Tomorrow, March 27, people around the world will celebrate Earth Hour, a global event organised by WWF. At the appointed hour on this day, cities worldwide will turn off all non-essential lights to express their concern for the environmental challenges our planet faces.

Malaysia is expected to play its part in this event by switching off the lights on such iconic buildings as the Petronas Twin Towers and Menara KL. Supporters of the event stress that its significance lies in the way it symbolises people’s willingness to combat climate change.

But is that really what Earth Hour will symbolise?

In conjunction with Earth Hour, many businesses and organisations have planned a wide range of events and activities. The National Space Agency (Angkasa), for instance, is encouraging people to make “Earth Hour Lanterns” and create designs by lining up candles. The whole atmosphere surrounding Earth Hour is one of festive fun — and it certainly cannot be denied that holding candles in the dark makes for some enchanting photographs.

Unfortunately, however, participants will overlook the deeper meaning of Earth Hour. They will take it for granted that turning the lights out for an hour is an easy and enjoyable way of taking part in a noble cause.

Yet once Earth Hour is over, the lights will come back on, cars will start up for the journey home — and at home, people will more than likely take for granted the value of their many modern gadgets: from refrigerators to TVs; fans and air-conditioners to desktop computers. What they will have failed to realise, most crucially, is the true nature of the environmentalist cause that they are supporting.

The environmentalist movement claims to be working for the benefit of mankind, since, as we have all been told, the human race as a whole must ultimately suffer if we fail to look after our planet. What most people do not appreciate, however, is that the environmentalists’ disdain for technological progress — and more generally, just about any carbon-emitting process — is itself a position incompatible with the wellbeing of human life.

While virtually everyone today is familiar with the message to save the planet, far too few of us are aware of what history has to teach us about the value of industrial civilisation. Even a fairly casual survey of human history shows us that life before the industrial revolution consisted of endless, backbreaking physical toil, constant famine and widespread disease. With the advent of the industrial revolution, the lives of millions of human beings — at least within the civilised world — became longer, more plentiful, and much more enjoyable.

Today, we have the great innovators of that period to thank for the many conveniences we enjoy in our daily lives. It is only because the thinkers and producers — the scientists, inventors, engineers, and businessmen — who came before us sought to improve their lives by moulding and reshaping their environment that we are able today to enjoy the comfort of automobiles and the ease of lighting our homes with the simple flick of a switch.

This is the broader context that is all but ignored in today’s discussion of our environmental impact. Maybe our high levels of energy consumption are contributing to a warmer climate; maybe they aren’t — but the point that we must bear in mind is that without the trappings of modern industrial society, death and suffering are guaranteed.

The message that Earth Hour sends out is simple and seductive. But before rushing to join in the party, how many people will pause to ask themselves what life would look like without lights, electricity, and technology — not for one hour — but for an entire month, week, or even day? How many will consider the harsh consequences of a life without safe, efficient lighting; without microwaves and gas and heated water; without any of the time-saving, labour-saving products that characterise modern industrial civilisation?

The symbolism associated with Earth Hour is indeed very powerful. The effective imagery of the beautiful KL skyline being literally plunged into darkness — not to mention satellite pictures of a darkened, seemingly-uninhabited Earth — should leave us with no doubts as to the actual meaning of Earth Hour. Yet, far from eliciting a sense of angry defiance, or even concern, Earth Hour gives us the disturbing spectacle of people celebrating the extinguishing of our lights.

The age-old symbolism attached to the imagery of light has always been that of the good; that of progress and enlightenment. Earth Hour’s symbolic extinguishing of light is therefore an all-too blatant assault on human achievement and the glory of industrial civilisation. Anyone truly concerned with the welfare of mankind should refuse to endorse such an event — and reject completely the environmentalist ideology upon which it is premised.

Kwek Kon Yao is a Fellow at the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS;
www.IDEAS.org.my).
Some of his articles can also be found in Malay at AkademiMerdeka.org.

Link: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/opinion/kwek-kon-yao/57582-turning-out-the-lights-on-civilisation

The European Union is funding some of the most powerful environmental NGOs in Brussels – while in turn, they lobby the EU for more money and influence.

LONDON, 8 MARCH — A new report published today by International Policy Network finds that between 1998 and 2009, the European Commission’s environment unit has handed out over €66 million in core funding to green NGOs.

The report – “Friends of the EU” – analyses one coalition of green NGOs called the “Green 10” and finds that its members receive hundreds of thousands of Euros each year from the EU.

