(12ab) International solidarity to tackle climate change
How I think the world community can help each other to create a better world that is affordable and benefits everyone. For instance, when climate change hits a region or country, other regions and countries that are not hit can help with contribution of food and drinks, showing that respect for farmers and their work is important. In summary, solidarity is important in times of crises.
But first why I defend Greta Thunberg's speech at the UN and afterwards.
Indeed, over the past weeks (see here and here) and even years ago I wrote, after reading climate scientists' warnings, we should take climate change serious and act to prevent the worse possible scenarios. It may not only concern loss of ice at the arctics and glaciers and thus rising sea levels (as Venice, Italy and Jakarta, Indonesia experiences) or fires due to extreme hot and dry weather (as Australia and Russia experiences) but may even result in a different distribution of weights in the world and as a result maybe earthquakes; future will show. But, also and certainly solutions need to be discussed to prevent an apocalypse and that is what I try to do here; yes, it will cost but doing nothing costs much more, financially and in lives while I know that spending money bleeds some people's heart. And, I've these ideas from people who discussed them before.
I hope sufficient numbers of people will now accept that actions and thus money are needed - in the first place support from those who are rich enough to help poorer people, the latter are the majority of people as they earn normal and below normal wages.
But, many people condemned her speech as too radical and thus little will change. I acknowledge this response very well, the reason why I start the previous paragraph with "I hope ...". Either speeches are too radical or not radical enough to justify why there is too little progress.
Indeed, she's young and a woman and thus she should not speak to adults as she did, i.e. lecture them. But, it's about her and other children's but even adults' future. Many scientists claim by 2050 climate change will have huge consequences if too little is done while already today we experience nature is different compared with the past. Year 2050 is only 31 years from now, i.e. adults today in their 20s and 30s with young children will be in their 50s and 60s, thus still within their working age while their children will be in their 30s and 40s (Greta will be only 47 years old) who have their own children while grandparents will be in their 70s and 80s. Because, as we live longer more people will live until that year. Many children born now will even still live in 2100, another much mentioned year. Therefore, many will experience what will happen such as higher sea levels and more migration. She and many other children understand this and protest to demand actions because waiting until they are adults with decision powers will be too late.
Further, it's not only about climate change, they also demand a fairer world and not the continuation of overconsumption as is done today; indeed, moderation that makes happy. According some reports (and not by idiots), we only have until 2030 as it seems to go even faster than expected and that means we MUST act NOW because by 2030 most people today will still be alive.
But, many powerful continue to try to convince us that more fossil fuels and minerals such as those under forests and under kilometers thick ice around the poles (e.g. Greenland) are needed and that we even need to go ahead with fracking to have our own fossil gases, even when people oppose it as it will surely pollute water and land because it's done to benefit a few. And thus, in contrast what Greta Thunberg hopes, those people are evil as they know but pretend they do not. And be sure, the old forces will try to oppose and prevent protests that will limit their powers.
Indeed, many opponents of fossil fuels ask more investments in renewables and in such a way that it is affordable for everyone and not only profitable for energy companies and their boards and investors and politicians who support them. It will also provide work as this needs to be built. Also wildlife is under threat as it is not only climate change but more general the exploitation of everything on this planet, from the earth over wildlife up to humans; indeed, according scientists the sixth mass extinction is under way as we all notice the decline in animals and plants while inequality among people increases and angers them, far away and close to home.
Looking away will do little - realising what may come and how fast can result in actions and not only by ordinary people but by the powerful to change the system in such a way to increase solidarity as that is in everyone's interests. That's why it is good that Greta Thunberg warned the current generation who have the power that they should do enough because doing too little and hiding behind the cost of the transition will not be forgiven by future generations. No, she and many others are not hysterical but instead realistic that change is needed, not only to combat climate change but also to have clean air, ground and water and protect the living world to create a fairer world. But, I also understand many people oppose changes and vote for politicians who promise to defend what we have.
Therefore, here some possibilities how I think we can try to slowdown climate change whereby I think we can't limit ourselves to do only a few actions but instead, below actions and many more need to be done together: stop polluting but simultaneously remove pollution from the sky, ground and waters.
At this moment, developing countries, often in warm countries, with less industries and less necessity to heat buildings pollute less and thus can receive money from richer countries that are in the process to convert their industry and invest in a clean industry that is still under development.
However, certain developing countries may pollute more because their industry is outdated and homes are heated with cheap (char)coal; still, international society and certainly countries that earn money by selling air after they invested in clean energy, may decide poorer countries and on condition they can show plans how to clean their society but can't afford it can receive temporarily money to develop this clean environment. However, developed and mainly rich countries with lots of industries are expected to earn sufficient money to buy extra air when they pollute while they should continue investments in converting towards a clean country, also under the pressure of their own electorate who demand clean air, water and land. These countries can also share their knowledge how to be a clean country and industry with other countries and companies. In case developing countries receive money but don't use this to become cleaner and may even become more polluting (such as not helping people to diverse heating away from coal to renewables while the population grows), than they too will have to buy clean air from other countries and thus further impoverish. Countries that continue to pollute may even be punished by receiving fines.
