BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | How to reduce future climate risk
More ammunition for green parties to ask their governments what they are doing to stop the rot.
---------------------------------------------
How to reduce future climate risk
Viewpoint
By Daniel P Schrag
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University
Human society is performing a remarkable and uncontrolled experiment on the Earth.
Because of the combustion of coal, oil and gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are already higher than they have been for at least 430,000 years.
If such activities continue, CO2 will rise to levels not seen on the Earth for 30 million years or more.
CO2 is not the only cause of global climate change, but it is the primary cause. Reducing CO2 emissions is a necessary step to avert a potentially catastrophic future.
Many countries have adopted a global target of 550 parts per million (ppm), roughly a doubling of the pre-industrial value, as a safe and reasonable level that can be achieved over the next century.
It seems unlikely that substantial and effective actions will be sustained if the US is not engaged in the process
The truth is that no scientist really knows what CO2 level is safe. What we do know is that even if CO2 levels stabilised today, the Earth would continue to warm as oceans and ice sheets gradually adjust over decades and centuries to their new atmospheric boundary conditions.
Because the response times of the oceans and glaciers are so long, by the time we see a catastrophe on the horizon, such as the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet (equivalent to six metres of sea level rise), it will likely be impossible to stop it.
The coal issue
Even a stabilisation level of 550 ppm may be very difficult to achieve. Once released from a smokestack or tailpipe, CO2 remains in the atmosphere and surface ocean for centuries.
Moreover, the lifetime of a coal-burning power plant can be 50 years or more, so energy choices we make today will determine our path for the next many decades.
With the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by Russia, the world sits at a crossroads.
Many developed countries are taking bold actions to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions. However, it seems unlikely that substantial and effective actions will be sustained if the US is not engaged in the process.
Certainly it will be difficult to persuade developing countries to participate without US involvement.
Do the political and economic incentives or the relatively minor emissions reductions introduced by the Kyoto Protocol lead to the long-term investments in infrastructure that are required to stabilise carbon dioxide below 550 ppm? I suspect not.
Although it is good for countries to agree to work on the problem together, I fear that the Kyoto Protocol does little to face our major challenge: how to get energy from coal without releasing CO2 to the atmosphere.
Coal has the highest CO2 emissions per unit of energy, and coal will remain inexpensive long after the supplies of cheap oil and gas diminish over the next few decades.
Even with more widespread use of renewable energy technology and nuclear power, coal will remain a major source of energy, particularly in those countries with the highest energy demands.
Thus, it is not a question of whether China, India, and the US will use their vast coal reserves but rather how they will use them.
In the rapidly growing economies of China and India, new pulverised coal plants are being built at an alarming rate.
US opportunity
There are some alternatives on the horizon, including coal gasification technology that produces a concentrated effluent of CO2 that is easier to capture and store underground.
But whatever technology is used, the developed world must work with the developing world to prevent the release of CO2 from coal combustion into the atmosphere if the goal of CO2 stabilisation is to be achieved.
This analysis identifies a new opportunity for the US to play a leadership role in reducing our exposure to future climate change.
One could envision bilateral agreements between the US and China, for example, in which the US provides financial assistance to US companies who produce energy in China without emitting CO2, while China provides access to its rapidly growing energy market.
Whatever the specific strategies may be, the time to act is now. There is a window of opportunity for the US to work on this problem, but it will not last long.
After the next several decades, so much investment will have been made in traditional energy generation technology in the rapidly developing world that reducing global emissions will be much more difficult.
The author is Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. He is director of the institution's Laboratory for Geochemical Oceanography. He uses geochemistry techniques to work out what the Earth's climate was like thousands, or even millions, of years ago.
Monday, December 13, 2004
Monday, December 06, 2004
TODAYonline - NO-NONSENSE MAN
TODAYonline
A rare interview of an opposition MP in the press.
----------------------------
NO-NONSENSE MAN
Low Thia Khiang
Weekend • December 4, 2004
Teo Hwee Nak, Deputy News Editor
hweenak@newstoday.com.sg
THE first thing that greets you when you enter his air-conditioned office is the lingering whiff of smoke from the freshly-stubbed cigarette.
