Reviewing Greta Thunberg at the World Economic forum in Davos
Reviewing the World Economic forum in Davos; “What you need to know about Davos 2020: How to save the planet” makes for interesting and concerning reading/viewing.
Of note is Ms. Greta Thunberg’s eleven minute speech to an international audience “Averting the Climate Apocalypse”.
Whilst astonishing and remarkable to see such a young person addressing such an important issue to an international audience; when taking the content of her speech in isolation then her “radical emission cut at the source starting today” and would most likely result in the global economy collapsing, food production being compromised and many important industries to global health and wellbeing ceasing.
We only have to look back to the 40 years between 1914 to 1942 to see the turmoil this caused and the governments it gave rise to. Lest we forget! Worryingly we live in times when we are once again seeing the rise of Nationalism – so do we really want to add the spark of global economic collapse into that powder keg? In such desperate times, I doubt climate change will be at the forefront of the political agenda.
It would appear significantly easier to drive the solution to climate change during times of buoyant economies rather than times of economic hardship and instability.
We don’t have to theorise what such a world would be like as we have Greenhouse (GHG) emissions data from Venezuela over the period of 1960 to 2020 to look directly at.
The economic collapse brought about by the policies and socialist political ideology in Venezuela is clear to see. Even after imploding their own industry and the economy, emissions in Venezuela haven’t fallen below 1995 levels.
Whilst is seems to have created the “Fairer Society” quested after in Jeremy Corbyn’s January 2016 speech to the Fabian Society; it is a validation of Winston Churchill’s October 1945 address to the Commons in that this path has led to “fairness” in bringing about “the equal sharing of miseries”.
Extinction Rebellion might want to think carefully about what they wish for. At this time, radical and extreme views aren’t overly helpful and are simply showing the social variance of Newton’s 3rd Law in that “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”.
No where is this more apparent than among current USA politics.
Irrespective of what people think of the current President of the USA or his actions; is this what governments should be spending eye-watering amounts of money and resources upon amidst a global climate emergency?
Much could be done with US$ millions this has cost… And at what cost legislative time that could have been spent sensibly debating climate action? How could it be expected that that government could ever work together again for the common good?
Technology and science aren’t the main problem – what is missing is an economic model and the political will to do so. Here we have a lot to thank Ms. Thunberg for in bringing this debate front and centre into the global political debate.
It is a sad inditement on our political systems that it took a 16-year-old to stand up and be heard above the noise. One can only hope that she returns to school and continues her education in science, history and economics so as to be able to continue to bring her energy and drive to the debate and have something more “implementable” to say – as many often-unheard scientists and economists already do!
We don’t need to be “panic” (as Ms. Thunberg says); quite the opposite. We need a clear economic model that allows current technology to be utilised. The easy option for democratic governments is to impose “Green Taxes”, however like the recent “sugar taxes” in Ireland and the UK, one may ask what real impact it has had and where the collected tax revenue has gone? People are free to consult and cross reference www.hse.ie or researchbriefings.parliament.uk.
Surely people enacting advice from www.nhs.uk is better than governments taxing consumption at source? So why don’t we? Same argument for the environment. One can only wonder whether “green taxes” will have the same impact.
The main difference is that we don’t actually have to consume sugar… yet as a society we do… I don’t currently have a practicable option to not driving my car.
Resolving housing, childcare, roads infrastructure and public transport would probably be a more effective way to reduce the amount of diesel I use – then simply taxing my consumption of fuel. Monies needed to do this can only come from a growing economy.
In time, an electric car may be a solution, however how are we to do that when being hammered by tax and paying such a high percentage of expendable income on rent, childcare… and diesel?
It is worth noting that precisely because Ireland has a buoyant economy that is has been able to significantly increase the amount of electricity generated from renewables (www.seai.ie).
Ireland is still however connected to the UK national grid and is looking to install a 700 MW interconnector to France so as people can utilise nuclear generated power to energise their “environmentally friendly” electric cars.
Perhaps that irony is lost on some?
Whether or not Ireland could easily upgrade their electrical transmissions infrastructure to allow an ever-increasing electric transport network is an interesting discussion – one best had during times of a buoyant and productive economy.
We almost have the technology… almost. From this may well spring the fuel cell technology we so desperately need – in this we take the transmission grid out of the equation somewhat and save having to make significant infrastructure upgrades so as we can don’t need to “plug in” as we arrive at work … and as we arrive home… all of us… all at about the same time… That’s some peak electric load otherwise!
Technology is only part of the solution. Economics is the key. It is more likely that soft-drink companies reduced sugar in their drinks as there was an economic advantage to doing so.
One can debate how much taxing us more at point of use drove this given us paying more for something often doesn’t mean we consume it any less. Surely, we have the same argument as to climate change? Given the challenges are so complex and interlinked, it isn’t so simple as one tax or one change.
Mindful of the recent blips in the global economy, we also need to marry this technology with a viable economic model and solutions that make economic sense – or if they don’t currently make economic sense, allow the rate of change to accommodate the economic reality of the globalised economy that we live in.
Sensible change doesn’t mean that we can’t have radical ideas. Radical doesn’t mean being extreme or intolerant. It doesn’t mean trying to force ideology upon people. A useful debate needs all sides listening, and just not when “they” are speaking.
A recent late-night BBC world service radio programme I was listening to made interesting food for thought. The example given on this particular radio programme was that Garbage Trucks and Parcel Delivery Vans often follow the same route – both need to come right outside our residence. Garbage Trucks come into cities empty and leave full.
Opposite is true for parcel delivery vans/trucks in that they come into cities full and leave empty. Here in lies a (one of many) wonderful opportunity for an engineered solution to combine those two things and by design reduce the amount of empty vans/trucks rolling about our cities and suburbs. Optimising this voidage (somehow) would have a significantly environmental and economic up-side.
If we can design something to get a person to the surface of the moon, then here in lies a problem we can find the solution to provided there is a desire to do so. Here is a problem that needs radical ideas and creative thought. Here is a real change that could be made without radically changing lifestyles or economic models.
Perhaps companies like Amazon could and should work with local refuse collection companies to come up with a novel (and clean/bio-secure!) way to deliver to your door without increasing the vehicles (and voidage) on the roads? Such a solution probably won’t get you onto the cover of Time Magazine, but it would make a real, positive environmental impact.
Keeping with the above example – how many of us order on-line but aren't home at the time that the delivery is made? How many delivery vans are rolling about carrying items that they have no hope to deliver?
What if we used technology/logistics so as the parcel that comes via the “garbage collection” in the morning uses a “smart chip” that pops the boot/trunk of our car so as the parcel is there waiting for us with an auto message on our phone telling us delivery has been completed?
Saves us driving cross-town to the delivery collection centre to collect our “home delivery”. How mad is it that we do this/that when we have the technology for another solution with all-in up-side?
