The IPCC: A 'Weather Report' on the Climate Change Talks Today

With the report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued today, the article by the World Review on China conveniently substantiates their findings. In the 2007 assessment it was the US that was seen as the world's top carbon polluter; but now China accounts for a quarter of the emissions. Though, clearly they are the most populated state in the world. 

So to help drive down these emissions what do you think we can do? It is a glorious sunny day but tomorrow might bring the storms of climate change and this is the warning we were looking for.


Money Talks?

According to the IPCC report the changes would be affordable. It would only cost the global economy 0.06% to implement off the global annual growth rates of 1.3 - 3%. Perhaps too far for governments at this time.
Oxfam's climate expert Jan Kowalzig said: "This report puts the fossil fuel companies and their financiers on notice: the era of fossil fuel energy is ending.”

So what next Jan?

Increase a reliance on renewable resources?

The answer to all our problems which is often advocated by the greens on our political plate. Yet the government steak (stake) in the plan has largely been reduced since their devotion to the Green Bank. With 16% agreeing that the Conservatives have completed their goals regarding being the 'greenest government ever', against 46% who disagree, it looks like the party has not become the environment best friend yet.
The appointment of Owen Paterson, a climate-change sceptic, as environment secretary compounds this issue. Paterson said in September 2013: 'People get very emotional about this subject and I think we should just accept that the climate has been changing for centuries.'

Thanks for that Owen!

Dr Stephan Singer, WWF director of global energy policy, states that: "Renewable energy can no longer be considered a niche market. Renewables must – and should – eventually take the full share of the global energy market within the next few decades."

Have a browse around the Natural Resources Defense Council (typical to make it sound like a war) for some work on renewable resources. Interesting analysis of America.

The IPCC is seen the leading voice on Climate Change but needs to consider recent research

What else?

Well we could always resort to pumping CO2 underground? Read the article here. 

Summary

If you want more of an overview then I suggest checking out the report. This is not my area of specialism but has always interested me. Would love the views of all to help develop this discussion. It is obvious that we need to do something but what is still the question we are asking!

The Last Seminar: Democracy's Fall in Turkey

In reflection, my last seminar was a rather daunting yet enjoyable closure to three years of undergraduate study at the University of Exeter. Indeed it followed a similar pattern to all my contact hours, as very few had read the readings, the presentations seemed to drift over the class, and it ended with a rather broad discussion about democracy. If you do not know the readings just ramble on about current affairs, it works every time.

Equally, when stating my views on democracy promotion in the Middle East I caused a little bit of tension as usual. Brilliant. I enjoy when someone in the class decides to make it their mission to prove that you are wrong, and quite often they do this in a somewhat belligerent manner. However, if I have learnt anything in three years it is that facts can be drawn from many different sources, some truthful and other's simply made up with conviction. If you feel that it is wrong then research it, politics students are adept at making things up.

The question was 'Is it right to pinpoint China as the state to democratise?

Basically, should we be embarking on a global policy or targeting China because we believe that once it falls the rest of the authoritarian world will follow?

There are arguments for both sides -

If we succeed will it be a proper democracy? There is difference between having elections and them being competitive, fair, free, and regular. If we based a democracy on simply elections then Afghanistan, Syria, and North Korea are little fledgling democracies. Only this month Kim-Jong-un won 100% of the votes in his district... he must have a superb campaigns team.

Yet, China supports North Korea economically and under a democracy perhaps it may begin to impose sanctions? This would make the regimes stability very weak and may lead to the end of the current dictatorship. The fall of North Korea would weaken the stability of other regimes as North Korea is seen by the international community as the most repressive state.

And so on....

Could this vital trade recede under a democratised China?

So you are probably wondering what I said to ignite the class in fevered discussion?

Simply, I noticed that democratisation tends to follow where American interests lie. Whether that is in South America, the Middle East, or Central Asia. No one disagreed with that. But, when I added that perhaps democracy does not suit the Middle East due to a different culture I may as well have been in court.

'What do you mean?' they heckled. 'You are simply regressing back to orientalist thought.'

