United Nations Barcelona Climate Change Talks: Day 3

The delegations of nearly every African country have walked out of the Barcelona Climate Change Talks after alleging that developed nations are not serious about mitigating the effects of climate change.

BARCELONA — The delegations of nearly every African country have walked out of the Barcelona Climate Change Talks after alleging that developed nations, including the United States, are not serious about mitigating the effects of climate change, which disproportionately affect developing countries like their own.


The event was seen as a major blow to what might be achieved in Barcelona, and perhaps more importantly, a shadow was cast over the approaching Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, billed by many longtime observers as a do-or-die moment for international consensus.

For developed economies, which rely more heavily on carbon emissions to drive industry and labor (literally), emissions reductions represent an economic setback. If the countries most responsible for carbon emissions will not commit to reductions, say African delegations, progress is simply not possible.

Perhaps the most popular solution to climate change among delegations in Barcelona is a global carbon market. In such a market, emissions ceilings would be set on individual companies by regulators, and when a company exceeds that limit, it pays a tax. The revenues from the tax are then used to mitigate climate change elsewhere.  

The African delegations, and their partners in the developing world, agree that wealthy countries like the United States cannot escape the financial costs of global warming, a condition they are primarily responsible for.

When this view is met with approval among citizens of wealthier nations, that approval typically comes from members of non-governmental organizations. Matthias Duwe of the European Climate Action Network is one such ally. Speaking before a crowd at today's conference, Duwe said developed national must also pay poorer nations for harms caused by climate change.

Following Duwe, indigenous peoples from the Philippines, Nicaragua and Kenya spoke about damage already done to their countries by climate change, ranging from typhoons to deforestation. Societies with simpler (less carbon-reliant) ways of life, they say, are suffering from the industrialized world’s ambition.

Ultimately, what UN climate scientists say is necessary to avoid further harms, and what the delegations of developed nations are promising to do about it, are two very different things.

One calculation cited today is especially stark: to limit global temperatures to a two degree increase through 2020, the world must achieve a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas output (relative to 1990 levels). The estimated $120 billion needed annually to achieve that goal, however, remains almost entirely uncommitted.

According to the European Climate Change Programme, a global carbon market could produce $30 billion annually, but that leaves $90 billion remaining, or three-fourths of what is needed to mitigate warming each year.

--

NASA astronomer Michelle Thaller on ​the multiple dimensions of space and human sexuality

Science and the squishiness of the human mind. The joys of wearing whatever the hell you want, and so much more.

Think Again Podcasts
  • Why can't we have a human-sized cat tree?
  • What would happen if you got a spoonful of a neutron star?
  • Why do we insist on dividing our wonderfully complex selves into boring little boxes
Keep reading Show less

How to split the USA into two countries: Red and Blue

Progressive America would be half as big, but twice as populated as its conservative twin.

Image: Dicken Schrader
Strange Maps
  • America's two political tribes have consolidated into 'red' and 'blue' nations, with seemingly irreconcilable differences.
  • Perhaps the best way to stop the infighting is to go for a divorce and give the two nations a country each
  • Based on the UN's partition plan for Israel/Palestine, this proposal provides territorial contiguity and sea access to both 'red' and 'blue' America
Keep reading Show less

Ideology drives us apart. Neuroscience can bring us back together.

A guide to making difficult conversations possible—and peaceful—in an increasingly polarized nation.

Sponsored
  • How can we reach out to people on the other side of the divide? Get to know the other person as a human being before you get to know them as a set of tribal political beliefs, says Sarah Ruger. Don't launch straight into the difficult topics—connect on a more basic level first.
  • To bond, use icebreakers backed by neuroscience and psychology: Share a meal, watch some comedy, see awe-inspiring art, go on a tough hike together—sharing tribulation helps break down some of the mental barriers we have between us. Then, get down to talking, putting your humanity before your ideology.
  • The Charles Koch Foundation is committed to understanding what drives intolerance and the best ways to cure it. The foundation supports interdisciplinary research to overcome intolerance, new models for peaceful interactions, and experiments that can heal fractured communities. For more information, visit charleskochfoundation.org/courageous-collaborations.