Corporate pollution

According to new figures which reveal heavy industry's contribution to climate change and have prompted new calls for tighter restrictions on corporate pollution, all the efforts by individuals and households to cut their carbon footprints will make little difference unless accompanied by greater action by industry. A 1% increase in the efficiency of one of the giant power station in Britain would save the typical carbon emissions of 21,000 households. Five biggest polluters in UK produce more CO2 than all motorists combined.
The carbon dioxide emissions of more than 700 industrial sites across Britain showed the UK's participation in the first phase of a Europe-wide scheme intended to tackle climate change by capping the amount of carbon the heaviest polluters can emit. Companies failing to hit a target - applying to emissions from onsite activities such as combustion only - must buy permits to pollute from rivals that have successfully cut emissions. Critics said the first phase of the trading scheme has made global warming worse by giving European companies more permits than needed. Hundreds of companies are excluded from the scheme - because they are not classed as big polluters or because they participate in a parallel system.
With 12 million Africans currently facing drought and famine linked to climate it is time to listen to what people from the poorest continent are asking for. The global account so far shows that 33% of people have 94% of the global dollar income and account for 90% of the global historical total of greenhouse gas emissions, while the other 66% of people have 6% of global dollar income and a history of emissions totalling 10%. The ratio of poor to rich life value in all this is worse than 15 to one. The rising climate-related mortality has led UK MPs to observe that this asymmetry, if uncorrected, becomes the economics of genocide.

Emitting 100,000 tonnes of CO2 is more than that of Vanuatu, the Pacific state where 100 people became the first official climate refugees when they were moved from their coastal village in December. The test of 'green-ness' is about how much industries have succeeded to be changing.

Elsewhere, the questions regarding potential future flashpoints were raised as: what are the places particularly likely to experience conflict related to climate change? Is it even possible to predict the occurrence of such conflict? Suggestions were that trans-boundary rivers and areas very near sea level are likely to be especially problematic, for in those cases climate change is likely to have a particularly strong impact - in some instances small states could entirely disappear due to the rise in sea level. In turn, such changes could trigger economic, social and political instability. These observations prompt further questions about potential differences between, on the one hand, the effects of climate change on rich countries, and, on the other hand, the impact on poor countries. while developed countries could also suffer very severely as a result of climatic perturbations, the poor, developing countries-with far more limited resources--would probably find it even more difficult to cope with the consequences of climate change. The impact of climate change will land hardest on the poor.
In some developing countries already radicalised populations could see climate change as a problem unfairly imposed on them which could make it more likely for some of those individuals and groups to support, or even engage in terrorism against Western targets, which would have adverse consequences for international stability. Using the example of Central Asia in some areas, potential political instability due to climate change could also affect short-term or even long-term migration, and could accentuate poverty, thereby giving rise to complex security problems that would be very hard to solve.

The explanation for massive climate changes can be found in the oceans' reactions to rapid and massive influxes of cold fresh water from lakes. Another question arises on what is the proper balance between seeking to mitigate the effects of climate change, and adapting to those effects? It is argued that while efforts at mitigation must continue, it is also necessary to recognise that a certain degree of global warming has now become inevitable. Under these circumstances it is important to learn to adapt to that change. There are difficulties of providing policy advice in this area, in a situation in which climate change is non-linear and abrupt, making prediction impossible. Linked to that, it is noted that not only climate change per se, but also disagreements over the importance, source, and best ways to address climatic perturbations could act as triggers for international conflict.


Extracts:



Guardian, David Adam and Rob Evans, New figures reveal scale of industry's impact on climate, May 16, 2006

BBC, The Green Room, The fair choice for climate change, Aubrey Meyer, 18 May 2006

Harrison, S., Oxford Leverhulme Programme on the Changing Character of War, May 2006