Of course, all countries pollute and therefore, I think it should be a cap per area (e.g. per 10,000 km²) and not inhabitants with a reasonable although achievable low pollution level whereby pollution levels of different regions are summed up to establish the maximum pollution level for larger countries. Countries can attribute maximum pollution levels for each company and building within their territory whereby trade of air can be done between companies within countries or between countries whereby the sum of pollution of all industries and countries can't exceed the total sum for the whole world and as set by the UN. Thus, overpopulated countries will not be allowed to pollute more as the amount to pollute remains the same for a certain area although they can buy clean air elsewhere and thus the urgency remains that those countries invest in clean energy production while people also need to be educated to use birth control to prevent rapid population grow and thus a risk to exceed allowed pollution levels in a certain area. As mentioned earlier, clean countries may decide to help the polluting country as this is in everyone's interests.
This cap-and-trade system should apply to every region in the world via the UN. Of course, countries that pollute more than allowed may refuse to buy air from countries that pollute less but than the UN should be able to fine them such as restrictions on trade with other countries or a minimal influence in international organisations such as the UN. Still, such countries may decide to form a shadow (unofficial) trade organisation that unite polluting countries. Nevertheless, as long as most countries agree to the cap-and-trade system and this within the UN, than most countries can enforce fines on polluting countries that exceed their allocated pollution levels; one day in the future a majority of countries may decide to pollute more than allowed so the cap-and-trade system becomes less powerful although remaining countries that accept the cap-and-trade system may decide to compensate for countries that pollute too much by polluting even less than allowed or cleaning the air as a sacrifise to have a clean world.
Countries and companies that pollute little may also decide not to trade their clean air so pollution levels remain below the maximum set by the UN on condition no-one pollutes more than what is accepted. At the end of a certain time period (e.g. each year, or every few years), a list should be publish that ranks each country from least polluting to most polluting countries and rewards can be granted to countries that pollute little and/or reduce their pollution levels significantly with an incentive such as an extra seat at an UN commission and thus an additional decision power (I think with maximum a doubling above their normal minimum number of seats - which I think should be maximum five for the largest and/or most populated countries). I think no seats below the minimum allocated should be taken from countries that continue to pollute without efforts to clean their society and thus refuse to accept UN decisions; indeed, people may start to leave such countries so population declines and thus also its power in the UN (I think the UN needs to be reformed with removal of the veto right that blocks decision power while grant too much power to certain countries but with more or less decision power for more or less populated but also contributing countries although with a maximum (such as 5 votes) for each country to prevent that certain countries may increase their decision powers by annexing other countries; however, wellbehaving countries should be able to increase their numbers of seats). In the end, overall pollution levels should decline over time when more investment in clean energy (see point 5) and nature (see points 2, 3 and 4) allows a revision downwards of pollution levels.
Of course, not only air needs to be clean but also water and land and thus the above system may also be used to encourage countries and industries to have respect for the environment by using clean technologies to reduce pollution. Yes, in contrast to today when growth is rewarded no matter the cost, respect for the environment and population should also be taken into account and as is happening. Indeed, no-one can still dumb waste in rivers, at least not in developed countries.
And example is Ecuador that tried to introduce this system but in the end concluded that the international community gave too little and thus the country decided to exploit the oil reserves in its natural park to be able to reduce its poverty. And yes, how can wealthy countries condemn Ecuador when it chooses for its development when wealthy countries refuse to donate sufficient money? But, I also accept that countries can set such a high price to preserve their nature that countries may decide the price is an excuse to be able to exploit nature and that the money is better invested in a number of projects elsewhere. Indeed, this needs to be assessed for each project to prevent this system can be used to blackmail other countries into giving money.
Giving money can also be linked to buy access to the area that receives money so the region can be studied in collaboration with local research units, helping with the development via education of the region. Further, the money given can also be used by countries to invest in renewables instead of fossil fuels (see point (5)) so they are less dependent on their or others resources while recycling also reduce the exploitation of natural resources as recycling means less new material is needed.
Thus, wealthy but even poor countries can decide to sponsor other countries to help them protect their nature as it benefits the whole world while this way countries receive money to develop intellectual and economical although some controlled destruction may be needed such as for building houses although preferable this is done on previously occupied or less important land and in respect with the surrounding nature (Rio de Janeiro is a good example of a city build around its nature). The money can, in addition to preserve nature, also be used for nature development (see point (4)) although this can result in nature destruction when e.g. certain trees are considered not native.
Of course, countries may refuse to contribute to this gift system when they are not interested in the preservation and restoration of nature (outside their own territory) but then it can hurt as will be discussed in point (3) about nature tourism. This way countries where leaders decide to protect their environment can receive money as a compensation from the international society that will also attract tourists who spend money; this way countries will be able to invest in their development and related economy while donors benefit from clean air and water elsewhere when they visit beautiful nature in other parts of the world. Of course, countries with little nature can also decide to invest more in nature development closer at home (see point (4)). This way, even when countries receive money when they pollute little and sell clean air, they can receive even more when they preserve their nature, via the voluntary gift system and tourism.
Why is it important to talk about nature? Because, it's not only because it is good for our wellbeing where we can relax after a busy life but also because trees and plants both on the land and in water will remove much of the climate gas CO2 from the atmosphere and in exchange release O2, i.e. oxygen in the air that we need in order to live and thus this is a relatively cheap way to remove an important greenhouse gas from the air and this in addition to the use of renewables, recycling and less pollution industries (see point (5)). Animals are also important to maintain nature as often they spread seeds. Of course, active restoration of nature is also possible although I think this should not result in the destruction of specific landscapes such as deserts although of course, preventing that deserts expand is acceptable by preventing the collapse of surrounding nature. But, each country may decide it doesn't want deserts although it can be a booming economy with its own specific nature.