And you can't help but notice that the warm water the amiable auntie puts down before you is served in a Tsing Tao Beer glass. Then, Mr Low Thia Khiang, the Workers' Party chief and opposition MP — who replies to emails in crisp and formal English, polite but sometimes bordering on aloofness — takes you by surprise when he leans forward and asks: "That round thing, is it stone or what?"
I was wearing a necklace made of two round pieces of shell in pink and red, and told him so.
"Very attractive," the Hougang MP said, nodding his approval.
With that, the 48-year-old, who runs a signage business, leans back in his chair, his body language signalling that he is ready for the interview.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He's the kind of politician most Singaporeans have come to expect. Not always politically correct; doesn't care if he isn't. No attempt to hide that stubbed out cigarette in the ashtray, no apologies for serving water in whatever glass is available in his pantry.
With Mr Low Thia Khiang, what you see is what you get.
He tackles questions in much the same way: straight talking, no-nonsense, but always considered, his replies punctuated by long, thoughtful pauses.
This is the man, who, a few months ago, launched a stinging criticism of SingPower for the way it distributed its $30 utility vouchers aimed at helping needy families.
SingPower gave the vouchers to grassroots organisations listed under the People's Association, and incurred the ire of Mr Low and Mr Chiam See Tong, the other opposition MP, when the media reported that only 30 per cent of the vouchers were used.
Grassroots organisations in opposition wards are run by advisers appointed by the People's Action Party (PAP), not by the elected MP as in other wards.
In a press statement, Mr Low asked if the move was "a new strategy to help the PAP MPs and grassroots advisers in opposition wards win votes for future elections".
While the coffee shop speculation is that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will call an election soon, Mr Low does not think so. But his party is nonetheless prepared, with its officials and volunteers already actively working the ground in various wards. He says he aims to get more WP members into Parliament, but he is tight-lipped on the details.
What he does speak readily about is the increasingly challenging climate for the opposition.
The biggest challenge, says Mr Low, is in reaching out to an apolitical younger generation that has grown up equating PAP with Government – "even the kindergarten they go through is PCF" (PAP Community Foundation).
"A political set-up, the soul of any political party, is the people. The state of opposition today in Singapore reflects the state of Singapore as it is," he says.
"In the past, though Singaporeans may not be as highly educated as Singaporeans today, they went through the political process of independence and the political vibrancy of that era. They understand the importance of political competition, of having their say through their votes. The younger generation hasn't gone through that era. And because the level of participation in elections has gone down, people don't care."
In the last GE in 2001, only 33 per cent of eligible voters actually voted, with just 29 of 84 seats contested – the lowest number ever.
When asked if he thought the new Prime Minister would call an early election in order to get the people's mandate, he retorted: "Mandate? I think the PAP has got a walkover mandate. And when you go for elections, you elect the party, you don't elect the Prime Minister. So logically speaking, it's not so much a mandate for the Prime Minister, but of the PAP as a ruling party. And if you're talking about individual mandate, what mandate are you talking about when you hold elections and you walk over in Ang Mo Kio?"
Describing being an opposition politician as being "like a sampan in a treacherous sea", Mr Low points - as opposition politicians around the world tend to do - to the electoral rules as a factor that serves to "deplete slowly the strength of the opposition".
He has done a study of the redrawing of the electoral boundaries over the years, and he says this has ensured that opposition supporters are always the minority in elections.
"In many other countries, you have election commission. Here, the party, being the government, decides. And this is fair? No."
The PAP has always maintained that the Elections Department, as part of the civil service, is free from party political interference, and that the electoral map is redrawn based on changes in population distributions.
While he cannot change electoral rules, Mr Low believes that as long as elections are held, Singaporeans will understand the practical use of the vote – even if they have no idea what democracy is about.
"Singaporeans may not understand the role of opposition, but they do understand that when elections come, there will be a lot of goodies, that when you vote for the PAP, there'll be upgrading. They understand that when elections come, then the government will become gentler, and their complaints get attended to very efficiently.
