The cost of reducing our carbon footprint to acceptable levels- the same as annual military funding

[Gregorian]

I am listening to Linktv's live coverage at Copenhagen. Amy Goodman is interviewing Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping.

Watch it here-

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/18/chief_g77_negotiator_lumumba_stanislaus_di

1.5C, 350 ppm CO2 concentration target, 50% reduction in carbon emissions.

This requires 1% of GDP.

What strikes me with huge impact is that this cost is the same as our military funding.

[dysfunctional press]

1. so obviously we'll have to learn to do without social security or medicare.

bummer.

[Gregorian]

2. I made the comparison to military because that would give us the choice to keep these things.

We can bring down emissions by simply not eating meat one day a week.
18% of greenhouse gas emissions are due to meat production.

America is very insensitive to what the rest of the world is extremely serious about. The poor of the world are going to be running for their lives soon. Low lying areas.

We are going to have to change. And I think some of the things we're talking about right now are going to be noise in the background soon.

I hate to even say what I think is going to happen. People do not want to hear it.

[dysfunctional press]

3. "We are going to have to change."

not until it starts affecting us in completely catastrophic ways...that's how things 'work' in the u.s. of a.

[Gregorian]

6. Yes, I know. I would love to see vigilance.

I grew up with a father who knew all of this stuff long before the rest. He said that people don't change until they're in a crisis.

And that is why I look around me, and into the distance, to see what is ahead.


I also realize my subject title is misleading. We kind of need a military. Although I am about as much a pacifist as one can be, I know there are really rotten people in the world, and we might want to defend ourselves from them. But I think there's also going to be a condition of our climate that eclipses these issues.

And another thing, I have said all along that this is a crisis that isn't going to give us enough time to fix. It's going to be crisis, and then catastrophe.

Bla, bla, bla. Nobody wants to think about this stuff. And I'm terribly guilty. My carbon footprint is suddenly the size of Bigfoot's. So it's hard for me to even take myself seriously any more.

[TxRider]

8. Some of us think about it

Personally I'm planning to be on living on 15, possibly 25 acres of land I can produce food on, powered by my own solar and wind, driving an electric hybrid biodiesel I'm building, within the next decade.

And I've likely only got about another 30 years left to live anyway at my age.

[wuvuj]

7. But they just love disaster movies....

...just don't want to be in one.

Too bad......

[kestrel91316]

4. My footprint is 15% of that of the average household my size.

It cost me nothing to achieve that. Somebody stealing my car was FREE.

[TxRider]

5. ROFL

Not me, I have 2 furry canine SUV's quietly sleeping on the rug in my living room. I'm a carbon hog.

And one out in the driveway.

But I don't have any incandescent lights.. ;)

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. No, that's proposing a maximum 1.5C increase, 350 ppm, *and* 1% of GDP

It's not saying that it "requires 1% of GDP"; it's a proposal for money to give to the developing countries.

AMY GOODMAN: And yet, Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia has now just made a deal with France. What is that deal, and what’s your response?

LUMUMBA STANISLAUS DI-APING: He made a deal with France, perhaps in his capacity as the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, and he’s entitled to do that. But that’s not the African deal. I will read to you what exactly Africa said on what are the critical features necessary for the deal: a 1.5 degrees Celsius, a minimum of 45—minus-45 percent reduction, and one percent—and I repeat—one percent of the GDP of developed countries for short-term finance. And that will be—will include about $200 billion in Special Drawing Rights. It will equally include rapid transfer of technology for developing countries.

He's not saying that this would just cost us in the developed countries 1% of our GDP to do; it's up to us to decrease our CO2, and help the developing world to adjust as well.

The suggested way to get back to 350 ppm is to stop all coal use by 2030; cut global CO2 emissions by 2025 to about half what they are now; to about a quarter by 2050; and, if we want to get back to 350 ppm in a 100 years rather than about 250, do a massive reforestation and soil-creating programme. See Hansen's paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.1126v3

[Gregorian]

10. That's right.

I was lazy there. And typing as fast as I could while watching the feed on tv before discovering the link.

I heard numbers of $400 billion to accomplish the requirement of helping the nations decrease CO2. That's not far from 1% GDP. But then I am probably getting that one wrong too.

It was a brilliant interview. Just because America isn't serious about this issue doesn't mean the rest of the world is. And to think a man with dark skin would be formulating all of the pertinent information so eloquently. America's white man on the television telling us what is good for us, is now irrelevant.

I'm so furious about this. It's like being a thinking American during those 8 years of Pinhead's administration. To have to watch this.

I have two friends, both engineers, who lamely claim that global warming is just another natural phenomenon. It sickens me.

Thanks for picking up on the error. If we were smart we'd spend our tax dollars where it counts. I honestly believe that the time is running short for people being able to make decisions about frivolous things. Things such as military spending. In that respect, global warming is the best thing that ever happened.

I know Obama is fully up to speed on this subject. It was pathetic to see some of our Congressmen shuttling around the summit with their lazy, irresponsible talk about how this isn't really something we need to be concerned about.

The problem as I see it is that the most wealthy nations don't want to sacrifice. The bottom line is comfort. Nobody wants to sacrifice comfort. Because after all, that is what wealth buys. And that is what takes petroleum. Prawns from Bangladesh in Oklahoma require a lot of jet fuel.

I honestly don't see how we can be increasing in population and decreasing emissions simultaneously. How do we replace lumber? Rammed earth, maybe? That's rather limiting. I don't see solutions. Not ones that include the whole picture.

That link is really quite comprehensive. Thanks for that. Very informative.



Edit- Here's a piece of that article that I was hoping they'd include- "However, even with phase-out of coal emissions and assuming IPCC oil and gas reserves, CO2 would remain above 350 ppm for more than two centuries."