And also individuals may contribute to schemes that fund the protection of nature as is already possible.
Tourists who contribute to schemes as mentioned in (2) or who live in countries that donate money to countries in return to save their nature may have reductions when visiting those countries compared with tourists from countries that don't want to contribute to such conservation schemes. Countries that preserve their nature may also add a charge to visit a nature reserve with a reduction for tourists from countries who donate. This may also increase pressure on governments to donate so their citizens can enjoy cheaper holidays.
Of course, countries that receive donations may decide to charge all tourists the same when they may reason that it is very expensive not to exploit resources. Countries that are serious about nature conservation will still decide to donate money to those countries so they preserve nature for everyone. Still, countries may become more interested to earn easy money by harvesting their minerals and fossil fuels or accept money from other countries and companies to exploit them and allow hunters to kill their animals than keep their nature intact; then of course, countries may decide to stop their donations or continue when that may save some nature.
Nature tourism can also have a dark side when countries destroy to build even more hotels so people can enjoy a few remaining pieces of nature; however, this too can be a reason why countries stop donations when they think too little nature is preserved compared with the focus on the tourism industry (see also point (2)).
Another possibility is that countries decide they want to keep certain aspects of their nature while consider something else as not beautiful or foreign that needs to be destroyed. An example are pine trees that are considered foreign in certain areas because people think they are more for northern countries while they may be relics of old forests from a time when climate was cooler. Indeed, the last trees, even in warm islands such as Tenerife, on mountains before trees can no longer grow are pine trees and thus they are natural throughout the world although they may not be able to grow everywhere, even when we wish. That's why it's wrong that trees are killed in Bruges (Flanders, Belgium) by nature organisations with the argument they are not natural while destroying them also means the disappearance of plants and animals that depend on them. But, ordinary people no longer accept that every nature in Flanders must disappear. I accept that woodland can become too dense when no animals live in them that can eat young trees and thus a few deer and goats can make a different that everyone can agree on. But with too many trees cut, deer also disappear as they need woodlands to hide.
Countries can also redevelop lost nature and so gain tourism; the planting of disappearing coral reefs in the waters around Kenya are a good example (see also point (4)).
Some countries may even develop tourism by showing them disastrous industrial sites; Chernobyl is an example where tourists can visit the site of the largest nuclear disaster that also allowed nature, although with mutations, to return and as happens in every civilisation that collapses.
First, when there is not much remaining nature, the few remaining small areas (with or without trees) should be preserved and not destroyed, certainly when they are bio diverse as newly created nature can take years before they become as bio diverse while destruction of a specific habitat to replace with another may even result in the final loss of certain species when they go extinct. And replacing nature with something that seems to be better may result in failure and thus nothing.
Further, a few different species of trees can be planted while seeds of different kind of (local) plants are sown in some desolate grasslands but I think then nature should be allowed to develop in a natural way so it can become real nature, i.e. diverse. No shortening of grass by machines but instead (controlled numbers of) sheep, goat and cows but even chicken and geese can graze. Most planted trees but also some seedlings will survive to adulthood while others will be eaten. This allows that grasses, flowers and trees compete with each other and animals so a more diverse nature landscape will arise whereby other plants and animals will slowly move into the area, increasing the biodiversity.
Where buildings stand in what is assigned to become nature, these buildings can be bought by governments to compensate the owners after which the buildings are overtaken by plants and trees to allow a specific vegetation while other buildings can be demolished to free space for nature. It may even be decided if considered safe to allow basements to fill with water so they become a place for water animals and plants and some maybe even swimming areas for humans. Doing so, local people can enjoy nature close to home that are located within and surround cities and villages while ribbon development should not be allowed as that cuts through farmlands and nature reserves while it's ugly. Before I published some examples how this can be done.
But, only allowing the return of nature while humans continue to pollute will not suffice to tackle climate change and environmental damage (i.e. waste). Therefore, nature development and cuts in the use of fossil fuels but also waste reduction and collection to recycle as much as possible are needed in parallel.
Thus, in order to create this clean energy society, governments should help people who needs help to install equipment that produce energy from renewables so we become almost independent from others to produce energy; even the large fossil fuel producer Saudi Arabia is selling part of its company to become less dependent on fossil fuels and to invest in other sustainable energy sources. The help society gives to invest in a clean society doesn't always need to be money but can include laws that favours their installation and use. An example is that neighbours should be able to invest together in solar panels to lower the costs while they can all benefit from its energy production and thus fewer subsidies need to be granted; excess energy produced can be sold to energy companies that sell to those who need more electricity than they can produce such as high apartment blocks or train companies and industries that require lots of energy. In case people or companies receive financial help to install the solar panels than, and as part to repay the investment, they give part of the electricity produced to the company or government that financed (part of) the installation so the company and government can sell or use this energy while those who received financial help repay (with a small interest) the aid of installation. Of course, people may have to buy electricity if they need more than they produce such as during days with little sun. Still, also electricity storage gets better so we no longer need to use the electricity immediately but can use it when we really need it.
Certain countries may not join this move towards clean energies but these can be punished such as described in points (1) and (3). For example, trade may be restricted from countries that decide to continue to pollute and continue to destroy our planet. When countries decide to use polluting industries, not to care about the environment when they extract minerals and thus kill plants and animals but even humans, than it is the right of other countries to decide not to trade. Indeed, the international community may restrict trade in order to force countries to reduce their pollution and show respect to our planet or those countries should accept the consequences of their decision if they refuse to change.