"These make up a practical education process that helps them understand the reality of politics, the usefulness and function of opposition, and how they can bargain with the government through the opposition with their vote. But the next question is, how do they vote? They want opposition, but they also want the goodies. They know when to use you, they also know when to discard you."
He paused, then said with a resigned laugh: "We're suckers, aren't we?"
So why serve a bunch of suckers, Mr Low?
"That's the challenge, my friend. That's the challenge. To do something different, but worthwhile. And the experience of involvement and participation in the election process as an opposition member is a tremendous life experience."
But getting enough people ready to take the road he has taken for the last 20 years is a challenge.
Time is just one factor.
"The other factor is, people do not see opposition as being able to further their personal development, their career. They see it as a losing cause. These are people who have high calibre and are ambitious in life, and there's nothing wrong with that.
"Joining opposition, there's no reward. Joining PAP, there are some rewards, I suppose. But joining opposition, you lose your time, your money. You contribute, but I can't see any rewards."
Which is why the opposition calls for "a different breed of people".
"People who are prepared to say, okay, I'm prepared to take a challenge in life, I think that this is a cause for me, and democracy is important. People who have the guts to say, OK, let's do it. And what's most important: We're prepared to lose."
But most Singaporeans aren't. They go for the tried-and-tested and established, whether it is choosing the university (Mr Low cited a recent survey that showed students prefer the near century-old NUS to the two younger universities), or a career path – or joining a political party.
"There's a false sense of security that if the PAP is around, we'll be alright. It may be so now, but are we sure 50 years down the road? Because of the management and style of government in the past –top-down, and directing people as to what they should do rather than allow genuine response from the ground whether in terms of civic organisation, civil society development - our society has lost the initiative by itself," said Mr Low.
Years of reliance on guidance from the government have created a breed of Singaporeans that is always looking for help, he said. Hence, the resilience and vibrancy, which is necessary for the long-term survival of Singapore in the face of globalisation, is not there.
Singaporeans, however, don't understand this.
"All people are concerned is whether they're going against the law…(Rules) have to be something explicit, then people know what to do. When it's not, people say, I'd better not do. It becomes a culture."
The response to the rule that old windows be retrofitted shows Singaporeans' immaturity, he said, referring to reports that many homeowners were misled by contractors into making unnecessary changes.
"All you have to do is say, I'm from HDB, then gao dim (Cantonese for "settled") already lor. Why? Why are people so afraid of the government? People forget that what is important is to make sure your windows are safe.
"They think: OK, since you say I have to rivet, I rivet already ah, so window fall, fall lah. I've already done what you told me to do. I rivet, I've done my part. But they miss the point, that it's their responsibility to make sure that the window doesn't fall and hit somebody.
"We may be a first world economy, but in terms of society and how we behave, we have not reached first world."
A rare interview of an opposition MP in the press.
----------------------------
NO-NONSENSE MAN
Low Thia Khiang
Weekend • December 4, 2004
Teo Hwee Nak, Deputy News Editor
hweenak@newstoday.com.sg
THE first thing that greets you when you enter his air-conditioned office is the lingering whiff of smoke from the freshly-stubbed cigarette.
And you can't help but notice that the warm water the amiable auntie puts down before you is served in a Tsing Tao Beer glass. Then, Mr Low Thia Khiang, the Workers' Party chief and opposition MP — who replies to emails in crisp and formal English, polite but sometimes bordering on aloofness — takes you by surprise when he leans forward and asks: "That round thing, is it stone or what?"
I was wearing a necklace made of two round pieces of shell in pink and red, and told him so.
"Very attractive," the Hougang MP said, nodding his approval.
With that, the 48-year-old, who runs a signage business, leans back in his chair, his body language signalling that he is ready for the interview.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He's the kind of politician most Singaporeans have come to expect. Not always politically correct; doesn't care if he isn't. No attempt to hide that stubbed out cigarette in the ashtray, no apologies for serving water in whatever glass is available in his pantry.
