Essay by Eric Worrall
According to the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, the “energy privilege” of nations like the USA will have to be “eradicated” to save the world from climate change.
Reduction of global inequalities in energy use necessary to stop climate change
Date:July 7, 2022
Source: Universitat Autonoma de BarcelonaSummary:A new study shows that existing climate mitigation scenarios perpetuate inequalities in energy use between the Global North and the Global South long into the future. These scenarios disadvantage the Global South and are therefore politically untenable, the study’s authors argue.
A new ICTA-UAB study shows that existing climate mitigation scenarios perpetuate inequalities in energy use between the Global North and the Global South long into the future. These scenarios disadvantage the Global South and are therefore politically untenable.
A just energy transition that keeps global warming below 1.5 or 2°C requires the wealthy countries in the North to reduce their energy use to sustainable levels of consumption, while allowing for a sufficient growth in energy use in the rest of the world.
These are the conclusions of a scientific study by the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB), conducted by researchers Jason Hickel and Aljoša Slameršak and published today in The Lancet Planetary Health, in which they call for the development of new climate mitigation scenarios that would achieve energy convergence between the Global North and the Global South, and thus gradually eradicate the energy privilege of rich countries.
…
“Much of this excess energy is consumed by forms of production that support corporate profits and elite accumulation, such as fast fashion, sports utility vehicles, industrial meat and planned obsolescence, which have no relevance to wellbeing,” emphasises Aljoša Slameršak.
In the analysed scenarios, African and Middle Eastern countries are assumed to have their energy use limited at their existing rates for most of the century, i.e., less than 30 gigajoules per capita per year. By contrast, the OECD countries and the rest of Europe are on average allocated energy well in excess of 100 gigajoules per capita per year for the rest of the century. Even though Latin America and Asia see some increase in energy use, their energy consumption amounts to barely half of what countries in the Global North consume in 2100.
…
Read more: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/07/220707100922.htm
The academics don’t describe how they plan to convince rich countries to give up their energy privilege, though going by the absurd antics of rich nation leaders the last few years, maybe they think rich countries are on track to surrender their “energy privilege” without additional help.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Typically, their solution to inequality is lowering everybody to the same level. They aren’t interested in lifting up those on the bottom.
Socialism destroys. That’s all it knows how to do. They may attempt to rebuild after raising but they just make things worse than before.
Maybe the USA should eradicate Barcelona to save itself
Rich countries got rich via fossil fuels.
Only a distorted understanding of “equality” means “everyone is equally poor” – the result in all truly socialist countries (Cuba, Venezuela, N Korea,etc).
It is an economic truism that a rising tide lifts all boats. The “poor” in the US are much better off than the lower middle class in undeveloped nations.
More confirmation bias. Without any science at all.
A) They assume the new world order is already in charge.
B) Their entire mantra is gimme gimme gimme. A demand for free energy given to the Global South, (Apparently including Australia, New Zealand and Antarctica).
C) There is zero understanding expressed that not one of the green plans for global temperature mitigation will accomplish anything. Mother Nature still rules.
Or what they are going to do when the people living in “rich” countries and subject to all this “just energy transition” decide that they have had enough and the proverbial pitchforks come out.
Poor immigrants to Canada from the tropics immediately increase their co2 emissions by a factor of at least 10
Because it’s bloody COLD here!!!
We use more energy than the “south” because it’s cold and we are developed, we developed BECAUSE we are cold and needed to survive!!
Any study that compares per capita energy use without at minimum adjusting for climate is automatically false for these reasons.
If “global warming” continues, or starts, and we get much warmer we will then reduce our emissions.
Duh
Pat,
in Canada, Albertans have about 3 times the carbon footprint of the average Canadian. It’s not because our houses or cars take 3 times as much fuel nor are we profligate energy wasters.. Its because forestry, agriculture, cement plants, potash mines, oil refining, petro-chemicals and electrical generation, all use a lot of energy. All for the benefit and comfort of people a thousand miles away.