However, yesterday I felt vindicated from this onslaught by the Turkish governments attempt to block twitter and YouTube. The AK party, the Justice and Development Party, was heralded as an example that democracy and Islam could work in the Middle East (or Near East). Yet, after this week many have been left wondering whether this will ever become a reality?

So, do you think democracy can work in the Middle East?

As the war rages in Syria, Egypt is unstable, and the Gulf states maintain their rule with the proceeds from oil, democracy's future has never looked more turbulent.

China Reverses the One-Child Policy: Discussion on the Policy and an Ageing Population.

Yesterday, China officially relaxed its one-child policy introduced in 1979 as its unpopularity, gender imbalance and economic factors start to drastically influence the country. Forced and selective abortions and the complications of an ageing population have angered many. Gender imbalance caused by a preference for male offspring will leave 24 million Chinese men without a wife by the end of the decade. Economically, the labour force in China shrank for the first time last year as employers are forced to increase pay to attract employees. So what has stopping over 200 million births achieved? Will relaxed laws encourage parents to have more children? Should the population be considered in greater depth by politicians and the world as a whole?

Abortions

The violation of women’s rights has been a major issue in China. Parents often medically abort babies if they are girls as the parents prefer male children because of an age-old tradition. Essentially, the Chinese believe, as with Western cultures and the name of the family, that the bloodline descends through the males. Also, males were seen as a form of pension for many.

However, sex-selective abortions are illegal in the country, couples face fines for doing it, but experts fear that by cracking down on these abortions could drive the practice underground. It is a tricky situation for the government to handle.

Likewise, if families are unable to pay the 40,000 yuan fine then the baby must be aborted.

This has led to over 336 million abortions.

This harrowing picture of Feng Jianmei, and her aborted child, enraged Chinese citizens. This is the reality for many who are unable to pay the 40,000 yuan fine for a second child.

Ageing Population

China is poised to become an aged society before it is rich enough to support this ageing population. We see similar issues in the UK with the mistreatment of the elderly consistently in the news. The situation in China has been exacerbated by the one child policy coupled with people living longer who are unable to work.

Right, this is going to sound wrong and some may take offence but please bear with me. I realise I am considering some difficult areas of humanity.

So, here goes.

The increasing technological advances in healthcare have been undoubtedly a progression for humankind. But, with this advance has come the ability to keep our loved ones going for longer. Why should we, when we have the relevant technology, witness our parents, grandparents or greatparents die earlier then they have to? As a human I do not, I love my family.

As an outsider, i.e not a human but some form of metaphorical alien, I would disagree.

From the outside, and this is a viewpoint without emotion or empathy, the planet cannot sustain our population. Evidently, restricting parents to one child comes with complications but it has prevented 336 million people being born. Yet, the way it was achieved was unseemly.

Furthermore, if the elderly are assessed against our capitalist system then they are economically inefficient. I feel wrong to class them as that but an outsider may reach that conclusion. This presents difficulties as defining humankind in these simplistic terms presents a conundrum. What about those who are presently unemployed? Do we stop supporting them because they are economically inefficient at that present time? Thus, we must define humans by something more then their economic output. 

What do we assess? What they have done in their lifetimes? How many wars they have fought? How lazy they have been? Consequently, issues are presented when we do not define people economically. Is there a happy (?) medium? 

Moreover, is it right that we prolong the lives of humans beyond what is natural? Though what does natural mean? And, thus should we change our economic model? It is the state that must support the elderly as the children must work to keep the economy going. Those against state intervention must consider this predicament. 

If we continue to define humans economically, just look at the news and you will find this, then these arguments need answering.

Personally, I have witnessed the decline of my grandmother from sweeping the patios 3 years ago at the age of 94 to an inability to remember or function at the age of 97. She is like this because she refuses to take the medicine that will keep her going and I somewhat admire her for it. She repeatedly states that a good diet, a healthy lifestyle and her stubborn attitude is what kept her going. For the most part she is right.

What does all this mean?

• I think we should assess whether our population growth is sustainable.
• Analyse different methods for population control. I do not want to violate free will but merely encourage parents to consider the impacts of population on the world. A child is a gift not a matter of fact and thus the parents should be prepared to support and nurture their children. Of course there are exceptions to this (i.e. rape).
• Assess the states remit and responsibilities for the care of the elderly.

