Bali must fix binding emission targets on a per-capita basis to include all countries fairly

One of the major justifications for the US not signing Kyoto is that the treaty does not contain any legally binding emission reduction targets for China and India, although these countries have become respectively the largest and fourth largest emitter of green house gases. India and China – in return – claim that any path of development that would not harm the climate is too expensive for them; the West has to pay for a historical responsibility that stems from its past emissions, which brought about anthropogenic climate change in the first place. In this way the blame is passed from one nation to the other, and in the meantime all three countries keep on increasing their gross emissions.

One of the factors that brought about this tragic ping-pong game is that throughout the negotiations in Kyoto the Annex 1 countries (the industrialised nations with the highest level of greenhouse gas emissions) were not willing to discuss per-capita emission rights. Kyoto left open the question of how much CO2-equivalent countries ultimately have to reduce in their emissions. With the end of the road of emissions reductions deliberately left in the dark, it was consequently not possible to fix how much low-emitting countries could still increase their emissions. When frequently criticising the Kyoto Protocol for its lack of binding emission targets for developing countries, Western politicians seem to ignore that their unwillingness to fix universal emission targets gave birth to this problem.

To address climate change meaningfully, emission restrictions undoubtedly have to be imposed on all countries, including non-Annex 1 countries like India and China. To achieve this, the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali needs to change its negotiation from one about emission reductions to a rights-based approach of maximum allowable emissions. Using ethical decision making systems such as John Rawls' “Original Position”, it follows that such a right for emissions would need to be defined per-capita. Any system that does not allocate per-capita rights of emissions would mean that there would be humans of different values. The world's climate being a common good, all humans have an equal share in it. This is especially relevant as the capacity to emit is a need to produce many types of goods. To allocate more rights to emit to one person compared to another would mean to judge that one person is given a higher capacity to own goods/use services which emit greenhouse gases. So if the international community allowed Country A higher emission rights per citizen compared to Country B, this would mean to establish in international law that Country A is given the right to a higher capacity for wealth than Country B. Of course countries are different in wealth but by fixing carbon allowances differently also the allowed capacities for wealth creation would be influenced. Such a discrimination would clearly be incompatible with the Original Position and also with the Categorial Imperative or Utilitarianism.

If, however, the conference in Bali decided for clear per-capita rights for emission, greenhouse gas emissions could be restricted for all countries. For current low-emitters this would be advantageous in that they would know where the boundaries lie and develop their industries accordingly to maximise the welfare they can get out of their total amount of emission allowances. And for high-emitters like the UK per-capita rights would give certainty as to what value emissions need to be decreased, thereby giving the chance for a more long-term planning both by politics and business. No matter how much a country emits now, under a per-capita rights based scheme all countries would have incentives to reduce their emissions. Furthermore per-capita emission rights would provide the basis for real international emissions trading. There would be legally binding emission targets also for China and India just like the USA demanded. And – satisfying China and India's common argument that sustainable development would be too costly for them – the cost of this change would be reduced through real participation in one international emissions trading market.

Concluding, through per-capita emission rights the major arguments for inaction of these three top emitters could be resolved and climate change be mitigated both efficiently as ethically if the conference next week in Bali makes the right steps.

- by Dirk Heine

Podcast: Dialogue & Discourse (Dafur Radio Project)

In this podcast, the Darfur Radio Project examines ways in which the world thinks about and responds to the conflict in Darfur. We hear about current discussion surrounding the role of climate change in Darfur. And, how do experts define the crisis--is it genocide? Then, we take a critical look at one possible solution--the divestment movement. Finally, who's who? This month, a profile of President Omar al-Bashir.
Click the title to download the podcast.

The Darfur Radio Project is a monthly radio broadcast that explores the historical, political, economic, and social contexts of the conflict in Darfur. Using personal stories as well as critical analysis, we aim both to introduce listeners to the complexities of the situation in Sudan and to give them the tools to effect change. We believe that education, good information, and analysis will play an important role in the search for sustainable, long-term peace in Sudan.

Aiming for Peace

That's it, you can do it. Just a little more now, pull a bit harder... BAM!

the green figure slams forcefully into the ground as the bullet rips through

the cold green steel plate... BAM!

another smashes into a paper figure that looks suspiciously like a Russian soldier from the 70's, and is for some bizarre reason referred to as Ivan or Boris most of the time. One down and closer to peace. BAM! another one down and closer still. At least we produce bullets faster than we make enemies (for now we do)

”He can't even use the radio, but he's a damn fine shoot! just what I want from a medic, keep up the good work soldier!” A flash of colour, perhaps even true colours, but it doesn't last for more than a second as the major then goes on;

”We need to be there, for the people who are suffering, that's our purpose, but please remember they are your enemies”. A conflict of interests if ever there was one. They are worth as much as any of you, but do remember, they are all scumbags who can't be trusted.