As an example how this could already apply today for countries that breach international conventions: countries that continue to kill whales while the rest of the world wants to see them alive. Indeed, when countries continue to hurt our planet against international agreements so it is illegal, whether those countries signed these agreements or not, than those countries should be able to feel the consequences such as restrictions on trade; in case they want normal trade agreements with other countries than they need to respect decisions from the international community. Thus, it is their choice to have normal relations with other countries or not and, in case citizens of those countries breach international laws than they can even be arrested. Of course, it is always possible a majority of countries may decide to allow hunting; still, in this case individual countries can still decide not to agree and thus not to hunt and try to convince others to care about our planet.
Countries and companies can have rules that favour modern equipment such as promotion of cars, boats and planes that pollute little while heavy polluters need to pay high fees or even be banned to encourage investment in the use of clean equipment (see also point (1)). That also includes a stop on more buildings when it means to destroy nature whereby governments pay the value of ground so people don't lose while it stops that people can still build outside towns and villages so the area can be converted into an area for farming or restoration of nature. It will cost, yes, but to prevent climate change and in addition have a return of nature while enjoy clean air, water and land costs less when done before than repairing damage. I've written about it before.
Thus, car-poor cities. Free space and no ribbon development between cities, towns and villages. Clean air, water, ground, safe streets, nature within and outside cities and villages. Who can oppose unless those who only think about costs and profits? Solar panels, wind and water energy don't always need to be big as thinking in such a way is past because equipments are becoming more energy efficient, can store energy and some can even produce their own energy.
Less energy hungry equipment and better batteries equals we need less energy production; indeed, the inventors of lithium-ion batteries won the Nobel prize because it can store much more energy and I'm sure even better storage will be invented. Techniques are under development that allow more storage of energy produced during the day while many equipment will have their own battery such as today's smartphones and PCs.
Also improvements on insulation without the need to have very thick walls also means less energy needs to be produced. Further, better storage of energies we didn't use so they can be used at a later moment. So many techniques.
An example: rivers flow and thus why aren't we using this energy more, even without the need to flood a whole area? Certainly when people produce their own energy, less communal energy needs to be produced. This way we may also need fewer or smaller and more elegant windmills as indeed too many together are scars in landscapes.
Further and as we need materials with as little as possible disturbance of the environment, we need a good recycling industry to recover as much material as possible that we are able to recover while store what is at present not recyclable because future methods may be able to recover them. A society may e.g. demand that recyclable materials are used to pack food while companies need to request approval at a yearly cost when they claim only non recyclable material can be used, therefore forcing companies to invest in recyclable materials or to develop new recycling ways. Further; equipment is being developed to cleanup what is already in the environment such as plastics in water.
Indeed and as the UN published but also the EU accepts: we need to recognise that the new economy creates work because we need to improve buildings, renew cars, trucks, ships and planes, install new energy production equipment while stimulate research to further develop better and smaller energy producing equipment, energy storage and recycling, all for a better future.
In conclusion, the way to finance this is via solidarity, locally and internationally. The rich can pay for themselves so they benefit maximally as they don't need to repay anything while they should pay as everyone their taxes; in addition, they can also help others and receive something in return. Those who can't finance it need help because governments receive taxes. Indeed, Solidarity, the magic word to achieve climate and more general environmental changes that are affordable for everyone.
Indeed, over the past weeks (see here and here) and even years ago I wrote, after reading climate scientists' warnings, we should take climate change serious and act to prevent the worse possible scenarios. It may not only concern loss of ice at the arctics and glaciers and thus rising sea levels (as Venice, Italy and Jakarta, Indonesia experiences) or fires due to extreme hot and dry weather (as Australia and Russia experiences) but may even result in a different distribution of weights in the world and as a result maybe earthquakes; future will show. But, also and certainly solutions need to be discussed to prevent an apocalypse and that is what I try to do here; yes, it will cost but doing nothing costs much more, financially and in lives while I know that spending money bleeds some people's heart. And, I've these ideas from people who discussed them before.
Greta Thunberg
First a word about the young Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg who gave I think a very powerful speech at the UN during its climate summit that many powerful and ordinary people (men) don't like although it is very rational to demand actions to prevent things will get worse. And, because these powerful people don't like the message this adolescent woman tells although "boring" scientists have spoken about it before, right-wing conservatives say that these movements must be stopped and thus we can expect polices to silence them together with intelligence agencies collecting data of activists as they are considered enemies of the economy.I hope sufficient numbers of people will now accept that actions and thus money are needed - in the first place support from those who are rich enough to help poorer people, the latter are the majority of people as they earn normal and below normal wages.
But, many people condemned her speech as too radical and thus little will change. I acknowledge this response very well, the reason why I start the previous paragraph with "I hope ...". Either speeches are too radical or not radical enough to justify why there is too little progress.
Indeed, she's young and a woman and thus she should not speak to adults as she did, i.e. lecture them. But, it's about her and other children's but even adults' future. Many scientists claim by 2050 climate change will have huge consequences if too little is done while already today we experience nature is different compared with the past. Year 2050 is only 31 years from now, i.e. adults today in their 20s and 30s with young children will be in their 50s and 60s, thus still within their working age while their children will be in their 30s and 40s (Greta will be only 47 years old) who have their own children while grandparents will be in their 70s and 80s. Because, as we live longer more people will live until that year. Many children born now will even still live in 2100, another much mentioned year. Therefore, many will experience what will happen such as higher sea levels and more migration. She and many other children understand this and protest to demand actions because waiting until they are adults with decision powers will be too late.