I want to answer these questions so that we understand our commitments to the elderly, the economic factors and the pressures placed upon the next generation. Avoiding this difficult issue will not help the situation.

This Native American proverb surmerises this well:

"Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children."

Gender Imbalance

By the end of the decade 24 million men in China will be without a wife.

Yet, as China has developed economically the issue of gender in the vibrant coastal regions has largely transformed from birth control to other issues. The number of men without wives looks likely to fall in future years.

Further, the Government is trying to promote women’s rights throughout the country with roadside signs telling villagers that girls can continue the family line; focus-group discussions for mothers-in-law; help packages for women starting businesses and extra encouragement for girls to enter schools. Officials have even tried to promote the idea of men marrying into women's families, rather than vice versa.

Likewise, the idea of sons acting as a form of pension is not entirely accurate. This report typifies this:

“Chen admits that she was initially disappointed when her daughter was born. "Of course, I wanted to have a boy. But after giving birth, I thought: 'I don't care. This is my baby,'" she says.

"I looked around me; one of my neighbours had five sons and one daughter. One day, when he was 60 or 70, he wanted some money from his sons for living costs. He cooked a tableful of dishes and bought wine and invited his sons. But none of them agreed to give the money to him. He was furious and smashed the table with his stick. And I thought: 'Well, sons are useless.'"

Meanwhile, she noticed, daughters were returning to visit their parents, bringing gifts and money. Despite strong pressure from her husband and in-laws, she refused to have another child: Qiaoyue was enough for her.”

In fact, based on a sex ratio estimate in 2008 there were only 1.06 male(s)/female.

These progressions are positive for the rights of women and I look forward to seeing further progression.

For more information on abortions and gender imbalance visit this article entitled ‘China’s great Gender Crisis’

Economics

Economically, it is pertinent to discuss the work of Sir Arthur Lewis who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 for his theories of development and its relation to population. Lewis’ “dual sector model” purports that economies advance without triggering inflation because the expanding industrial sector can scoop up labour from the subsistence primary (agricultural) sector. Thus, an unlimited supply of peasants willing to work in factories for low, but not subsistence, wages allows the industrial sector to power ahead by earning, then reinvesting, excessive profits.

However, there comes a time when the supply of surplus labour peters out and developing countries confront a labour shortage. The point at which an abundance of labour is about to vanish is known as a “Lewis turning point”. Among its symptoms: wage increases outstrip productivity, industrial profits decline, investment drops and inflation becomes a threat.

This is exactly what is occurring in China.

Inflation, increases in wages and a strengthening of the reminbi have pushed up the cost of exports from China.

Government sign in Tangshan Township: "For a prosperous, powerful nation and a happy family, please practice family planning." This sign is perhaps a tad simplistic in its conclusions?

Ergo, China’s reliance on a cheap workforce has been undone by its birth control policies.

Questions answered?

I have certainly updated my knowledge on the one-child policy in China. It is important to note that the policy has only been reformed to allow parents with either parent being an only child to have one more child. This means for this present generation most of the couples can have two children.

Furthermore, within China parents are focused on giving their children the best possible future and therefore one-child families are likely to remain. It is seen as a norm rather then an oddity now.

The government of China has been surprisingly understanding in its treatment of gender in the country by promoting the role of women in society.

Regarding abortion it is a predicament that comes with enforcing the policy. The government has to enforce the policy's subsequent fines and forced abortions for it to work and keeping abortions away from the underground system is a good thing. Clearly, by revoking the policy then the abortions would decrease, which we will hopefully now witness.

An ageing population is a predicament that needs to be discussed in all countries of the world. I really feel this is an issue that needs more attention from the media. Rather then focusing on the plight of the elderly we need to assess why they are in this state? The pension system was an inviting concept that failed to fulfill to its promises due to economic pressure. Are pensions beneficial?

Economically, China will now face the consequences of its policy. However, it is good for the rights of workers, their pay and will perhaps slow down the economy.

I would love to hear your views on the one-child policy, the ageing population and why/if you think population is an issue for this generation?