Go on do it, sign it, you can do it, it's just a splash of ink... Why would you care? SCREECH The pen of a student signing a petition against an oil-giant drilling for oil in Nigeria.

We made a difference, yes we did, that's what we tell ourselves when we sent 1005 copies of a black and white printed letters in swollen words to a company board, but did that make them think twice about what they were doing? No, they were probably thankful, because now they didn't have to use their own oil to warm their office, and never mind the expenses on toilet paper.

But at least there was a will. Or was it someone else's will? Did you even stop to think about what you signed?

-Nah! It was too long, I was in a rush, but I'm sure it was for something good, at least it said amnesty at the top.

A drop of colour, maybe red, but your blood was blue, was it not?

Yes, now you did your part for the world, what would it do without you and your support? All those profound personal letters will sway the hearts of the oil-giants! And if not... We could always torch it! I mean... It's by no means we who give them that power, by turning on the lamp, cramming out full effect from the heater, or making a tropical paradise into a walk-in freezer with 12 air-conditioners at the same time? Not to mention how utterly important it is to get everywhere! Sure we care, we just don't care enough to give up OUR comforts.

-I for one would never give up my comforts, a soul dark as tar, not from smoking though, at least not my own smoke.

But did we really want to help people, or did we want people we could help, things to care about? We thirsted for someone to say, oh my god, so righteous, so good. We longed to see the disabled kids every Thursday so that we would know that we were not one of them. As long as it was just playing in the park with them or feeding them it was ok, but if they needed to go to the toilet or threw a tantrum (or threw up for that matter) the old ladies taking care of them would come scurrying to comfort them, and we would pat our own backs and say;

- you did well, he didn't pee on himself (or you) before she came, you did well, you can't be expected to be able to calm him down, he's re... mentally handicapped for heavens sake!' and yes, you managed to look your best throughout the whole endeavor.

Sometimes I wonder what is best, having the will to change but being capable of nothing or having the strength to change, doing so but not really caring.

BAM!

"YOU'RE SHOOTING TOO SLOW!"

-Yes, how can we ever hope to preserve the peace if we can't kill them fast enough? and if shooting them creates the enemy, well then you better be fast on the trigger so that they don't grow faster than you shoot!

*reflection... is that really true? oh well, they told me to shoot didn't they? and that's what I like best. If this is helping I kinda like it, come out come out wherever you are!

-Have you thought this through?

- Yes!

-I mean Really thought this through?

-YES!

-So... what are you waiting for?

-oh, right...

BAM! one down, BAM! two... god, so many terrorists... and now they've taken to wearing skirts and carrying children too... but you won't fool me, I can see right through you! Oh, not that one... can't see through her... what to do? BAM! oh! now I can! I knew there was a way!

If they were civilians they would have told us, right?

At least you're not told to think in the military, you're actually told not to.

So who's to blame for the world of today with all its horrors? Who bears responsibility for the disastrous condition of the global society? Or is there actually something wrong at all?

When asked the vast majority of this world would like to see peace on earth, when asked they support equality, you would be deemed a mental case if you said anything else.

But can this world hold such things? Is it even possible? What would we care about, what would we work for if where it got us was the same place as we started? I think these problems are needed, both as a point of reference, so that we may know that we are better off than others, but also as a cause. We want to feel important and acknowledged. It's a human drive and it's what keeps us moving forward. It sure has been the reason for many struggles and horrible things, but without it we would be nothing. We need the problems of this world to feel alive and thus I believe that we are all part of these conflicts and that there is no final solution that will lead to an end of all inequality and injustice, it's just human.

by Joakim Pettersson

Post-Humanism II

It has been a month, and we have had ample time to consider what is, and what is not moral in our pursuit of posthumanism. Our definition of the posthuman must first agree (and I always enjoy quoting myself):

The Post-human is described as -in evolutionary terms- a being whose qualities exceed that of present man and, that said being can no longer be classified as such (human) for he/she/it has transcended the homo sapien. This all sounds like normal, proper evolution yes, but this Post-human being -by definition- must have at one time existed as a human but has since transcended this classification by application of mechanical and genetic components which have greatly advanced its abilities. Any human whom has been improved by nano-technology, genetic manipulation, life extension therapies, etc. but has not advanced beyond the universal definition of humanity (what ever that is) is dubbed a transhuman: that is someone in the transitional phase between the two classifications, owning elements of each.

We run into many dangers in the argument for, or against, Post-human, many of the arguments involving definitions, and sly maneuvers around the proper subject. Firstly, there is a danger even using the term Post-humanism, for this implies that this is some movement post dating humanist thought. We are not discussing humanism by any means, although the idea that humans are so important that they can supersede themselves does seem to be a thought strain engendered by humanist waffling. In fact, transhumanism is considered an outgrowth of secular humanism.

