Eighth blog, February 21, 2019
Imagine that all scientists are wrong, and that climate change is not caused by the high CO₂ concentration of 410ppm. Suppose climate change is just as real as Santa Claus, but it does not give presents. Imagine that we could have invested all those hundreds of billions in education, health care, innovation of new fossil fuel-free energy, poverty reduction and all sorts of other things, instead of in wind turbines, CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage, see my previous blog) and other expensive, useless, technologies. How we would improve our world!
Or, imagine that all scientists are right and that we should indeed reduce the CO₂ concentration, but that we still want good education, good health care, new sources of energy and less poverty. Would we not be able to achieve that by being smarter?
Yes, that is certainly possible, but here some 'climate experts' stand in our way. In some circles of climate experts the word 'indulgence' is used for this. For them 'reduction' has become the Holy Grail. They want people to stop using fossil fuels, and they want people to solve the problem in their country, and it does not matter what that costs. This belief costs extra money that could be spent on education, healthcare, innovation, poverty reduction and all sorts of other things that are necessary to keep life at the bottom of society bearable. On the other hand, investments are being made in wind turbines and CCS to save us from possible climate change. But do you think it makes a real difference to the CO₂ concentration whether we remove a CO₂ molecule from the atmosphere within or outside the borders of a country? That is why we have to ask ourselves whether 'investing' here is not synonymous with 'throwing away'.
We should actually look together for solutions that provide money instead of cost money. Why don’t we do that? Read in the next blog about 'The territorial CO₂ limitation’ that prevents the growth of wealth.
On 8 October 2018, the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) issued an emergency call to all countries to reduce their CO₂ emissions by at least 50% by 2030. The Netherlands wants to comply with this by means of a Climate Agreement. Pieter Hoff is of the opinion that the Climate Agreement needs additional policies to achieve 0% net CO₂ emissions by 2030 and that this supporting policy can be implemented much more efficiently, quicker and less costly than the current proposals that are included in the proposed Dutch Climate Agreement.