Equity, Equity, Equity

Last week, I wrote about what I believe to be the biggest obstruction in getting a global deal at Copenhagen: equity.

This week, further confirmation that the equity issue is going to derail any chance of an agreement comes from the New York Times:

Negotiators have accepted as all but inevitable that representatives of the 192 nations in the talks will not resolve the outstanding issues in the time remaining before the Copenhagen conference opens in December. The gulf between rich and poor nations, and even among the wealthiest nations, is just too wide.

Remember, the United States refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol because the protocol did not limit emissions in India and China.

Now, most of you have probably heard over and over and OVER again about how there is no point for Americans to lower their emissions if China does not because any drop in American emissions will be offset by an increase in Chinese emissions. We have all heard this meme so much, that perhaps it's not surprising to see this FT/Harris poll. According to the poll, 63% of Americans believe that China must lead the way in emissions cuts, and only 1/5 are in favor of offering aid assistance for adaptation from the developed world to the developing world.

I swear, this poll makes me want to cry.

So let me repeat a few points.

Number one, America outstrips China in terms of historical emissions.

Number two, America outstrips China in terms of per capita emissions.

Number three, America outstrips China in terms of luxury versus survival emissions.

Number four, if carbon emissions were calculated correctly* (where carbon emissions are consumed, not where they are produced), America would once again outstrip China in terms of annual emissions. China's emissions are high in part because they are responsible for manufacturing cheap crap Americans CONSUME. They are not high because the Chinese people are cruising the streets of Shanghai in their pink Hummer limos.

The country that absolutely MUST lead the way in cutting emissions is: America.

That's it.

Until America starts getting serious about cutting emissions, we will have no real global deal.

*I understand that this is a normative statement, but it's my blog.

Think Global, Act Local ... And It's All Local

You know that book Don't Sweat the Small Stuff ... And It's All Small Stuff? Yeah, I never read it either, but lately I've been applying that same logic to that ubiquitous phrase "Think Global, Act Local." Think global, act local ... and it's all local. If that hadn't been hammered home enough during the global financial crisis, it was certainly hammered home on Tuesday when people from all over the world rejoiced over the election of Barack Obama. Why? Because very simply, what happens in America affects the entire world.

Every act you make now has global consequences. As Bill McKibben pointed out in his book Deep Economy, American demand for plastic shower curtains produced in China is helping to pull many Chinese young men and women out of poverty. While I might not encourage people to buy new plastic shower curtains from an environmental point of view, I cannot deny that shower curtain factories produce jobs for people who desperately need them. In The End of Poverty Jeffrey Sachs talks to some Bangladeshi women who work in sweatshops producing clothes destined, most likely, for America. Although their work environments are poor, still, the women are grateful for the work, and for the opportunities they see arising from their paid labor.

I've always been a little wary about the idea of buying locally simply because I feel it ignores this component. And when locavores don't ignore the component, such as Bill McKibben, they often seem left with no ready answer. McKibben points out that globalization has increased the prosperity of many Chinese people, and I give him credit for that. But he never resolves the issue for himself. How do we deal with the legitimate environmental concerns related to shipping products around the world, and yet still ensure better lives and more opportunity for those workers in Chinese factories? If we, as environmentalists are telling people not to buy cheap plastic goods produced in China due to the hidden negative externalities of cheap plastic, what is the engine that produces equality?

Because here's the thing. The surest way to get less cheap plastic crap on the market? Is to make that cheap plastic crap more expensive to produce. And a great way to make that cheap plastic crap more expensive is if labor becomes more expensive. That is, if people have more opportunities, and better job possibilities, then working in a shower curtain factory is suddenly not so appealing. Why are there almost zero shower curtain factories in the United States? Because people don't want those jobs. Because labor is expensive. Because most people living in America can find better work that pays MORE.

So right now our global corporations send those jobs abroad where labor is cheaper. Essentially, in my opinion, the answer isn't to boycott goods made in China, but to reduce inequality. Because, frankly, when the whole world is making say, between $15,000 and $20,000 a year? Those plastic shower curtains are going to become veeeery expensive to produce. Why don't people fix their DVD players when they break? Because it's cheaper to buy new. But those $10 DVD players, rampant consumerism, and a need to buy new, new, new are built on the backs of cheap labor. Once labor starts getting expensive, so do the DVD players.

