Thanks to James Cameron for joining us on Cleaning Up. Sign up to our UA-cam Channel and to our free newsletter to get all the latest from Cleaning Up: cleaninguppod.substack.com
Hi Michael So refreshing to hear a proper discussion / debate where each side gives a great argument but still remain as friends and give each other adequate space to air their views properly. James was a great guest, very knowledgeable - there's so many of us disappointed in the COP outcomes but here's such a good 'inside view' that the process is difficult and it's hard to substitute another route. I used to 'sit-in' on Government Science Committees and what I got was the best people in the relevant research fields doing the very best they could. I admire Michael's somewhat cool head considering a lot of what is coming from the science is very worrying regarding possible AMOC collapse, emissions rise, Arctic melt etc. Keep up the great work and inviting good guests.🙂 Best wishes Michael
Fascinating conversation! I appreciate the links and chapter references. Wider distribution is crucial! Perhaps more corroboration to increase viewers with a shortened paths forward version?
Excellent episode!! One of the best that I have listened to. I'm trying to get a good friend of mine to listen to it, but unfortunately he isn't a podcast person
36:00: "China's historic emissions are now higher than the U.K.'s" Might be technically correct, but it is misleading. On PER CAPITA basis China's historic emissions are a small fraction of the U.K.'s. And that is U.K. only. Relative to the whole of global North historic per capita emissions, China's are a TINY fraction, like a rounding error in the global picture; India's are even smaller, not EVEN a rounding error.
Well look on the bright side - if China were to start paying out based on historic emissions, the amount they would pay per capita would be lower too. Per capita calculations do not absolve them of their responsibilities.
@@MLiebreich "If China were to start paying out based on historic emissions" Paying out for their historic emissions? If so, you are right that "the amount they would pay per capita would be lower". It would also be low in absolute terms, since their historic cumulative emissions are so low. But to whom would they pay? Themselves? Or perhaps the rest of the BRICS and the global South? They already ARE paying by way of their development work worldwide, especially Asia and Africa., amongst other things. "Per capita calculations do not absolve them of their responsibilities." It could be argued that they do not, properly, have any responsibilities, since their emissions are so low (while others have been far higher) AND since they've done far more to build sustainability (high-speed rail, EVs, solar panels, vast afforestation and de-desertification initiatives, and more) than anyone else, with plans to do far better in the future, including plans (some already actualized) to build sustainable infrastructure in other countries. Let's not forget the stiff emissions and GHG intensity (and other) targets that they build into their 5-year plans, and then meet those targets and often exceed them, or achieve them years early. Their official docs are filled with references to the building of "ecological civilization" -- something they take very seriously and build-in to their planning. No other country is that conscientious, with the possible exception of Germany. They are leading the world. They are TAKING responsibility, even though they don't properly owe it. They are a beacon of adult responsibility and moral behavior in an insane, immoral world, and in the case of the U.S., infantile in addition to insane and immoral. They (with the whole of the BRICS) will lead the charge against the biggest heist and shakedown in history -- that of the uncompensated climate chaos visited on the world, and especially those least able to adapt and survive, by the global North. Godspeed to them. They are humanity's last best hope.
