A hole in the roof. If made from the inside, there were people in the attic who had to get through as the water level rose. If from the outside, it was made by rescuers. That’s what the guide said during my Katrina tour in New Orleans this summer.

A higher frequency of natural disasters  is an early outcome of climate change. Thus I will use some after Katrina photos to illustrate my draft contributions to the EU consultation with stakeholders on how to get to grips with Climate change.

You are welcome to
-offer your points of view as comments,
-get inspiration for your own contribution to the consultation,
– just read and enjoy or feel pissed off.

You’ll find a reference to the consultation at the end of this contribution.

 Q1a: The EU wants the global average temperature to increase less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Therefore, in 2050 global greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced by at least 50% compared to 1990 levels. Would this aspirational long term goal be appropriate in the light of the 2007 IPCC reports and latest scientific knowledge?

A: In theory, to solve the Climate change problem the burden should be shared equally between human beings. The majority of the global population is much poorer than the people of the European Union. It may seem easier for the poor, not to increase their greenhouse gases emisssions, than it is for the wealthy, to decrease emissions.  

But sheer numbers of people tell us we can’t fix it without the very active contribution of the less prosperous. From an equality point of view, the demand of the rich, that the poor should not increase their per capita burden on the climate as long as the burden of the rich is much bigger leaves room for less engaged efforts by those poorer. In that case, failure may be the outcome. 

Therefore, logically and theoretically, the level for the effort of the EU people ought to be calculated. The starting point should be the total sum of the balance between emissions and fixation of climate change gasses at the point, when there were no climate change effexts induced by humans. This total should be divided by the number of people on earth some years ahead. Thus we arrive at a figure for emissions per person. I have a feeling that such a calculation might lead to an even more ambitious goal.  







Q1b: Is there a need for other elements to be part of the shared vision in order to ensure the transition to a sustainable low carbon economy?

A: YES. It is far too easy for politicians and planners to set goals. There is also a love for quantification of the goals and monitoring how they are approached. The challenge is huge. Once the direction and the urgency have been set, the major thing needed is an understanding of how to reach the goals.

We need to find solutions that spread because people beleive in them. This is what happens to profitable eco innovations. The support to eco innovations must increase. Maybe the appropriate effort is more than ten times the current one for environmental innovations in the LIFE+ Programme and equally big on the Eco Innovations Programme as well as the Intelligent Energy Programme.  

Check the questionnaire at: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=climatepost2012 

Previous contribution at: http://evolveu.bloggsida.se/miljoinnovationer/paverka-eus-klimatarbete