Many have pointed out the hypocrisy of an environmental summit like COP 28 being held in the United Arab Emirates, the seventh largest oil producer in the world and one of the greatest paradigms of urban waste and megalomania. Without a doubt, at first glance it seems, at best, a contradiction. More so if you take into account that, according to different information, Dubai’s leaders are taking advantage of the event to market their fossil fuels.
But few realize that the UAE produces a lot of oil… for others to consume. And the problem is not so much in its extraction as in its use. Something similar happens when an accusing finger is pointed at China because it has become the country that emits the most CO2 into the atmosphere. It already produces no less than a third of the total. The problem is that much of this pollution is generated in the manufacturing of goods that are sold outside the country. And perhaps it is fairer to attribute those emissions to those who purchase those products.
For this reason, today in ‘The World, Explained’ we analyze in depth the hypocrisy and cynicism that take over the wealthiest countries and citizens in the fight against climate change.
-
The pollution numbers
Environmental impact depends on income
It is easy to reduce harmful gas emissions when nothing is produced. The deindustrialization of the West, added to the relocation of the most polluting industry to developing countries, has made it easier for Europe to ‘clean up’ and be one of the few places where emissions fall.
It is undeniable that, in part, this is due to the energy transition; but, on the other hand, it is also evident that we have exported a large part of the CO2 that corresponds to what we consume. Bilbao is a good example of this: if people can now bathe in the same estuary that was an infected place during the 20th century, it is, above all, because the industry on its banks has disappeared. Work has been done to recover the environment, yes, but after the shipyards closed. Now ships are built in Asia.
And the same can be said of the garbage that we do not recycle and that we send to the developing world, or of the companies that use the ‘greenwashing’ manual to buy carbon credits and pretend that they have achieved emissions neutrality in their operations. marketing campaigns. The formula is the same: pay to look elsewhere and let others eat the brown.
Therefore, perhaps a better metric to decide who is most guilty of climate change is emissions per citizen. And, there, the ranking changes. The countries of the Persian Gulf continue to lead, because they are rich and, in addition, their residents have to survive in one of the most extreme climates on the planet. But they are few, they know that their bargain is going to end soon, and they are already diversifying to carve out a future beyond black gold.
Many more are, for example, Americans. And each emits 14.9 tons of CO2 per year. It is a figure similar to that of Canada or Australia, it represents more than double what a Chinese person pollutes (8 tons) taking into account everything that their country exports, and no less than seven times the CO2 that an Indian generates (2 tons ), despite the fact that Gandhi’s country already accounts for 7.6% of total emissions and is one of the countries that grows the most in emissions.
But even this variable is unfair for sentencing. Much more precise is the one that calculates emissions according to the income of each citizen. For example, the private jet trip of King Charles III of England to say in Dubai how bad everything is going generates a volume of CO2 similar to that of a British citizen throughout the year. At the previous climate summit, no less than 315 trips were made on private planes, the favorite means of transportation of the economic elite.
According to an Oxfam study, one billionaire emits as much greenhouse gases as one million people who belong to the least favored 90% of the population. The 125 richest people on the planet emit the same as all of France. And your nationality doesn’t matter. A Chinese billionaire is the same as a Russian or an American billionaire. What matters is their consumption and the investments they make. And that applies to everything: emissions vary depending on our lifestyle. And if countries like China or India increasingly produce more CO2, it is partly because they manufacture what we consider too dirty or harsh and, partly, because they also want to live better. That is, warming up in winter and cooling down in summer, for example. Or have a car.
Everyone must be held accountable. And developing countries cannot make the same mistakes as developed countries because time is running out and the world is only one. That is why it is important to highlight that China is the country that invests the most in renewable energy, for example. In fact, it is the main producer of the solar panels that are facilitating the energy transition in the Western world.
But it is evident that the lack of education means that many in developing countries have very little environmental awareness. Of course, pointing an accusing finger at them is hypocritical. And demand that the middle class decrease as well. Those who must do it are the wealthiest 10%. Those who take a private jet to attend a soccer game, a shareholders meeting, or a climate summit. Every year 600 airplanes are added to the winged fleet of the jet set, which represents 0.0008% of the population. They are the main problem.
That doesn’t mean that the rest can’t do things better. A good example that the environmental footprint does not have to be proportional to the standard of living is Sweden. The Nordic country has one of the most advanced societies and yet its citizens only emit 3.4 tons of CO2 per year. Despite the adverse climate and the fact that a larger part of the population lives in houses and not in apartments, they are 1.6 tons less than in Spain and a volume similar to that of Thailand or Mexico.
The promotion of renewable energies and the commitment to energy efficiency are key, but not the panacea. Wind turbines, photovoltaic panels and batteries generate emissions and pollution in their production, and will do so again after their useful life. The problem is consumption. But the socioeconomic system that we have created prevents alternatives such as degrowth from working, which sounds great but would trigger poverty.
Perhaps that is why Emmanuel Macron is not so wrong when he says that the solution may be nuclear energy. It pollutes, yes, but it does not emit CO2 – so it does not drive climate change – and there are formulas to prevent nuclear waste from becoming dangerous. As if that were not enough, the new plants are much safer.
In any case, since climate change is so pressing and we are not willing to return to the caves, perhaps it is time to put all our efforts into developing nuclear fusion, a clean, safe and infinite source of energy. If there is political will, money and need, it could be given the support it lacks. A vaccine against Covid was developed in a year, so it is worth trying while the rest of the alternatives help make the transition.
Is all for today. I hope I have explained well some of what is happening out there. If you are signed up, you will receive this newsletter every Wednesday in your email. And, if you like it, it will be very helpful if you share it and recommend it to your friends.
#blame #climate #change #lies #rich