?”

In Shuigou Village, at the estuary of the Zhangwei River, more than 2,000 villagers depend on the sea for a living. Before 1995, the water from the river was drinkable, but now it poisons ducks and geese. Most of the fish caught from the sea are dead, with loose scales that are easily shaken off. Fishers’ nets are weighed down not by golden harvests, but by the residues of dark oil and other debris that clings to the once-white threads.

In Wudi County, the two best-preserved shorelines for shells, which extend roughly 70 kilometers along the coast, were once a popular nesting spot for migratory birds. But they have long since lost their vitality. Area residents (historically, China’s first rural residents to become “better-off” due to the ocean’s rich offerings) have seen their per-capita incomes plummet from more than US$1,200 a year to a meager $200.

Could China's rapid, poorly planned growth eventually lead to economic decline or collapse?