With Mr Low Thia Khiang, what you see is what you get.
He tackles questions in much the same way: straight talking, no-nonsense, but always considered, his replies punctuated by long, thoughtful pauses.
This is the man, who, a few months ago, launched a stinging criticism of SingPower for the way it distributed its $30 utility vouchers aimed at helping needy families.
SingPower gave the vouchers to grassroots organisations listed under the People's Association, and incurred the ire of Mr Low and Mr Chiam See Tong, the other opposition MP, when the media reported that only 30 per cent of the vouchers were used.
Grassroots organisations in opposition wards are run by advisers appointed by the People's Action Party (PAP), not by the elected MP as in other wards.
In a press statement, Mr Low asked if the move was "a new strategy to help the PAP MPs and grassroots advisers in opposition wards win votes for future elections".
While the coffee shop speculation is that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will call an election soon, Mr Low does not think so. But his party is nonetheless prepared, with its officials and volunteers already actively working the ground in various wards. He says he aims to get more WP members into Parliament, but he is tight-lipped on the details.
What he does speak readily about is the increasingly challenging climate for the opposition.
The biggest challenge, says Mr Low, is in reaching out to an apolitical younger generation that has grown up equating PAP with Government – "even the kindergarten they go through is PCF" (PAP Community Foundation).
"A political set-up, the soul of any political party, is the people. The state of opposition today in Singapore reflects the state of Singapore as it is," he says.
"In the past, though Singaporeans may not be as highly educated as Singaporeans today, they went through the political process of independence and the political vibrancy of that era. They understand the importance of political competition, of having their say through their votes. The younger generation hasn't gone through that era. And because the level of participation in elections has gone down, people don't care."
In the last GE in 2001, only 33 per cent of eligible voters actually voted, with just 29 of 84 seats contested – the lowest number ever.
When asked if he thought the new Prime Minister would call an early election in order to get the people's mandate, he retorted: "Mandate? I think the PAP has got a walkover mandate. And when you go for elections, you elect the party, you don't elect the Prime Minister. So logically speaking, it's not so much a mandate for the Prime Minister, but of the PAP as a ruling party. And if you're talking about individual mandate, what mandate are you talking about when you hold elections and you walk over in Ang Mo Kio?"
Describing being an opposition politician as being "like a sampan in a treacherous sea", Mr Low points - as opposition politicians around the world tend to do - to the electoral rules as a factor that serves to "deplete slowly the strength of the opposition".
He has done a study of the redrawing of the electoral boundaries over the years, and he says this has ensured that opposition supporters are always the minority in elections.
"In many other countries, you have election commission. Here, the party, being the government, decides. And this is fair? No."
The PAP has always maintained that the Elections Department, as part of the civil service, is free from party political interference, and that the electoral map is redrawn based on changes in population distributions.
While he cannot change electoral rules, Mr Low believes that as long as elections are held, Singaporeans will understand the practical use of the vote – even if they have no idea what democracy is about.
"Singaporeans may not understand the role of opposition, but they do understand that when elections come, there will be a lot of goodies, that when you vote for the PAP, there'll be upgrading. They understand that when elections come, then the government will become gentler, and their complaints get attended to very efficiently.
"These make up a practical education process that helps them understand the reality of politics, the usefulness and function of opposition, and how they can bargain with the government through the opposition with their vote. But the next question is, how do they vote? They want opposition, but they also want the goodies. They know when to use you, they also know when to discard you."
He paused, then said with a resigned laugh: "We're suckers, aren't we?"
So why serve a bunch of suckers, Mr Low?
"That's the challenge, my friend. That's the challenge. To do something different, but worthwhile. And the experience of involvement and participation in the election process as an opposition member is a tremendous life experience."
But getting enough people ready to take the road he has taken for the last 20 years is a challenge.
Time is just one factor.
"The other factor is, people do not see opposition as being able to further their personal development, their career. They see it as a losing cause. These are people who have high calibre and are ambitious in life, and there's nothing wrong with that.