Further, it's not only about climate change, they also demand a fairer world and not the continuation of overconsumption as is done today; indeed, moderation that makes happy. According some reports (and not by idiots), we only have until 2030 as it seems to go even faster than expected and that means we MUST act NOW because by 2030 most people today will still be alive.
But, many powerful continue to try to convince us that more fossil fuels and minerals such as those under forests and under kilometers thick ice around the poles (e.g. Greenland) are needed and that we even need to go ahead with fracking to have our own fossil gases, even when people oppose it as it will surely pollute water and land because it's done to benefit a few. And thus, in contrast what Greta Thunberg hopes, those people are evil as they know but pretend they do not. And be sure, the old forces will try to oppose and prevent protests that will limit their powers.
Indeed, many opponents of fossil fuels ask more investments in renewables and in such a way that it is affordable for everyone and not only profitable for energy companies and their boards and investors and politicians who support them. It will also provide work as this needs to be built. Also wildlife is under threat as it is not only climate change but more general the exploitation of everything on this planet, from the earth over wildlife up to humans; indeed, according scientists the sixth mass extinction is under way as we all notice the decline in animals and plants while inequality among people increases and angers them, far away and close to home.
Looking away will do little - realising what may come and how fast can result in actions and not only by ordinary people but by the powerful to change the system in such a way to increase solidarity as that is in everyone's interests. That's why it is good that Greta Thunberg warned the current generation who have the power that they should do enough because doing too little and hiding behind the cost of the transition will not be forgiven by future generations. No, she and many others are not hysterical but instead realistic that change is needed, not only to combat climate change but also to have clean air, ground and water and protect the living world to create a fairer world. But, I also understand many people oppose changes and vote for politicians who promise to defend what we have.
Therefore, here some possibilities how I think we can try to slowdown climate change whereby I think we can't limit ourselves to do only a few actions but instead, below actions and many more need to be done together: stop polluting but simultaneously remove pollution from the sky, ground and waters.
(1) Polluters pay
The carbon cap-and-trade system (see explanatory text and video) whereby industries and countries are granted a certain amount of air they can pollute or keep clean while industries and countries that pollute more than allowed can buy air from industries and countries that pollute less than granted so big polluters can increase the amount they can pollute above what was granted but at a cost while cleaner industries and countries can earn from investing in cleanliness. I think this is a good system according the principle that polluters pay those who pollute less. The receiving clean industries and countries can use this money to continue investments in clean development so their pollution levels remain low or help other countries to clean their society. The disadvantage for industries and countries that pollute more than allowed is that less money is available to invest in cleaner industry and society. On the other hand, the high cost of polluting may stimulate these industries and countries to invest more in a clean industry and society so their costs go down and they may even start to earn when they can sell some of their air.At this moment, developing countries, often in warm countries, with less industries and less necessity to heat buildings pollute less and thus can receive money from richer countries that are in the process to convert their industry and invest in a clean industry that is still under development.
However, certain developing countries may pollute more because their industry is outdated and homes are heated with cheap (char)coal; still, international society and certainly countries that earn money by selling air after they invested in clean energy, may decide poorer countries and on condition they can show plans how to clean their society but can't afford it can receive temporarily money to develop this clean environment. However, developed and mainly rich countries with lots of industries are expected to earn sufficient money to buy extra air when they pollute while they should continue investments in converting towards a clean country, also under the pressure of their own electorate who demand clean air, water and land. These countries can also share their knowledge how to be a clean country and industry with other countries and companies. In case developing countries receive money but don't use this to become cleaner and may even become more polluting (such as not helping people to diverse heating away from coal to renewables while the population grows), than they too will have to buy clean air from other countries and thus further impoverish. Countries that continue to pollute may even be punished by receiving fines.
Of course, all countries pollute and therefore, I think it should be a cap per area (e.g. per 10,000 km²) and not inhabitants with a reasonable although achievable low pollution level whereby pollution levels of different regions are summed up to establish the maximum pollution level for larger countries. Countries can attribute maximum pollution levels for each company and building within their territory whereby trade of air can be done between companies within countries or between countries whereby the sum of pollution of all industries and countries can't exceed the total sum for the whole world and as set by the UN. Thus, overpopulated countries will not be allowed to pollute more as the amount to pollute remains the same for a certain area although they can buy clean air elsewhere and thus the urgency remains that those countries invest in clean energy production while people also need to be educated to use birth control to prevent rapid population grow and thus a risk to exceed allowed pollution levels in a certain area. As mentioned earlier, clean countries may decide to help the polluting country as this is in everyone's interests.
This cap-and-trade system should apply to every region in the world via the UN. Of course, countries that pollute more than allowed may refuse to buy air from countries that pollute less but than the UN should be able to fine them such as restrictions on trade with other countries or a minimal influence in international organisations such as the UN. Still, such countries may decide to form a shadow (unofficial) trade organisation that unite polluting countries. Nevertheless, as long as most countries agree to the cap-and-trade system and this within the UN, than most countries can enforce fines on polluting countries that exceed their allocated pollution levels; one day in the future a majority of countries may decide to pollute more than allowed so the cap-and-trade system becomes less powerful although remaining countries that accept the cap-and-trade system may decide to compensate for countries that pollute too much by polluting even less than allowed or cleaning the air as a sacrifise to have a clean world.