High energy consumption per capita means that a lot of good is being done for humanity by those people’s businesses.
Yes, we use energy to create energy, thankfully.
The ungrateful idiots down east will be dragged kicking and screaming to LNG exports, rest of the world ramping pressure thankfully as they don’t listen to us.
But we still need to get rid of our clown PM and give our environment minister back his orange prison jumpsuit.
We should get a coffee someday, I’m in Britain for a few weeks but back in calgary august 2
Canada needs to prepare for an exodus of US Citizens seeking a safe place to live after the SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade. Lots of talk of relocation now, just like all those Americans who moved to Canada after Trump won the election in 2016. Do you have enough room to accommodate this second migration?
“These scenarios disadvantage the Global South and are therefore politically untenable.”
Globally Australia is South. Climate reparations now. 😉
Sent you a Starbucks card
Am all tapped out now
Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.
Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming “the economic development model” because she’s really never seen it work. “If you look at Ms. Figueres’ Wikipedia page,” notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.
Investors Business Daily
If you wish to destroy/impoverish a nation, the quickest route is to shut off its energy supplies.
This ongoing so called Green Environmentalism, is the first time anyone has openly advanced poverty as a ‘positive’ ideology. Actually, the Marxists have been doing exactly that, ever since the Frankfurt Schools ideas were adopted, in the 1930s. Up to now they have been careful to hide the poverty which is the inevitable outcome of destroying capitalism. Maybe the Eco loons, the most vocal of the Marxists’ could have a poster campaign to help them achieve their ambitions?….
“Poverty for all, not just the few”.
Perhaps a rally or two with loud speakers leading the call.
“What do we want?!”
“Poverty!!”
“When do we want it?!”
“Now!!”
They will be shooting farmers’ next….
From the original paper:
Any paper that has “key messages” is propaganda
Science just is.
Paper title
Paper content
The authors don’t get the irony of their eco-colonialist proposals
Once upon a time, in a remote Asian country — as where almost all parables have occured — there was a rather short soverain whose height was about five inches below the average of the country. He was deeply sad, because he thought that the king should be the tallest of the inhabitants. Then he had an idea: to order that the legs of all people taller than himself should be cut so that they would become shorter than the king.
Very equitable solution
Another would be to make everyone else crawl along on their bellies
Commie/Fascism. Even the Commies have decided they like the money too much to be full Commies anymore. Democrats and the CCP are both FASCIST orgs in 2022, not Communists, lol
“….have decided they like the money too much to be full Commies anymore.” Was there ever a time when this wasn’t true?
In grade school, we used to say: “You and whose army?”
Imagine if there were three types of houses. One made of straw, one made of sticks and one made of bricks. A big wind comes along and blows down the straw and stick houses but not the brick one. In today’s world the owner of the brick house would be charged with brick privilege. Rather than making sure everyone had a brick house, they instead outlaw brick houses. That makes the wolf very happy.
as a farmer in the greedy USA, i guess then we can give up the privilege of feeding these countries without the good quality land base to feed themselves, ought to solve a lot of the warming problem, you know surplus population and all that
just remember china imports approx 75% of their energy and food and the fertilizer that they need to even produce what little they can grow on their poor quality arable land
bon apatite
Barcelona is in Spain.
Didn’t they “Go Green” for energy some years ago and a national disaster resulted?
Why would any other nation (West, East, North or South) follow their example?
“Reduction of global inequalities in energy use necessary to stop climate change”
Concluded this around 15 years ago based on what I I read at the time.
Oh for grandiose generalisations and false causations. Poor countries are so because of wicked, selfish, and evil governance. No country is perfect, but good countries (i.e., rich countries) have mechanisms for dealing with illegalities and governance inequities.
And, oh dear, I live in the South, that is in New Zealand! I thought I lived in a decent country, but I must learn to conform to what my new masters tell me.
Will the Social Sciences never come right?