• Nine out of the Green 10 receive funds from the Commission.
• Eight members receive one-third or more of their income from the Commission.
• Five of those – which include the European Environmental Bureau, Friends of the Earth Europe and the Health and Environment Alliance – rely on the Commission for more than half of their funding.

The Green 10 has consistently lobbied the EU for yet more money and power.

• The Green 10 lobbied to “green” the EU’s Cohesion Fund, which distributes about €50 billion to projects in the EU every year.
• The Green 10 demanded a seat for an environmental NGO on every single project committee, the reimbursement of expenses, as well as training and capacity building.
• Having failed to obtain these self-serving demands, the Green 10 is already lobbying in anticipation of the 2014-2020 budget.

Caroline Boin, co-author of “Friends of the EU,” said:

“The EU is buying itself the illusion of democracy by funding large green lobby groups – all at the expense of European citizens. This self-serving scheme will do little to calm public anger at the EU’s democratic deficit.”

Notes

The report is available here: http://policynetwork.net/accountability/publication/friends-eu

This report analyses one programme of funding, in which DG Environment (the division of the European Commission responsible for environmental affairs) distributed over €66 million to environmental NGOs between 1998-2009.

The grants the Green 10 receives from the EU have increased significantly between 1998 and 2009: by 900% for Birdlife Europe and 325% for Friends of the Earth Europe between 1998 and 2009.

Julian Morris: The premise of Copenhagen was always dubious. Some non-government organisations have billed it as the last chance to save the planet from anthropogenic global warming. Vested interests – such as those who have made money from the European emissions trading scheme – saw it as an essential vehicle for  perpetuating their business models. Both groups want binding restrictions imposed on future carbon emissions. But the economic cost of such restrictions would likely be far larger than the benefits. Given that premise, it would be better if Copenhagen were to end with no agreement.

Of course, it could have been otherwise: the Framework Convention on Climate Change requires parties to seek cost effective ways to address climate change. In principle, actions could be taken to reduce barriers to adaptation, for example. Many of these would cost little and would have significant advantages. But those barriers to adaptation often benefit the elite in poor countries. In Ethiopia for example, restrictions on property ownership and trade reinforce existing power structures. Foreign aid has a similar effect, since elites are able to use it to insulate themselves from democratic accountabilty. Indeed, it is no surprise that the version of adaptation promoted by political leaders in Copenhagen focuses only on what can be done by central government through aid-funded projects.

Given those political realities, the absence of substantive agreement during the first week is probably a good thing. The question is whether the stand-off can hold out till the end, or whether political leaders will feel obliged to agree to do “something”, no matter how counterproductive.

Julian Morris is an economist, author and director of The International Policy Network.

Commenting on today’s walkout by African nations at the Copenhagen COP15 climate meeting, Barun Mitra, director of an Indian NGO attending the Copenhagen negotiations and representative of the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change, stated:

“Today’s walkout at the Copenhagen climate conference is purely a negotiating tactic because there’s so much money at stake. Copenhagen is no longer about climate — it’s about cash and corruption, both for poor and wealthy countries. By accepting restrictions on carbon emissions in exchange for cash, the world’s poorest countries are offering to prevent growth and perpetuate poverty. Ultimately, this could be a tragic repeat of the aid industry in the 1960s and ‘70s, when the leaders of some of the world’s poorest countries stuffed their Swiss bank accounts — all in the name of the poor.”

The offers countries made on emissions reduction prior to Copenhagen appear to be insufficient to prevent a 2-degree global temperature rise. Should industrialised nations or developing countries be expected to raise their offers first?

Julian Morris: Neither rich nor poor countries should “raise their offers”. We do not yet know enough about climate processes to say what level of greenhouse gas concentrations would result in a global mean temperature rise of 2-degrees. Nor do we know whether 2 degrees warming would be “dangerous”.

For mild warming, adaptation is almost certainly the most cost-effective option. It is feasible that humanity could adapt at relatively low cost to a warming of 4 degrees (see e.g. the various reports at www.csccc.info). But for that to be possible, it is essential that existing barriers to adaptation be removed; especially restrictions on trade and weak property rights.

Worryingly, the introduction of restrictions on emissions of greenhouse gases, as well as further transfers to the governments of poor countries (including those done in the name of “adaptation”, or through REDD) would likely inhibit adaptation at the individual level.