Countries and companies that pollute little may also decide not to trade their clean air so pollution levels remain below the maximum set by the UN on condition no-one pollutes more than what is accepted. At the end of a certain time period (e.g. each year, or every few years), a list should be publish that ranks each country from least polluting to most polluting countries and rewards can be granted to countries that pollute little and/or reduce their pollution levels significantly with an incentive such as an extra seat at an UN commission and thus an additional decision power (I think with maximum a doubling above their normal minimum number of seats - which I think should be maximum five for the largest and/or most populated countries). I think no seats below the minimum allocated should be taken from countries that continue to pollute without efforts to clean their society and thus refuse to accept UN decisions; indeed, people may start to leave such countries so population declines and thus also its power in the UN (I think the UN needs to be reformed with removal of the veto right that blocks decision power while grant too much power to certain countries but with more or less decision power for more or less populated but also contributing countries although with a maximum (such as 5 votes) for each country to prevent that certain countries may increase their decision powers by annexing other countries; however, wellbehaving countries should be able to increase their numbers of seats). In the end, overall pollution levels should decline over time when more investment in clean energy (see point 5) and nature (see points 2, 3 and 4) allows a revision downwards of pollution levels.
Of course, not only air needs to be clean but also water and land and thus the above system may also be used to encourage countries and industries to have respect for the environment by using clean technologies to reduce pollution. Yes, in contrast to today when growth is rewarded no matter the cost, respect for the environment and population should also be taken into account and as is happening. Indeed, no-one can still dumb waste in rivers, at least not in developed countries.
(2) Countries cofund to protect existing nature
To tackle climate change but also to preserve nature that includes plants, animals and landscapes, a voluntary gift system can be introduced that countries (with little nature) pay to countries that have lots of nature to encourage those countries to maintain their nature instead of destroying it for quick economic gain while they can invest this money in their (tourism and clean) economy or society such as education, healthcare, research, ... . And although every country can decide to help other countries preserve their nature, it can be expected that mainly wealthy countries donate to help other poorer countries. Countries can decide to donate directly to countries and/or to special international organisations that fund certain communal projects.And example is Ecuador that tried to introduce this system but in the end concluded that the international community gave too little and thus the country decided to exploit the oil reserves in its natural park to be able to reduce its poverty. And yes, how can wealthy countries condemn Ecuador when it chooses for its development when wealthy countries refuse to donate sufficient money? But, I also accept that countries can set such a high price to preserve their nature that countries may decide the price is an excuse to be able to exploit nature and that the money is better invested in a number of projects elsewhere. Indeed, this needs to be assessed for each project to prevent this system can be used to blackmail other countries into giving money.
Giving money can also be linked to buy access to the area that receives money so the region can be studied in collaboration with local research units, helping with the development via education of the region. Further, the money given can also be used by countries to invest in renewables instead of fossil fuels (see point (5)) so they are less dependent on their or others resources while recycling also reduce the exploitation of natural resources as recycling means less new material is needed.
Thus, wealthy but even poor countries can decide to sponsor other countries to help them protect their nature as it benefits the whole world while this way countries receive money to develop intellectual and economical although some controlled destruction may be needed such as for building houses although preferable this is done on previously occupied or less important land and in respect with the surrounding nature (Rio de Janeiro is a good example of a city build around its nature). The money can, in addition to preserve nature, also be used for nature development (see point (4)) although this can result in nature destruction when e.g. certain trees are considered not native.
 |
| In whatever direction you look over Rio de Janeiro from the Christ the Redeemer, you notice Rio de Janeiro has been built along the ocean with plenty of mountains and nature still present, giving it its unique views. |
Of course, countries may refuse to contribute to this gift system when they are not interested in the preservation and restoration of nature (outside their own territory) but then it can hurt as will be discussed in point (3) about nature tourism. This way countries where leaders decide to protect their environment can receive money as a compensation from the international society that will also attract tourists who spend money; this way countries will be able to invest in their development and related economy while donors benefit from clean air and water elsewhere when they visit beautiful nature in other parts of the world. Of course, countries with little nature can also decide to invest more in nature development closer at home (see point (4)). This way, even when countries receive money when they pollute little and sell clean air, they can receive even more when they preserve their nature, via the voluntary gift system and tourism.
Why is it important to talk about nature? Because, it's not only because it is good for our wellbeing where we can relax after a busy life but also because trees and plants both on the land and in water will remove much of the climate gas CO2 from the atmosphere and in exchange release O2, i.e. oxygen in the air that we need in order to live and thus this is a relatively cheap way to remove an important greenhouse gas from the air and this in addition to the use of renewables, recycling and less pollution industries (see point (5)). Animals are also important to maintain nature as often they spread seeds. Of course, active restoration of nature is also possible although I think this should not result in the destruction of specific landscapes such as deserts although of course, preventing that deserts expand is acceptable by preventing the collapse of surrounding nature. But, each country may decide it doesn't want deserts although it can be a booming economy with its own specific nature.
And also individuals may contribute to schemes that fund the protection of nature as is already possible.