"Joining opposition, there's no reward. Joining PAP, there are some rewards, I suppose. But joining opposition, you lose your time, your money. You contribute, but I can't see any rewards."
Which is why the opposition calls for "a different breed of people".
"People who are prepared to say, okay, I'm prepared to take a challenge in life, I think that this is a cause for me, and democracy is important. People who have the guts to say, OK, let's do it. And what's most important: We're prepared to lose."
But most Singaporeans aren't. They go for the tried-and-tested and established, whether it is choosing the university (Mr Low cited a recent survey that showed students prefer the near century-old NUS to the two younger universities), or a career path – or joining a political party.
"There's a false sense of security that if the PAP is around, we'll be alright. It may be so now, but are we sure 50 years down the road? Because of the management and style of government in the past –top-down, and directing people as to what they should do rather than allow genuine response from the ground whether in terms of civic organisation, civil society development - our society has lost the initiative by itself," said Mr Low.
Years of reliance on guidance from the government have created a breed of Singaporeans that is always looking for help, he said. Hence, the resilience and vibrancy, which is necessary for the long-term survival of Singapore in the face of globalisation, is not there.
Singaporeans, however, don't understand this.
"All people are concerned is whether they're going against the law…(Rules) have to be something explicit, then people know what to do. When it's not, people say, I'd better not do. It becomes a culture."
The response to the rule that old windows be retrofitted shows Singaporeans' immaturity, he said, referring to reports that many homeowners were misled by contractors into making unnecessary changes.
"All you have to do is say, I'm from HDB, then gao dim (Cantonese for "settled") already lor. Why? Why are people so afraid of the government? People forget that what is important is to make sure your windows are safe.
"They think: OK, since you say I have to rivet, I rivet already ah, so window fall, fall lah. I've already done what you told me to do. I rivet, I've done my part. But they miss the point, that it's their responsibility to make sure that the window doesn't fall and hit somebody.
"We may be a first world economy, but in terms of society and how we behave, we have not reached first world."
Selection - From Opposition to Power: Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party
Selection - From Opposition to Power: Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party
Should be an interesting read; NLB has it listed, but not ready for loan yet. Below is a selection from the book.
----------------------------------------------
In Taiwan, the ruling party is called the governing party (zhizheng dang), but the opposition is called the party in the wildness (zaiye dang). The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has thus come out of the wildness in the general elections in March 2000 to become the governing party, an unprecedented upset in Taiwan's democratic system that saw the overthrown of the Kuomintang's (KMT) more than 50-year-rule over the nation island. After winning the presidency on March 18, 2000, DPP membership enrollment shot up to more than 400,000 by the end of the year, a feat that worries the party more than it has brought celebrations. How the DPP achieved the ultimate pursuit of the presidency, how the party is organized and how politics work in Taiwan is explained in a scholarly fashion by Shelley Rigger, an associate professor of East Asian Politics at Davidson College, who has lived in Taiwan for long periods.
The book's 10 chapters deal nearly on all aspects of Taiwanese politics, focusing on the DPP from its history, its path to power and the decision-making machinery to its role in the 21st century. Readers will learn that the development of political parties in Taiwan is not based on socio-economic classes, which is the case in some Western countries like Britain's Labor and Conservative parties which are vying for the interests of their own classes. The absence of class-based politics has been a problem for DPP, and to a certain extent to other political parties as well. Taiwanese join the DPP and Dangwai Movement with the aim of toppling the KMT, its autocratic and martial law rules and for a host of other reasons. Some are pushed by personal animosity or by ideological conviction. Some want independence for Taiwan, which is a main platform for the DPP. Some resent the KMT's policy of favoring supporters by granting them business contracts. Thus the KMT is regarded as pro-business and pro heavy industry, and the DPP anti-business. The perception of an anti-business DPP continues until the present time. Take the example of Bayer's decision to cancel project to build a pharmaceutical company in Taiwan. The DPP has to rely on non-economic issues in its campaign, but it has also won the support for its defense of the environment.