Transhumanists believe, as a generalization, that human improvement technologies should be widely accessible and available. Although these transhumanists believe that dangers lurk in the advancement of humans, they believe the pros outweigh the cons. So what are the Pros?

There are possibilities for the Trans-human and Post-human in increased longevity i.e. immortality (perhaps in someway unimagined), increased intellectual faculties, the ability to halt, stifle, or manipulate emotion, and an ability to cohabitate wider ranges of environmental platforms, indicative of an increased separation from normal biometric function. The main worry of this, which is voiced by many in the bioconservative camp, including writers and academics such as Leon Kass and Wesley Smith, is that the processes involved here could possibly be dehumanizing.

The word dehumanizing is misplaced. Post-human endeavors are dehumanizing, and that is the point, to move the current race beyond its faults and foibles. Perhaps a better way to express this fear is the concept that post humanism undermines our inherent human dignity – another humanist theorem – and that letting go of things that make us human under current definition might destroy what is valuable in being a human.

So it seems the argument is between Science and Philosophy, both in their own ways a sort of religion. So what we are really talking about here, and this is the crux of the matter, is whether or not it is ok, right, or even wise to play God with our own evolution. Should we, as a people, not just say God is dead, but also say God is dead but don’t be bummed, my buddy here has a few gizmos and a costume beard – couldn’t he just take over?

Now it isn’t as simple and rudimentary as that, not so cut and dry. The main focus here should be – and it is in many bioconservative papers – is that a appreciation of human nature, and our defenses against the dangers of being such at present is too general. We are a people with a well developed society, with fail safes in place for a great number of the population – far more than any other time in history – to live in peace with little distress. Yet – and this is important – we still fail to be happy, to take full advantage of these gifts and to improve upon the society we have gone so far to build. We have the opportunity provided us by invention to run away and cower, to turn our back on the redeeming qualities of human kindness and charity, and become enhanced mechanically, rather than spiritually. This is not just improvement of body and mind, this is a dumping of all previous human baggage and evolution – a fresh start. For some this may be appealing, and is in the case of the Transhumanist, but the Transhumanists run the danger of becoming worshipers of a Utopia unfounded i.e. because we have been enhanced by technology racism, disease, death, rape, plunders and war will cease to exist. That everything we have ever feared will be no more.

Since we are afraid of the dark then, should we turn on the light? Is it right in every situation, or are we being wasteful, using resources to much, burning up the planet, burning up ourselves? Is it too presumptuous to believe that because of a few man made and most likely fallible devices man will overcome all things which have plagued him since the beginning of his existence? This is the argument of the transhumanist! How amazing! How fantastical! I query as to whether the rise of the Posthuman may come peacefully. Will it truly come to pass without a smear against the so called peaceful dignity we will achieve with enlightenment? Would there not be violence in relation to those who choose the path of this so-called improvement, and those who do not? Would one side not defend their right to choice? Would they co-exist, or is the term posthuman in fact an ominous premonition of the fate of those who choose to conserve their individuality.

There is a quote from Leon Kass which goes:

the final technical conquest of his own nature would almost certainly leave mankind utterly enfeebled. This form of mastery would be identical with utter dehumanization. Read Huxley’s Brave New World, read C. S. Lewis’s Abolition of Man, read Nietzsche’s account of the last man, and then read the newspapers. Homogenization, mediocrity, pacification, drug-induced contentment, debasement of taste, souls without loves and longings – these are the inevitable results of making the essence of human nature the last project of technical mastery. In his moment of triumph, Promethean man will become a contented cow. (L. Kass 2002: Life, Liberty, and Defense of Dignity: The Challenge of Bioethics. P48)

This brings us to interesting territory. Is there not evidence in our current use of technology which proves the possibilities of the deterioration of human dignity? Perhaps the internet – not always a bad tool, nor such a terrible resource – is breaking down communities, wiring us up, making us more intelligent, making us intelligent to a fault, bringing us to a point where little joy can be got from life when not constantly turned on? Is this not a drug, pacifying rumbling souls? Is this not encroaching upon our carefully developed human pride with silent but deadly piano wire?

And violence does encroach daily upon us. How many men have we seen shot on a television, how many sex scenes have we seen and how many people have we ourselves blown to pieces in a video game. There is the old adage querying whether without movies we would know how to cry and perhaps it is true. Perhaps we already know little on feelings, and have begun the first tragic steps towards the Posthuman.

If viewed in such a manner it seems we are living in a new age, one of the Post-romantic, where human interaction is no longer involving the senses, feelings, and souls, but rather simple exchanges of information. Our synapses are turned on by flashing lights, we salivate when presented with conditioned material such as adverts and we express feelings under the same conditioned experiences. Our moods are aroused by imaginary quantifiers such as video games and technology, movies inform our behaviors and I’ll be so bold to say that art has become a commodity, so part of everyday life that instead of inspiring, it is dulling the senses (this is said in generality, for there are still artistic materials which challenge and inspire).