(3) Nature tourism
Worldwide people want to visit the wonders of the natural world in addition to beautiful cities. An example is Italy with its beautiful very old cities surrounded with very beautiful nature that attract people who love cities or nature or both. Thus, countries that invest in keeping nature in addition to attractive cities and towns should be able to benefit as described in points (1) and (2) although than they rely on others if they're prepared to buy air or donate money to protect nature. Therefore, in addition and more within countries control, tourism is another way to earn money as people love to go to beautiful places to swim between fish and photograph (and not shoot to kill) wild animals such as elephants and monkeys and the wider world in which they live; it attracts local tourists who spend locally instead of abroad while foreign tourists bring foreign money to the country.Tourists who contribute to schemes as mentioned in (2) or who live in countries that donate money to countries in return to save their nature may have reductions when visiting those countries compared with tourists from countries that don't want to contribute to such conservation schemes. Countries that preserve their nature may also add a charge to visit a nature reserve with a reduction for tourists from countries who donate. This may also increase pressure on governments to donate so their citizens can enjoy cheaper holidays.
Of course, countries that receive donations may decide to charge all tourists the same when they may reason that it is very expensive not to exploit resources. Countries that are serious about nature conservation will still decide to donate money to those countries so they preserve nature for everyone. Still, countries may become more interested to earn easy money by harvesting their minerals and fossil fuels or accept money from other countries and companies to exploit them and allow hunters to kill their animals than keep their nature intact; then of course, countries may decide to stop their donations or continue when that may save some nature.
Nature tourism can also have a dark side when countries destroy to build even more hotels so people can enjoy a few remaining pieces of nature; however, this too can be a reason why countries stop donations when they think too little nature is preserved compared with the focus on the tourism industry (see also point (2)).
Another possibility is that countries decide they want to keep certain aspects of their nature while consider something else as not beautiful or foreign that needs to be destroyed. An example are pine trees that are considered foreign in certain areas because people think they are more for northern countries while they may be relics of old forests from a time when climate was cooler. Indeed, the last trees, even in warm islands such as Tenerife, on mountains before trees can no longer grow are pine trees and thus they are natural throughout the world although they may not be able to grow everywhere, even when we wish. That's why it's wrong that trees are killed in Bruges (Flanders, Belgium) by nature organisations with the argument they are not natural while destroying them also means the disappearance of plants and animals that depend on them. But, ordinary people no longer accept that every nature in Flanders must disappear. I accept that woodland can become too dense when no animals live in them that can eat young trees and thus a few deer and goats can make a different that everyone can agree on. But with too many trees cut, deer also disappear as they need woodlands to hide.
 |
| Pine trees at high altitude in a subtropical island |
Countries can also redevelop lost nature and so gain tourism; the planting of disappearing coral reefs in the waters around Kenya are a good example (see also point (4)).
Some countries may even develop tourism by showing them disastrous industrial sites; Chernobyl is an example where tourists can visit the site of the largest nuclear disaster that also allowed nature, although with mutations, to return and as happens in every civilisation that collapses.
(4) Nature (re)development and maintenance
Countries don't need to rely on other countries for nature and donate indefinitely but can in addition work in their own country on nature development, the least costly but often ignored solution as it earns companies less than when they can sell complicated solutions (best illustrated by a cartoon that shows a person sitting under a tree to protect from the sun versus someone who kills the tree in order to make something others can buy to protect themselves from the sun). Therefore, honour who deserves honour, Pakistan already planned a billion trees and intends to plant more over the next years; indeed, this country already experiences the consequences of a warning planet while has few remaining trees and thus understands it needs them to cool the country. How many did Europe plant versus kill?First, when there is not much remaining nature, the few remaining small areas (with or without trees) should be preserved and not destroyed, certainly when they are bio diverse as newly created nature can take years before they become as bio diverse while destruction of a specific habitat to replace with another may even result in the final loss of certain species when they go extinct. And replacing nature with something that seems to be better may result in failure and thus nothing.
Further, a few different species of trees can be planted while seeds of different kind of (local) plants are sown in some desolate grasslands but I think then nature should be allowed to develop in a natural way so it can become real nature, i.e. diverse. No shortening of grass by machines but instead (controlled numbers of) sheep, goat and cows but even chicken and geese can graze. Most planted trees but also some seedlings will survive to adulthood while others will be eaten. This allows that grasses, flowers and trees compete with each other and animals so a more diverse nature landscape will arise whereby other plants and animals will slowly move into the area, increasing the biodiversity.
Where buildings stand in what is assigned to become nature, these buildings can be bought by governments to compensate the owners after which the buildings are overtaken by plants and trees to allow a specific vegetation while other buildings can be demolished to free space for nature. It may even be decided if considered safe to allow basements to fill with water so they become a place for water animals and plants and some maybe even swimming areas for humans. Doing so, local people can enjoy nature close to home that are located within and surround cities and villages while ribbon development should not be allowed as that cuts through farmlands and nature reserves while it's ugly. Before I published some examples how this can be done.
But, only allowing the return of nature while humans continue to pollute will not suffice to tackle climate change and environmental damage (i.e. waste). Therefore, nature development and cuts in the use of fossil fuels but also waste reduction and collection to recycle as much as possible are needed in parallel.