But besides all that, here's the truth. Those Chinese workers in the factory? They are part of my community. They are human beings, and thus, my people. And they have as much right to their dreams as does the person who lives next door.

So what am I saying? Am I saying that we should all start buying produce from South Africa because it enhances South Africa economy, that we should all start buying plastic shower curtains by the dozen from China?

No. But what I'm saying, is we need to start framing things differently. Buy local food, by all means, but buy your sugar fair trade, and your chocolate fair or equitrade. And next time you're dying for a banana, then get yourself a damn banana, just get it fair trade. Buy goods at your local mom and pop green store, but if the shoes you buy happen to be ethically and sustainably produced in China, treat that as a WIN, as opposed to a loss. Take the money you save by forgoing the plastic shower curtain, and lend it to someone in the developing world at Kiva.org. And the next time you have to talk to IT support in India, instead of griping about how you can't understand the accent, take a moment to remember that these IT jobs have enormously benefitted India, have pulled thousands and thousands into the middle class, and that the environmental negatives for phone support are fairly small.

We must stop viewing the world in terms of us versus them. There's only us. Think global, act local, but remember it's all local. So by all means, buy products from your farmers' markets, support the seamstress who lives next door. But remember, that the choices we make directly impact people all over the world, and not just our neighborhood. Remember, we are all human beings. We are all entitled to dignity, to food, to health care, to work, to education. We are all entitled to dream big.

*This is my post for the November APLS carnival. There is STILL time to get your submissions in. Write your post about buying local and email it to aplscarnival (at) gmail (dot) com.*

Another Perspective On Clean Coal

The subject of clean coal has come up quite a bit recently, on a couple blogs that I love and respect.

I considered shutting up, because what I am about to say is certainly not going to make me popular, but keeping quiet is really not my style.

Ok, ready? Primed to send me hate mail? Okay, here it is:

I support clean coal.

I know, I know, HOW COULD I!! But let me explain.

Coal is cheaper, and more abundant in many parts of the world, than oil. And as oil supplies continue to be depleted, I believe, pragmatically, that there is no way in heck that you are going to get people to take coal entirely off the table. And that is why any president of the United States HAS to support clean coal. Can you imagine what would happen at a climate change summit, if our president announced he didn't support clean coal? I'll tell you what. India (10% of the world's coal reserves) and China (12% of the world's coal reserves) would walk out. They'd call us eco-imperialists, and could you blame them? Here we go, use up a huge amount of oil reserves, WAY WAY WAY MORE than our fair share, and when oil becomes super expensive, we turn to India and China, and say, "Oh, that vast natural resource of yours? Yeah, don't use that."

You could argue that you can win an election without West Virginia, but there ain't no way you're winning climate change without India and China. And since India and China aren't giving up coal, we have to deal with coal as a pragmatic reality.

So let me explain what I mean by clean coal. When I say I support clean coal, I mean, I support carbon capture and storage. Read the Wikipedia article for more detail, but basically CCS aims to sequester and store carbon, rather than release the carbon in the atmosphere. Now CCS isn't an immediately viable solution. But just because it isn't immediately viable, does not mean that the government shouldn't invest in CCS in the hopes of making it viable within the next 25-40 years. Put it this way: If we know that India and China are going to continue to use coal indefinitely, would you rather have a government that sticks its head under the sand all, "Lalala, I can't HEAR you!" or would you rather have a government that tries to find a pragmatic solution, and thus invests in the R&D that India and China can't afford?

Now is clean coal the only solution? Or even the primary solution? Of course not. Our primary solutions need to be wind, solar, hydro, and simple energy reduction. But given that leading climate scientists believe that the carbon concentration in the atmosphere has to be brought down to 350 ppm, we simply cannot take ANYTHING off the table. Joe Romm says it more eloquently than me:

That’s why I believe it is utterly immoral not to aggressively pursue the development of any plausible low-carbon or zero-carbon technology that has the potential for large scale (several hundred gigawatt) deployment. And serious analysis, like McKinsey’s, says that coal with CCS could be economical by 2030. Moreover, a CCS power plant that runs on coal blended with cellulosic biomass is one of the most plausible carbon-negative forms of electricity you can imagine. So we must pursue the development of coal with CCS, which is what Obama and Biden and virtually every other energy/climate policymaker and analyst mean when they use the term.