@@alanparmenter Yes, precisely. And as such -- destitute of the all-important adjustment for population size -- it is misleading, even if technically correct. Imagine that there were only two countries on the planet, country A with pop of 8.1 billion, country B with .1 billion. Imagine that country A is responsible for 70% of all emissions, and country B is responsible for 30%. On the basis of those numbers, you could say that "country A is responsible for most emissions". That would be technically correct. But also misleading in practice, since by far the most glaring problem (all else equal) is on the part of country B. Country B's emissions are obviously the low-hanging fruit, and should be radically slashed, immediately, as an urgent priority; THEN we can discuss how much, and at what rate, emissions should be cut in country A, consistent with other priorities and human needs. That is the problem with all the chatter about "China's high level of emissions". Without the population-adjustment lens, (and even more so the cumulative/historic lens), it amounts to blaming the majority when the reality is that only SOME people (actually a rather small number) are responsible for the great bulk of the problem. Without adjustment for population size, (and the usually-accompanying failure to adjust for historic vs. current), the conclusion cannot help but mislead. The misleading-ness is built-in, for obvious political purpose: to excuse those most responsible, while offloading fault to those least or less responsible. I'm very familiar with this propagandistic sleight-of-hand, having seen it and dealt with it scores of times on twitter. There are armies of people anxious to absolve themselves (and their socioeconomic cohort) of responsibility. They are saying, effectively, "me and my kind of people [rich global North white people] are not all that responsible. It's China! It's those damned Chinese!" The same impulse energizes climate denial. All of it is an infantile, and often racist, attempt to avoid responsibility. A pathetic attempt, since literally ANYONE can see, upon even five seconds of exposure to a graphic portrayal of statistical reality (historic per capita emissions, comparing countries), where the responsibility lies. Even a 10-year-old kid can see it, immediately. The point is even more glaring when dropping the artificial "country" framing and stratifying instead by socioeconomic status, as per the famous champagne glass emissions diagram. If you have not seen it, search for keywords "champagne glass" and "emissions", then click on "images". This diagram often evokes conniptions on the part of denialists and responsibility-avoiders. lol The champagne glass diagram illustrates things almost as strikingly as my imaginary "country A vs. country B" scenario, the main difference being that the diagram is actual REALITY, as opposed to my fanciful scenario. The disparity between the high emitters and low emitters is as stark as it is possible to be. And it is undeniable statistical reality -- which is why it evokes fits of infantile rage.
Let's see now... what was I saying about "humanity's last best hope"? Financial Times 7 Dec 2024 Opinion Only China can now lead the world on climate As far as global environmental concerns go, the US has an irretrievably split personality Adam Tooze The author is an FT contributing editor and writes the Chartbook newsletter Remember January 2021? Joe Biden came into office loudly proclaiming: “America is back!” Antony Blinken, as secretary of state, was fond of remarking that “like it or not, the world does not organise itself”. The claim to US leadership extended across the board: to trade and defence, tech and climate. Given its huge per capita emissions, the idea that the US could really be a leader on decarbonisation stretched credulity. But the new mood in Washington was welcome. Now, less than four years later, the Republicans rule the roost. On defence and trade policy there will be continuities from Biden to Donald Trump. But on climate, the US is once more halfway out the door. As far as global environmental concerns go, the US has an irretrievably split personality. Far from organising the world, it will be the world that has to adjust to the disorganising impact of America’s polarised and depressingly unintelligent democracy. In the 1980s and 1990s American scientists did as much as anyone to define climate as the challenge of our times. But even as the Clinton administration was helping to prepare the first global climate agreement, the Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution denouncing the UN treaty that exempted developing economies from taking costly climate action. The flagship Kyoto treaty was never even put to the Senate. In 2015, scarred by this experience, the Paris climate accords were framed specifically to work around Byrd-Hagel. The agreement does not require Senate ratification and is based on nationally determined contributions. Nevertheless, after running on a campaign that denounced the climate crisis as a Chinese hoax, in 2017 Trump announced the US would be pulling out of the pact. In 2018, following their successful comeback in the midterms, the Democratic left rallied around the Green New Deal. But Trump’s popularity was barely dented - but for Covid he would surely have been re-elected in 2020. After months of wrangling, Biden did eventually manage to pass a historic package of green energy subsidies. But this was dressed up as the Inflation Reduction Act, larded with national protection specifically directed against China. America can claim to have co-invented modern renewables. Scientists let go by Nasa dreamt up modern solar in the 1970s. At the state level, California has a renewable share on a par with those in Europe. Backed by the Obama administration, Tesla made electric vehicles cool. But liking new sources of power is one thing. Being serious about the energy transition is quite another. The kind of tough-minded carbon pricing applied in Europe went out of style in Washington DC with the failure of Obama’s cap and trade proposal in 2010. America’s preferred energy policy is more, more, more, as cheaply as possible. After years of heavy investment in fracking, the US under Biden became the largest oil producer the world has ever seen. Trump plans to raise production by a further 3mn barrels. Decarbonisation of electricity supply will continue because wind and solar are now so much cheaper. But despite hurricanes regularly devastating parts of the country, any broader ambition to meet America’s climate targets is off the table. The inescapable conclusion of the past 35 years is that it is foolish to treat the US as a reliable partner in global climate policy. During Biden’s honeymoon, the hope was that the US and Europe would act together. In Europe, outright climate scepticism is rare and the EU has built an impressive suite of subsidies and carbon pricing. The end of coal-fired power generation in the UK this year was historic. But in Europe too the cost of living crisis is swinging the political mood against tough climate action. The looming crisis in the European car industry, brought on by Chinese success in EVs, exposes the hypocrisy of a continent that promised a Green Deal while clinging to diesel. To varying degrees, both Europe and the US have failed to grasp the decarbonisation challenge identified by their own scientists decades ago. Insofar as there is to be a global climate leader it can now only be China, which is responsible for more than 30 per cent of global emissions and has mastered the green energy supply chain. Given mounting tension with the US, Beijing has every incentive to minimise oil imports. The key question is whether the Chinese Communist party can muster the political will to override its fossil fuel interests. If it can, it will not single-handedly solve the climate crisis but it will assert a claim to leadership that the west will find hard to answer.