(5) Renewables, Energy-efficient Equipment and Recycling
Indeed, as described in point (1), a dirty economy and society is costly as air or water needs to be cleaned or bought but also because it makes people ill and destroys nature. And thus it is important to invest in a clean economy and society whereby renewables (including wind, sun and water) should replace as much as possible fossil fuel use while fires that burn wood on a small scale can still be used such as for a barbecue, to warm houses and even to generate some energy if needed as CO2 is used by plants to grow but also to prevent a cooling of the earth (although that may still take a long time to happen when we continue as humans do). Indeed, even nature can have its natural fires during thunder and lightning, burning mainly dry underground while rain keeps the trees wet and prevent their destruction unless it is a dry storm after a longer period of dry weather such as in Australia and its bush fires.Thus, in order to create this clean energy society, governments should help people who needs help to install equipment that produce energy from renewables so we become almost independent from others to produce energy; even the large fossil fuel producer Saudi Arabia is selling part of its company to become less dependent on fossil fuels and to invest in other sustainable energy sources. The help society gives to invest in a clean society doesn't always need to be money but can include laws that favours their installation and use. An example is that neighbours should be able to invest together in solar panels to lower the costs while they can all benefit from its energy production and thus fewer subsidies need to be granted; excess energy produced can be sold to energy companies that sell to those who need more electricity than they can produce such as high apartment blocks or train companies and industries that require lots of energy. In case people or companies receive financial help to install the solar panels than, and as part to repay the investment, they give part of the electricity produced to the company or government that financed (part of) the installation so the company and government can sell or use this energy while those who received financial help repay (with a small interest) the aid of installation. Of course, people may have to buy electricity if they need more than they produce such as during days with little sun. Still, also electricity storage gets better so we no longer need to use the electricity immediately but can use it when we really need it.
Certain countries may not join this move towards clean energies but these can be punished such as described in points (1) and (3). For example, trade may be restricted from countries that decide to continue to pollute and continue to destroy our planet. When countries decide to use polluting industries, not to care about the environment when they extract minerals and thus kill plants and animals but even humans, than it is the right of other countries to decide not to trade. Indeed, the international community may restrict trade in order to force countries to reduce their pollution and show respect to our planet or those countries should accept the consequences of their decision if they refuse to change.
As an example how this could already apply today for countries that breach international conventions: countries that continue to kill whales while the rest of the world wants to see them alive. Indeed, when countries continue to hurt our planet against international agreements so it is illegal, whether those countries signed these agreements or not, than those countries should be able to feel the consequences such as restrictions on trade; in case they want normal trade agreements with other countries than they need to respect decisions from the international community. Thus, it is their choice to have normal relations with other countries or not and, in case citizens of those countries breach international laws than they can even be arrested. Of course, it is always possible a majority of countries may decide to allow hunting; still, in this case individual countries can still decide not to agree and thus not to hunt and try to convince others to care about our planet.
Countries and companies can have rules that favour modern equipment such as promotion of cars, boats and planes that pollute little while heavy polluters need to pay high fees or even be banned to encourage investment in the use of clean equipment (see also point (1)). That also includes a stop on more buildings when it means to destroy nature whereby governments pay the value of ground so people don't lose while it stops that people can still build outside towns and villages so the area can be converted into an area for farming or restoration of nature. It will cost, yes, but to prevent climate change and in addition have a return of nature while enjoy clean air, water and land costs less when done before than repairing damage. I've written about it before.
Thus, car-poor cities. Free space and no ribbon development between cities, towns and villages. Clean air, water, ground, safe streets, nature within and outside cities and villages. Who can oppose unless those who only think about costs and profits? Solar panels, wind and water energy don't always need to be big as thinking in such a way is past because equipments are becoming more energy efficient, can store energy and some can even produce their own energy.
Less energy hungry equipment and better batteries equals we need less energy production; indeed, the inventors of lithium-ion batteries won the Nobel prize because it can store much more energy and I'm sure even better storage will be invented. Techniques are under development that allow more storage of energy produced during the day while many equipment will have their own battery such as today's smartphones and PCs.
 |
| Solar panels on top of bins allow those bin to block themselves when full while they send information to a central point so they know and can send someone to empty the bin |
Also improvements on insulation without the need to have very thick walls also means less energy needs to be produced. Further, better storage of energies we didn't use so they can be used at a later moment. So many techniques.
An example: rivers flow and thus why aren't we using this energy more, even without the need to flood a whole area? Certainly when people produce their own energy, less communal energy needs to be produced. This way we may also need fewer or smaller and more elegant windmills as indeed too many together are scars in landscapes.
Further and as we need materials with as little as possible disturbance of the environment, we need a good recycling industry to recover as much material as possible that we are able to recover while store what is at present not recyclable because future methods may be able to recover them. A society may e.g. demand that recyclable materials are used to pack food while companies need to request approval at a yearly cost when they claim only non recyclable material can be used, therefore forcing companies to invest in recyclable materials or to develop new recycling ways. Further; equipment is being developed to cleanup what is already in the environment such as plastics in water.
 |
| Why do we need in all of these packaging need a fork when many people use their own fork? More efficient would be when forks were placed at the store checkout so only people who need a fork can take one |
Indeed and as the UN published but also the EU accepts: we need to recognise that the new economy creates work because we need to improve buildings, renew cars, trucks, ships and planes, install new energy production equipment while stimulate research to further develop better and smaller energy producing equipment, energy storage and recycling, all for a better future.
In conclusion, the way to finance this is via solidarity, locally and internationally. The rich can pay for themselves so they benefit maximally as they don't need to repay anything while they should pay as everyone their taxes; in addition, they can also help others and receive something in return. Those who can't finance it need help because governments receive taxes. Indeed, Solidarity, the magic word to achieve climate and more general environmental changes that are affordable for everyone.
Comments