Readers will learn that Taiwan's political parties are strongly influenced by mainland China's ties with the Soviet Union decades ago when the KMT was beginning to take form. Both the KMT and DPP are organized under a Leninist model, both are headed by strong chairmen, who hold the decision-making authority.
Corruption in Taiwanese politics is another topic fully analyzed by the author and efforts made to abolish the National Assembly. The DPP in power now is facing the 21st century. But the most immediate challenge to its authority as it holds the rein of government is the December legislative elections.
It has survived an ideological fight by shifting away from its platform that called for a strong independence stance. The upcoming election is a crucial test for "its popularity, unity and competence," says the author. "Without the cooperation of the legislature and the professional bureaucracy, Chen Shui-bian will be hard-pressed to carry out the campaign promises on which he was elected," she says. Other challenge Chen is facing is explained by Rigger, including cross-strait relations under a DPP administration and issues of governance.
If the DPP succeeds in maintaining power, will Taiwan become a principally two-party political system? she asks. "Despite its imperfections, the Republic of China on Taiwan has made enormous progress over the past 20 years," Rigger says.
Should be an interesting read; NLB has it listed, but not ready for loan yet. Below is a selection from the book.
----------------------------------------------
In Taiwan, the ruling party is called the governing party (zhizheng dang), but the opposition is called the party in the wildness (zaiye dang). The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has thus come out of the wildness in the general elections in March 2000 to become the governing party, an unprecedented upset in Taiwan's democratic system that saw the overthrown of the Kuomintang's (KMT) more than 50-year-rule over the nation island. After winning the presidency on March 18, 2000, DPP membership enrollment shot up to more than 400,000 by the end of the year, a feat that worries the party more than it has brought celebrations. How the DPP achieved the ultimate pursuit of the presidency, how the party is organized and how politics work in Taiwan is explained in a scholarly fashion by Shelley Rigger, an associate professor of East Asian Politics at Davidson College, who has lived in Taiwan for long periods.
The book's 10 chapters deal nearly on all aspects of Taiwanese politics, focusing on the DPP from its history, its path to power and the decision-making machinery to its role in the 21st century. Readers will learn that the development of political parties in Taiwan is not based on socio-economic classes, which is the case in some Western countries like Britain's Labor and Conservative parties which are vying for the interests of their own classes. The absence of class-based politics has been a problem for DPP, and to a certain extent to other political parties as well. Taiwanese join the DPP and Dangwai Movement with the aim of toppling the KMT, its autocratic and martial law rules and for a host of other reasons. Some are pushed by personal animosity or by ideological conviction. Some want independence for Taiwan, which is a main platform for the DPP. Some resent the KMT's policy of favoring supporters by granting them business contracts. Thus the KMT is regarded as pro-business and pro heavy industry, and the DPP anti-business. The perception of an anti-business DPP continues until the present time. Take the example of Bayer's decision to cancel project to build a pharmaceutical company in Taiwan. The DPP has to rely on non-economic issues in its campaign, but it has also won the support for its defense of the environment.
Readers will learn that Taiwan's political parties are strongly influenced by mainland China's ties with the Soviet Union decades ago when the KMT was beginning to take form. Both the KMT and DPP are organized under a Leninist model, both are headed by strong chairmen, who hold the decision-making authority.
Corruption in Taiwanese politics is another topic fully analyzed by the author and efforts made to abolish the National Assembly. The DPP in power now is facing the 21st century. But the most immediate challenge to its authority as it holds the rein of government is the December legislative elections.
It has survived an ideological fight by shifting away from its platform that called for a strong independence stance. The upcoming election is a crucial test for "its popularity, unity and competence," says the author. "Without the cooperation of the legislature and the professional bureaucracy, Chen Shui-bian will be hard-pressed to carry out the campaign promises on which he was elected," she says. Other challenge Chen is facing is explained by Rigger, including cross-strait relations under a DPP administration and issues of governance.
If the DPP succeeds in maintaining power, will Taiwan become a principally two-party political system? she asks. "Despite its imperfections, the Republic of China on Taiwan has made enormous progress over the past 20 years," Rigger says.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)