Heard a recent quote that applies "unless we establish some form of world government it will be impossible to avoid a third world war" - Winston Churchill.
Michael was an excellent advocate for the devil. It drove out some very interesting perspectives. Unfortunately, I do feel a little like Michael's glass at the end.
It's absurd to push back on activists by asking for their comprehensive policies and blueprints for internationally agreeing and implementing them. That's not their place, it's not how this works, and it has no bearing on the validity of their criticism.
I listened to an episode of Volts recently where David Roberts had been complimented for not 'getting in the way' of his guests. Michael Liebrich is the exact opposite in that all he does is get in the way of his guests. Sometimes, this is not particularly egregious, and would be positively valuable if he was interviewing fellow conservatives who either don't believe in, or simply pay lip service to climate change, but in certain episodes, such as this and the previous one, it just comes across as bullying..
@MLiebreich Apologies - maybe it's to do with the limited amount of time. I just feel like I need to understand more about the people being interviewed before they're challenged so thoroughly, but it's probably just personal taste. You're knowledgeable, and often right, in my view, so it's always interesting..
Thanks to James Cameron for joining us on Cleaning Up. Sign up to our UA-cam Channel and to our free newsletter to get all the latest from Cleaning Up: cleaninguppod.substack.com
Hi Michael
So refreshing to hear a proper discussion / debate where each side gives a great argument but still remain as friends and give each other adequate space to air their views properly. James was a great guest, very knowledgeable - there's so many of us disappointed in the COP outcomes but here's such a good 'inside view' that the process is difficult and it's hard to substitute another route. I used to 'sit-in' on Government Science Committees and what I got was the best people in the relevant research fields doing the very best they could. I admire Michael's somewhat cool head considering a lot of what is coming from the science is very worrying regarding possible AMOC collapse, emissions rise, Arctic melt etc. Keep up the great work and inviting good guests.🙂 Best wishes
Michael
Awesome episode🌟
Thanks Olivia! I just listened back and I can't believe how patient James was with me!
@@MLiebreich 😉
@@MLiebreich I think the person who can really coach you or help you is the rare person you let be direct with you and disagree constructively.
Fascinating conversation! I appreciate the links and chapter references.
Wider distribution is crucial! Perhaps more corroboration to increase viewers with a shortened paths forward version?
Mike is back to taunting the guest again !😊
This should have been at least a 2 hour discussion.
Excellent episode!! One of the best that I have listened to. I'm trying to get a good friend of mine to listen to it, but unfortunately he isn't a podcast person
36:00: "China's historic emissions are now higher than the U.K.'s"
Might be technically correct, but it is misleading. On PER CAPITA basis China's historic emissions are a small fraction of the U.K.'s. And that is U.K. only. Relative to the whole of global North historic per capita emissions, China's are a TINY fraction, like a rounding error in the global picture; India's are even smaller, not EVEN a rounding error.
Well look on the bright side - if China were to start paying out based on historic emissions, the amount they would pay per capita would be lower too. Per capita calculations do not absolve them of their responsibilities.
@@MLiebreich
"If China were to start paying out based on historic emissions"
Paying out for their historic emissions? If so, you are right that "the amount they would pay per capita would be lower". It would also be low in absolute terms, since their historic cumulative emissions are so low. But to whom would they pay? Themselves? Or perhaps the rest of the BRICS and the global South? They already ARE paying by way of their development work worldwide, especially Asia and Africa., amongst other things.
"Per capita calculations do not absolve them of their responsibilities."