And that's why I support CCS or clean coal. Now, look, I am not denying that coal extraction is a terrible, awful business and Crunchy and Erin are right to call attention to it. I'm not super thrilled to be supporting coal, I have to admit. But to me, this isn't about what I like and don't like. This is about what is pragmatic, what is politically feasible, and what is perhaps physically necessary. Enviros are never going to get anywhere by bullying people (or two billion people, as the case may be) around, and imposing our moral code upon others. Moreover, if CCS ever does allow us to produce carbon-negative electricity-and I admit, that we're not close to there right now- but if CCS DOES produce carbon-negative electricity? Then perhaps the process of coal extraction would be justified.

For more information on CCS, read Joe Romm's excellent articles here and here.

Boooo

According to the Genius at the Apple Store, my iBook has a faulty logic board. Which means that it's going to cost $280 to repair (well actually replace). And on top of that, I will owe another $100 because my data isn't backed up, and they will need to do a data transfer.

Now, I do think repairing makes the most sense, financially and environmentally. Although there will be new parts involved, my understanding is that they will most likely be refurbished parts. So I think in terms of my non-consumer challenge, on that front, I can rest easy.

BUT, I do kind of wonder what will happen to my old Apple parts. From the reading I've done online, they do not give you your old parts back, so I will not be able to dispose of them in an environmentally sensitive manner. My suspicion is that they do reuse the old parts, but that they probably send them over to China for "processing." (If you need a refresher on the pitfalls of e-cycling read Cindy W's concise write up here.)I will certainly ask them for my old parts back, but I'm not holding my breath.

Not About Shoes

I've been putting off posting all day because I've been trying to resolve something for myself- a feeling of unease that has been coming and going for the better part of the day. First I thought I'd post about it, and then I resolved not to post about it. I'd get back to the shoes. But ultimately, I decided I'd rather blog about the cause of this unease. And maybe by writing about it, I'll gain some resolution.

The unease began when I read this post by one of my favorite bloggers. In it, she talks about trying to find products that were not made in China.

Now, before I launch into anything, I want to make it very clear. This post is not about her. I have nothing but respect for Chris, and love for her great blog. The unease is with myself and my feelings on the matter.

And I'm utterly conflicted.

On the one hand, I completely see where people are coming from by not buying products made in China. People do it for many reasons. The obvious is the lead scares, but many people also refuse to buy products from China because of the poor factory conditions and the obvious health hazards to the workers.

And I see those reasons. I agree with those reasons. And yet ... I can't help but think about the numerous people who, thanks to these factories, are able to eke out a living for their family.

As an Indian-American, I have a vastly different point of view from most Americans about outsourcing. To most Americans, outsourcing results in fewer jobs for Americans, and is therefore bad. To me, outsourcing is a great boon that is providing thousands of jobs for Indians, that is growing the middle class, that is pulling India into the 21st century.

I keep wondering how I would feel about people boycotting Indian products. Defensive, I'm sure. Frustrated. I think I'd want to tell people that they should be boycotting, not a country, nor a people, but the mega-corporations. Don't choose Legos from Europe instead of Legos from China. Boycott all Legos everywhere until the company wakes up and starts realizing that it will lose its customers if it doesn't institute stringent product safety checks and fair labor practices EVERYWHERE.

But that's easy for childless me to say. I don't have to answer to a five year-old come Christmas morning when she opens her presents and finds out that Santa brought her an acorn and a very bad drawing of a stick figure. I don't have to worry that my two year old will be sucking on some plastic toy, and I'll go online and find out that that plastic toy is being recalled. And I loved Legos as a child. Who am I to take away Legos?

Mostly, I dream of a day when all the governments of the world mount the courage to band together and to tell these multi-national corporations, "Enough is enough. From now on, you will abide by world-wide standards of safety. You will provide your workers with fair conditions from every corner of the Earth. You will not build a factory in a city, and create jobs and mass migration, only to move out of the city for somewhere cheaper a year later. We will require you to pay your workers a minimum wage based on the country's per capita GDP, and oh yeah, you will pay overtime if they work more than 40 hours per week. And if you don't do this, we will not allow your product to be sold in our country."

But that's never going to happen. Will it?