If this is so, with the little technology we currently have at our perusal, will we become homogenized? Will so many peoples personalities be put through a blender then shot into a giant computer for the sake of ‘human advancement’? For knowledge beyond our own? For life immortal? We do not know how to use the knowledge we have now. Will becoming posthuman flip and switch and make us fully cognitive of ourselves and the limitations we have? And if it does, will we be able to do anything about it?

No. The resounding answer is no, and we should focus now, in all days ahead, on what we are doing here; that is exploring the psyche of man, discovering new layers, making ourselves better without false layers of man made material, without quick fixes. There is a danger of destroying something truly grand in us because of our bravado, and our inability to see the right and true aspects of what the humanists lied down as a manifesto is dooming us to a lukewarm existence where the senses are extinct and we live as pulses along a wire.

Respond to this article at horatiotigre@googlemail.com

By Horatio Tigre

Your Milkshake Brought Me To This Yard

Last Tuesday I suffered a rare glimpse of lucidity through a misty gin-soaked haze whilst lying next to a man I thought was a terrier but who was actually an umlaut. This is wrong I thought, it’s all wrong, it shouldn’t be like this. This has been going on too long. “What are you referring to?”, came a voice from my iPhone, apparently Garth was listening to the whole thing, “Waking up next to an umlaut?”. “No, the British Legal System. It’s negligible. But…when did I get an iPhone? This isn’t my beautiful wife?” I say ‘glimpse’ because it was now that I fell back into my drunken nightmare (like a willow) and lost control of my conscious self-hood. There are photographs of I, complicit in crimes of passion somewhere outside Sao Paolo, but they are but a bagatelle.

Needless to disclose, the iPhone were actually a phone box and I have no wife. No need to display sympathy, I have no wife because I am repulsive. And a braggart.

Regardless, my reason for today putting fingertips to computer bits is thus. During my travels I have related to myself a utopian model for law giving-ness thus titled ‘The System of Gratitudinal Sin Balancing.’ Being no stranger to a sin-bin or two I know first hand the berry serious deficits of the currant bunishment system. In this isolated island of a world we live in that we have sometimes frequently left to beat up other people, and which we once did send lots of prison-ish bastardlies away from to Oz, we are barking up a tree so wrong its probably… not even a tree.

What is missing, my pie in the sky, is a sense of reward for tasks of kindnessness and generosity. Once upon a time we had religion to keep the unwashed in check, but now that God’s a metrosexual, and Tom Cruise is gay, there’s no one to rely on for salvationist treats and paradisiacal redemption. Who’s gunna give you a sticker for helping the old female across the street? Not even David Cameron! He’d sooner pat your sexyback for assaulting her so as to look street-ish, iz it - wurd. And what about the prison ships fulla nesbitts and penny snatchers and whoremongers? We can’t keep feeding ‘em our juicy money biscuits! Not with my tixes. (tax that!)

Ay no. Here’s a rub. I would be good if I got a reward! Like a dog. Like, I’m like a canis, not I’d like a canis. Bad for the fleas. So…there’s all these people who want to do good if only they could…for example they’d love to make shoes for disabled children but they’re too busy earning monetary to pay for Trident/NHS and there’s all these young dudes in prison…see where I’m going? You are quick as a flamingo. I proposing have Courts of Law pass judgement on how nice people are as well as evil, and designate candy-coloured convicts to their services accordingly! “Mr. Ginger, for saving Jane Seymour’s life I sentence James ‘Trotsky’ Kleinberg to do your washing for 3 years”. BANG BANG BANG! Imagine, all over the Isles, burglars doing the gardening, murderers getting the spuds in, drug-dealers feeding the cats, rapists putting up flat-packs, arsonists entertaining the kids and token Muslims stocking the fridge! The money we’d save on cheap labour. She loves a bit of it and that’s totally all right.

I hear you SCREAM and my ears bleed gin ‘n’ ketchup. Yes, you foresee the safety danger of the scenario thus yes? Give a burglar a trowel?! Rapists in IKEA? Totally un-Swedish! Give the nice man Mr. Ginger a gun and if the burglar gets frisky/Tyskie shoot the silly boy. But you knows the smarts? Nice man Ginger, now murderer, increase work force yes! Fail safe goodnight. It’s a system of revolutioniteless. its getting dark out here…..whence forth dizzzzzeeeeee fruitless campaign.for love. And mutuwal, banl , respect, one worldturnthelightoffiwannastayherefuckoff.fuckoffisnotfuneee

G’night. If yer dryv’n oome t’nigh dun f’git y’car.

by Ethical Andy