But the study is only concerned with only part of peoples annual emissions:

“Per person, about 2.5 tons of carbon dioxide are consumed in the U.S. but produced somewhere else. For Europeans, the figure can exceed four tons per person.”

So capping emissions at the stack of every fossil fuel thermal power station in Europe is still necessary.

More generally, these debates should be had, but the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

By way of example, I am reading conditions for a resource consent right now re sediment monitoring in a stream. The conditions are light years better than what would have been thought of in 1991 when the RMA first came into effect. But those current conditions only come from experience of earlier ones.

In other words, you gotta start somewhere. Because we have very limited time to act, its important to get things as right as possible and not to make big mistakes, but any country signing up to 42% reduction by 2020, against any sort of reasonable baseline, is pointing in the right direction in my book.

You can test it this way. If the Scottish legislation was passed in NZ today, would it be significant, and a step change in NZ thinking? The howls of protest from certain industry sectors would say yes.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/climatechange/scotlands-action/climatechangeact

Tom

Good link!

We don’t live in THE democracy we live in A democracy – a particular system amongst a plethora of possible democratic systems. Talking about the limitations of this particular system is in no way anti-democratic.

The limitations of our democratic system include that politicians tend to work on issues that reward them within the timeframe of immediate political cycles and beyond that just emit aspirational goals they will not be accountable for.

Voters are not too stupid to understand they are just not receiving sufficiently clear signals of the danger. Their opinion is being shaped by a campaign to obscure and confuse the science.

“it is the opinion of the people that matters.”

If the people are inclined to mistrust the scienctific process which is how humanity has reached it’s current state of knowledge – axiom by axiom – then this is another step towards failure of the system to react to it’s environmental realities. Just because we’re a democracy doesn’t mean we can’t fail.

And sorry is just a word C3 but it would be sociologically appropriate for you to use it.

http://www.ciw.edu/news/carbon_emissions_outsourced_developing_countries

Emissions production is a flawed measure, emissions consumption is more relevant

Dr Woodwell:

“The climatic disruption is not a theory open to a belief system any more than the solar system is a theory, or gravity, or the oceanic tides, or evolution. This approach is uncompromising, partisan in the sense of selected for the purpose. It is not a lecture to undergraduates; nor is it ecology 101. It is a clear statement of what is required for government to do its job in protecting the public welfare.”

AND

Transition 10 in Australia: http://www.safeclimateaustralia.org/support-safe-climate-australia/collaboration-and-partnerships/

This means relentless politics for the next 5 years. Al Gore and Joe Romm have the right formula. Relentless messaging and no talk with pseudoskeptics/deniers. Sorry, we just dont have time.

BTW Scotland now has a law requiring 80% cut in emissions by 2050. Can we be fast followers now?

Tom

But then you also say you aren’t anti-democratic, even though you claim democracy is not equipped to deal with climate change.

And you all repeatedly claim the only reason governments dont implement the draconian policies you support is because they are forced to think short term, but then ignore all the other example of long term policy (such as expenditure on education, balancing the budget, economic growth policies).

So, given that democracies in the USA, Australia and New Zealand are not adopting the policies you say are required to save the world, what do you think, if anything, is needed to be done?

After all Nicholas Stern can say whatever he wants but until he is supreme dictator it is the opinion of the people that matters.