It could be argued that they do not, properly, have any responsibilities, since their emissions are so low (while others have been far higher) AND since they've done far more to build sustainability (high-speed rail, EVs, solar panels, vast afforestation and de-desertification initiatives, and more) than anyone else, with plans to do far better in the future, including plans (some already actualized) to build sustainable infrastructure in other countries. Let's not forget the stiff emissions and GHG intensity (and other) targets that they build into their 5-year plans, and then meet those targets and often exceed them, or achieve them years early. Their official docs are filled with references to the building of "ecological civilization" -- something they take very seriously and build-in to their planning. No other country is that conscientious, with the possible exception of Germany. They are leading the world.
They are TAKING responsibility, even though they don't properly owe it. They are a beacon of adult responsibility and moral behavior in an insane, immoral world, and in the case of the U.S., infantile in addition to insane and immoral. They (with the whole of the BRICS) will lead the charge against the biggest heist and shakedown in history -- that of the uncompensated climate chaos visited on the world, and especially those least able to adapt and survive, by the global North. Godspeed to them. They are humanity's last best hope.
The context was proportion of contribution of emissions, not population size.
@@alanparmenter
Yes, precisely. And as such -- destitute of the all-important adjustment for population size -- it is misleading, even if technically correct.
Imagine that there were only two countries on the planet, country A with pop of 8.1 billion, country B with .1 billion. Imagine that country A is responsible for 70% of all emissions, and country B is responsible for 30%. On the basis of those numbers, you could say that "country A is responsible for most emissions". That would be technically correct. But also misleading in practice, since by far the most glaring problem (all else equal) is on the part of country B. Country B's emissions are obviously the low-hanging fruit, and should be radically slashed, immediately, as an urgent priority; THEN we can discuss how much, and at what rate, emissions should be cut in country A, consistent with other priorities and human needs.
That is the problem with all the chatter about "China's high level of emissions". Without the population-adjustment lens, (and even more so the cumulative/historic lens), it amounts to blaming the majority when the reality is that only SOME people (actually a rather small number) are responsible for the great bulk of the problem.
Without adjustment for population size, (and the usually-accompanying failure to adjust for historic vs. current), the conclusion cannot help but mislead. The misleading-ness is built-in, for obvious political purpose: to excuse those most responsible, while offloading fault to those least or less responsible.
I'm very familiar with this propagandistic sleight-of-hand, having seen it and dealt with it scores of times on twitter. There are armies of people anxious to absolve themselves (and their socioeconomic cohort) of responsibility. They are saying, effectively, "me and my kind of people [rich global North white people] are not all that responsible. It's China! It's those damned Chinese!"
The same impulse energizes climate denial. All of it is an infantile, and often racist, attempt to avoid responsibility. A pathetic attempt, since literally ANYONE can see, upon even five seconds of exposure to a graphic portrayal of statistical reality (historic per capita emissions, comparing countries), where the responsibility lies. Even a 10-year-old kid can see it, immediately.
The point is even more glaring when dropping the artificial "country" framing and stratifying instead by socioeconomic status, as per the famous champagne glass emissions diagram. If you have not seen it, search for keywords "champagne glass" and "emissions", then click on "images". This diagram often evokes conniptions on the part of denialists and responsibility-avoiders. lol
The champagne glass diagram illustrates things almost as strikingly as my imaginary "country A vs. country B" scenario, the main difference being that the diagram is actual REALITY, as opposed to my fanciful scenario. The disparity between the high emitters and low emitters is as stark as it is possible to be. And it is undeniable statistical reality -- which is why it evokes fits of infantile rage.
Let's see now... what was I saying about "humanity's last best hope"?
Financial Times
7 Dec 2024
Opinion
Only China can now lead the world on climate
As far as global environmental concerns go, the US has an irretrievably split
personality
Adam Tooze
The author is an FT contributing editor and writes the Chartbook newsletter
Remember January 2021? Joe Biden came into office loudly proclaiming: “America is back!” Antony Blinken, as secretary of state, was fond of remarking that “like it or not, the world does not organise itself”. The claim to US leadership extended across the board: to trade and defence, tech and climate. Given its huge per capita emissions, the idea that the US could really be a leader on decarbonisation stretched credulity. But the new mood in Washington was welcome.
