Let’s talk diversity

Could some of the most talked of solutions to climate chaos have the reverse effect and make things worse? Some critics think so, and they aren’t “deniers” who think climate change isn’t real.The concept of “net zero” carbon emissions, for example, might actually help industry pollute, because one of the commonest ways to reach for it is through “carbon offsets.” This means that if a corporation is responsible for a ton of carbon dioxide emissions — which is bad — but at the same time it funds a project which “captures” (or “sequesters”) a ton of carbon — which is good — then the “net emissions” come to zero, as one is subtracted from, or “offset” against, the other.If the numbers could be accurately calculated (though that’s impossible and offsets invariably exaggerate the amount of greenhouse gases absorbed or reduced), then the corporation could pollute as much as it liked because it would be funding someone else to do the equivalent “anti-polluting,” and clean up its waste. It’s like leaving a trail of litter as you walk and paying someone to sweep up a street somewhere else, usually on the other side of the world. The reality is complicated, but the simple truth is that the schemes routinely fail: The sweeper may be just pretending to clean, or even trying, but failing to cope with the mess.The only reliable way currently known to “capture” significant carbon at a reasonable cost is to plant trees. But many offset projects sow fast-growing tree crops like eucalyptus and acacia, to make money. This actually increases rather than reduces carbon: Existing vegetation has to be cleared and the new plantations are more liable to fires, which spew out vast amounts of pollution. Many such crops will take decades before they start absorbing much carbon.Equally damaging plantations, like oil palm and rubber which take over people’s lands and destroy biodiversity, are passed off as environmentally friendly because the UN also defines them as “forest.” Countries such as Madagascar and Indonesia claim to be increasing forest cover when they’re actually clearing existing vegetation to sow these new plantations. Claiming such destruction is good for the environment would be comic if it weren’t so tragic.Another approach to offsetting is to get someone to agree not to cut timber which would otherwise be felled. This is supposed to avoid future emissions –though it’s important to note that it doesn’t actually reduce existing carbon at all. It’s known in the jargon as REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) and the “+” stands for the conservation of existing forests. Hundreds of such projects have been around for many years but with very scant results.One problem is that undertakings not to log are agreed by those who don’t have the power, or perhaps even the intention, to stop it, and trees not felled one year can still be cut the next. Trying to bind communities into contracts lasting for generations is effectively impossible.Overall, there are many reasons why offsetting is rarely what it pretends, and critics disparagingly call it, “payment to pollute.” One study shows that almost all such projects — an astonishing 85 percent — simply fail. Nevertheless, in spite of the problems, offsetting remains a multibillion dollar industry, with lots of people capturing a lot of money for themselves rather than sequestering any significant atmospheric carbon.Reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases — the thing needed to slow global warming – is a very different thing from supposedly reducing “net” emissions, but it would be a much more drastic step. It would entail cutting energy consumption, curtailing industrial growth, decreasing military activity — one of the biggest polluters of all but rarely mentioned by climate activists — and even using the energy-hungry internet less. One “artificial intelligence” training session, for example, burns about the same energy as five cars during their whole lifetimes, and even emails waste millions of tons of carbon (spam alone uses about the same as the entire population of San Francisco flying to New York every two weeks).Genuinely reducing emissions would mean changing the overall direction of an industrialized society which has sought continual “growth” particularly over the last generation. It would also entail a massive erosion in the power of the oil industry which is so enmeshed with the world’s major governments, and goes to great lengths to ensure leaders hostile to it are kept from high office.In spite of the criticisms around “net zero,” it remains the stated goal of most climate activism — perhaps because “real zero” emissions are seen as unrealistic, and there’s pressure to do something quickly. Calls for governments simply to “listen to scientists,” or to “the public” at large, do not suggest concrete solutions, probably intentionally.“Net zero” through offsetting is the wrong path, but could the current enthusiasm about a “green new deal” be just as bad? It’s largely about job creation in new and supposedly “green” technologies, and it combines environmental concerns with the need to alleviate unemployment.The “green” part is largely focused on alternative, “clean” energy sources, such as solar and wind — the “renewables” — but there’s a problem with them too: Production of the batteries they currently need to store their energy uses up yet more fossil fuel and wreaks yet more environmental damage. (Fuels such as oil or coal don’t need batteries because the energy is already stored inside them.) Again, the thing which would guarantee to make a big and fast difference — a contraction of industry – forms no part of any proposed “deal.”An important criticism is that the green new deal is actually being encouraged by industry as a way to get more money diverted into stock market investments. This apparent trick begins with the 2008 financial crash when governments gave away huge amounts of ordinary people’s money to inept and greedy banking corporations.The shock to stock markets prompted a tightening in financial regulations which resulted in more and more money being locked away inside the safest financial vehicles. This cash wasn’t able to flow as easily to companies through investment in stocks and shares. That’s bad for the elite because great wealth depends a lot now on stock market holdings and company buyouts.Excerpted from: ‘Diversity Rules Environment, OK?’ Courtesy: Counterpunch.org

from The News International - Opinion https://ift.tt/2ScjsfK