To say that expectations were low for last week’s Durban climate conference would be an understatement. The possibility that the talks would produce any semblance of a legally binding deal compelling member states to reduce carbon emissions seemed so remote that any progress, no matter how perfunctory, would seem like a victory. The talks were by no means a victory, but nevertheless a deal was reached. Even if it was just an agreement to one day make a legally binding deal. So we have a deal to agree a deal, that would be fine if anthropogenic climate change wasn’t a rather pressing issue – again, an understatement.

David Attenborough's Frozen Planet series has attracted recent controversy. Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk

The presumably purposeful synchronisation of Attenborough’s latest awe-inspirer Frozen Planet with the conference, could have created a ‘perfect blizzard’ for momentum to build, and for progress to be made. This potential was never realised however, and press coverage instead focused on Canada’s unpopular decision to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol, and the controversy regarding the decision not to show the final climate change orientated episode of Frozen Planet in the USA, although it has since been announced that the series will be shown in its seven-part entirety.

Both of these issues are deeply troubling. The Kyoto protocol is the only existing legally binding treaty enforcing a reduction in emissions and so for Canada, as a nation with a hefty supply of oil, to pull out, sets a poor precedent. The protocol is incompatible with Canada’s future plans to extract oil from their tar sands, an unconventional source of oil, which takes substantially more effort than extracting ‘normal’ oil and so will result in higher greenhouse gas emissions. This is in contrast to the ease with which Canada ‘extracted’ itself from the Kyoto protocol, highlighting a major shortcoming of ‘legally binding’ treaties – they’re not strictly speaking ‘binding’.

Footage of polar bear cubs were supposedly deceitful being filmed in a zoo. Source: BBC

Now that we have our deal to make a deal on reducing emissions, the process is postponed and a treaty will most likely not be written until 2015, and will not come into effect until 2020. Apathy from the (global) general public to the line from scientists that action will be coming ‘too late’ is abound, but when it comes to this quite pressing issue, there’s no time like the present. When a treaty is eventually written, there’s no guarantee all the member states of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) will agree to sign and be bound by it.

In order to set a quota for greenhouse gas emissions, it first must be determined how much a given country currently emits. A major problem arises when it comes to assigning ‘ownership’ of emissions to countries. It’s all very well basing it on a per person basis to account for differing population densities but this doesn’t take into consideration key cryptic factors. For instance historical emissions (the sum total of a country’s emissions over time) are neglected, which are larger for example in western countries such as the USA or UK. The per capita approach also fails to incorporate emissions produced in countries such as China, which are the so-called ‘factories of the world’, in that much of their emissions are produced through the course of producing goods for export to other countries. Which countries do these emissions ‘belong’ to?

 

The Maldives - set to become the first carbon-neutral country. Source: http://www.maldivestourism.net

The complications of a global legally binding treaty are numerous and so some commentators are questioning the necessity of such a deal. Is it enough for individual countries to act independently and set their own quotas? In practice this is probably just  as unworkable, if not worse, than a global treaty. But just as Britain has recently shown itself to be a lone ranger in Europe, it could now also take the initiative,  go against the grain, and bypass a climate treaty by drastically cutting its emissions – following in the carbon footprints of the Maldives, set to become the first carbon-neutral country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eighteen years ago, the eminent conservation biologist Gary Meffe warned of what he considered to be the greatest problem in human history – humanity’s inexorable and exponential increase in numbers.

Meffe’s paper, entitled ‘Human Population Control: The Missing Agenda’ published in the journal Conservation Biology, outlined the threats posed by an ever-increasing human population to biodiversity in terms of species extinctions, and to the ecosystem services necessary for our survival. These include water and air purification, hydrologic cycling and food production. Not only is humanity’s deluge drowning the creatures we share the Earth with, but it also runs the risk of submerging itself too. But was this ‘missing agenda’ acknowledged? Was a dam constructed to stem our exponential flow?

The overpopulation zeitgeist. Source: http://www.opinionniche.com

Nearly two decades later and we see the publication of the UN’s State of World Population report 2011. It announced that on October 31st we reached the population milestone of seven billion people inhabiting our world. Instead of warning of future population growth and the associated negative impact, it had a more positive tone that encouraged us to ask “What can I do to make our world better?” rather than “Are we too many?” This is the United Nations after all, and understandably it has to take a progressive and reassuring stance rather than one of doom and gloom. But the angle taken is perhaps revealing of the prevailing attitude of the global collective consciousness – population growth is inevitable and cannot be stopped. Of course there’s no such thing as a global collective consciousness, explaining in part why Meffe’s view has been largely ignored, because humanity lacks a collective impetus and so anything that requires mass cohesion, for instance only having one child or reducing carbon emissions, is doomed to fail.

Source: http://www.susps.org/overview/numbers.html

Seven billion people – it’s enough to make you feel insignificant. Except it’s not, it’s just a number. A very big number too large to visualise, grasp or comprehend. Incidentally, if you’re ever having trouble feeling insignificant, then listen to what the ‘Woody Allen’ of science, Lawrence Krauss has to say. In his recent lecture on cosmic connections for The School of Life he stated that “you are much more insignificant than you thought” before going on to compete with Brian Cox for the title of  ‘King of making outlandish profound points’, by explaining how we are all quite literally “made of stars”. Every atom in our bodies comes from the remnants of an exploded star. It turns out Moby was right (see video below).

This digression aside, the ineffably large human population will continue to increase and even if we wanted to implement population control, doing so would be unethical and practically speaking impossible. Very few people, not even many devout conservationists, would be willing to sacrifice the right to have children. I for one wouldn’t, it is in our evolutionary spirit.

Raising awareness of contraception as a method to stem the human tide.

Instead of tackling the so called ‘root cause’ of the population problem by implementing unrealistic, unfavourable, and unwanted population control, efforts have been directed at addressing offshoot issues such as those relating to overconsumption and overexploitation of natural resources. If we can adopt new cleaner technologies and practices to ensure our impact on the environment is neutral or at least negligible, it will be a step in the right direction.

Just this week the production of a ‘microbial fuel cell’ has been announced which can purportedly produce electricity from human urine! Researchers at the University of the West of England (UWE) have found that by utilising anaerobic bacteria as they metabolise organic waste waters, electrons can be harnessed and useful electricity generated. By ‘useful’ it is meant that enough electricity would be generated to charge a battery say, but presumably not enough to heat a home for instance, yet.

For now, no one is suggesting this is the answer to the world’s problems, but switching to technologies that rely less on finite Earth resources and more on recycling waste products will help ameliorate the effects our species has on the planet. Unfortunately though, those who sing the praises of such advances are often branded with the stigma of being too ‘preachy’. Increasing public apathy to important issues such as clean technology, climate change and biodiversity decline should be at least as worrying to everyone as financial crises or global terrorism.