In this op-ed,
Gwynne Dyer struggles with the introduction of the Nano, the new
Indian produced sub-sub compact car that costs $2,500. Instead of
celebrating the liberation of millions of middle class and poor in
India, China and other poor countries (sorry, I meant developing
countries), this car has sent the left into a tizzy.
Environmentalists say that this vehicle must be stopped or it will
accelerate the production of CO2 and global warming will destroy the
planet. Egalitarians say that it is just not fair to stop this car and
keep the poor poor.
So Gwynne rides to the rescue with the concept called “Contraction and
Convergence.” The developed world needs to contract and thus converge
with the developing world at a level that is sustainable. Here is her
plan as it relates to the Nano.
The notion is simply that we must agree on a figure
for total global emissions that cannot be exceeded, rather as we set
fishing quotas in order to preserve fish stocks. Then we divide that
amount by six-and-a-half billion (the total population of the planet),
and that gives us the per-capita emission limit for everyone on Earth.
Who is this “we” she talks about? Who enforces this policy? What are the penalties? She gives us a hint with this analysis.
If you don?t like that idea, then you can go with
the alternative: a free-for-all world in which everybody moves toward
the level of per-capita emissions that now prevails in the developed
countries. No negotiations or treaties required; it will happen of its
own accord. So will runaway climate change, with average global
temperatures as much as six degrees Celsius higher by the end of the
century. That means a future of famine, war, and mass death.
Since the consequences of failing to adopt her plan are “famine, war,
and mass death,” the enforcement agency should be international and
have great powers. Perhaps she would favor an agency administrator
like Hitler or Stalin to run this agency. Since violators of the per
capita CO2 emissions quota threaten us all, they should face should be
severe punishment, perhaps death.
Come to think of it, the death penalty for Americans who do not reduce
their CO2 emissions to one-tenth or one-twentieth of their present
level would cause us to converge with the developing world in a hurry.
Fewer people and a Stone Age economy. No newspapers, no op-ed pages
and Gwynne Dyer would be out of a job.
Cross posted on www.environmentnc.com