Now, less than four years later, the Republicans rule the roost. On defence and trade policy there will be continuities from Biden to Donald Trump. But on climate, the US is once more halfway out the door.
As far as global environmental concerns go, the US has an irretrievably split personality. Far from organising the world, it will be the world that has to adjust to the disorganising impact of America’s polarised and depressingly unintelligent democracy.
In the 1980s and 1990s American scientists did as much as anyone to define climate as the challenge of our times. But even as the Clinton administration was helping to prepare the first global climate agreement, the Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel resolution denouncing the UN treaty that exempted developing economies from taking costly climate action. The flagship Kyoto treaty was never even put to the Senate.
In 2015, scarred by this experience, the Paris climate accords were framed specifically to work around Byrd-Hagel. The agreement does not require Senate ratification and is based on nationally determined contributions. Nevertheless, after running on a campaign that denounced the climate crisis as a Chinese hoax, in 2017 Trump announced the US would be pulling out of the pact.
In 2018, following their successful comeback in the midterms, the Democratic left rallied around the Green New Deal. But Trump’s popularity was barely dented - but for Covid he would surely have been re-elected in 2020. After months of wrangling, Biden did eventually manage to pass a historic package of green energy subsidies. But this was dressed up as the Inflation Reduction Act, larded with national protection specifically directed against China.
America can claim to have co-invented modern renewables. Scientists let go by Nasa dreamt up modern solar in the 1970s. At the state level, California has a renewable share on a par with those in Europe. Backed by the Obama administration, Tesla made electric vehicles cool.
But liking new sources of power is one thing. Being serious about the energy transition is quite another. The kind of tough-minded carbon pricing applied in Europe went out of style in Washington DC with the failure of Obama’s cap and trade proposal in 2010. America’s preferred energy policy is more, more, more, as cheaply as possible. After years of heavy investment in fracking, the US under Biden became the largest oil producer the world has ever seen. Trump plans to raise production by a further 3mn barrels. Decarbonisation of electricity supply will continue because wind and solar are now so much cheaper. But despite hurricanes regularly devastating parts of the country, any broader ambition to meet America’s climate targets is off the table.
The inescapable conclusion of the past 35 years is that it is foolish to treat the US as a reliable partner in global climate policy.
During Biden’s honeymoon, the hope was that the US and Europe would act together. In Europe, outright climate scepticism is rare and the EU has built an impressive suite of subsidies and carbon pricing. The end of coal-fired power generation in the UK this year was historic. But in Europe too the cost of living crisis is swinging the political mood against tough climate action. The looming crisis in the European car industry, brought on by Chinese success in EVs, exposes the hypocrisy of a continent that promised a Green Deal while clinging to diesel.
To varying degrees, both Europe and the US have failed to grasp the decarbonisation challenge identified by their own scientists decades ago. Insofar as there is to be a global climate leader it can now only be China, which is responsible for more than 30 per cent of global emissions and has mastered the green energy supply chain. Given mounting tension with the US, Beijing has every incentive to minimise oil imports. The key question is whether the Chinese Communist party can muster the political will to override its fossil fuel interests. If it can, it will not single-handedly solve the climate crisis but it will assert a claim to leadership that the west will find hard to answer.
Heard a recent quote that applies "unless we establish some form of world government it will be impossible to avoid a third world war" - Winston Churchill.
Michael was an excellent advocate for the devil. It drove out some very interesting perspectives. Unfortunately, I do feel a little like Michael's glass at the end.
It's absurd to push back on activists by asking for their comprehensive policies and blueprints for internationally agreeing and implementing them. That's not their place, it's not how this works, and it has no bearing on the validity of their criticism.
I listened to an episode of Volts recently where David Roberts had been complimented for not 'getting in the way' of his guests. Michael Liebrich is the exact opposite in that all he does is get in the way of his guests. Sometimes, this is not particularly egregious, and would be positively valuable if he was interviewing fellow conservatives who either don't believe in, or simply pay lip service to climate change, but in certain episodes, such as this and the previous one, it just comes across as bullying..
It's not an interview, it's a conversation. The difference is, conversations are mutual and interactive.
@MLiebreich Apologies - maybe it's to do with the limited amount of time. I just feel like I need to understand more about the people being interviewed before they're challenged so thoroughly, but it's probably just personal taste. You're knowledgeable, and often right, in my view, so it's always interesting..