Edenhofer sheep-dipped Jesuit behind the climate hoax
Ottmar Edenhofer, deputy director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
02/12/2011 · 07:50 clock
According to the nominee director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Ottmar Edenhofer the UN climate conference barely makes sense. It would make sense to shrink the circle of participants in the negotiations on the largest industrial nations and emerging countries.
Nana Brink: Starting this week, climate experts and politicians gather in Durban, South Africa to the UN climate conference. The climate there is not much better than the euro, also here we sit, therefore, to save what can still be saved. And time is short indeed: Recently the U.S. Department of Energy reported that in 2010 the world as much CO2 was emitted as never before, and the world’s thirst for energy continues to grow. But because of climate change grows the right hunger. Can there be any more in future prosperity, especially in developing countries, if one disregards the natural way?
It is with this central question, there is a new institute deal, which has established this week, namely the Research Institute for common goods and climate change, and on the phone now is the designated director Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer, also a Vice Chief of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research . Good morning, Mr. Edenhofer!
Ottmar Edenhofer: Good morning!
Brink: If we just look to Durban – you have the impression that policy and environmental-friendly and effective enough to hand?
Edenhofer:. The conference in Durban is a dead end, as is generally the climate negotiations now reached an impasse, and if you listen closely, you also say those who run long this climate negotiations that we consider here a new format must be because We really can not otherwise hope that we will come in the next few years to an effective and equitable climate.
Brink: Is this the reason why you have formed a new institute?
Edenhofer: Yes, it is the reason, but now are not the stalled negotiations alone, but it is rather that we believe we need a change of perspective. For the 19th and 20 Century, just as capitalism was, if you will, very successful, because there’s been such a thing as private property and competition and rivalry, and we just believe that the prosperity of the 21st Century will depend more strongly that it is about community assets rather than just the security of private property rights, that it is not just about competition, but also to give, especially cooperation. And we want this institution to give this paradigm shift that is already underway and is also necessary to support scientifically.
Brink: The institute is research institute for public goods and climate change. What are public goods?
Edenhofer: Yes, in this context, the atmosphere is a commons, because yes, we use the atmosphere as a garbage dump, where everyone is allowed to accumulate as much as he wants, and at some point this dump full. This is the classic problem of a good community that use it all up, and the fact that it can use all that you can use freely without rules, without reasonable access conditions, it comes just at the end of an over-use. And we have known for a long time. Such a thing is in common pastures and that there is in fish stocks. We know a lot about local public goods, we also know that local communities are able to use such commons sustainably, but the big problem is just the global commons such as just the atmosphere, the ocean, the world’s forests. This is in fact the big challenge.
Brink: But it’s not a truism that the sky is not only the Germans, but really all?
Edenhofer: Well, that’s certainly a truism that only: the realization that we use the atmosphere sustained and that there are restrictions on use, which is by no means common. You can even ask me, who actually heard the atmosphere at the moment – this is the law and the law of the jungle, just those that emit the most. And in the climate negotiations is indeed struggled discuss how these rights are to be distributed to the atmosphere?
Now we can say: Well, well, then they should agree on any rules here but, of course, but there are huge economic dislocations, because that means yes, if we want to use the term common good atmosphere that we, the owners of coal need to talk about oil and gas to the fact that they leave most of their resources and reserves in the soil. And this already shows that this then leads to that their revenues will decline, and will not be impressed.
So it means that when Community goods, particularly the global, wants to use properly, one must consider a balance of interests and needs to think about how we can cooperate internationally as reasonable. And that’s a huge economic challenge. So this truism, as you say, has enormous implications.
Brink: Do you then not even speak the economically strong countries to convince them that even their prosperity depends the future of climate change?
Edenhofer: Yes, that’s exactly the problem that the learning, growing, especially the emerging markets, that their prosperity in the 21st Century by climate change depends. China knows, for example, China knows that in the second half of the 21 Century caused major water scarcity. But just who are in a conflict, because of the energy system, these are the costs incurred today – the damage incurred in the future. And we just have to … If we talk about these issues over common goods, global public goods, we also talk about the rights of the unborn, so the coming generations. And that’s really the great challenge of the coming generations that is not at the negotiating table in Durban, still in the planning of economic policy a voice and can not represent their interests.
Brink: How have since then science and policy to be better? You have now provided the analysis, but the important thing is that you somehow implement it in action.
Edenhofer: Well I think that science should not be overestimated as yourself. I see science as a profession in this regard with that of a cartographer, who just missed an unknown terrain. And I think that’s necessary, because without maps you usually end up nowhere, literally nowhere. But if there is a new terrain, then the measurement of this area is just not as trivial and not so simple. Above all, we should always scientists to politicians to say that there are usually more than one way is the goal, but then we should just inform you about what is the cost of this path, what are the opportunities and risks. And all this can not be replaced, of course, the surprises that people experience when traveling and surviving in some cases, but these maps should just offer guidance, and that’s our job. Walking the path that must be the public, the consumers must have the policy and then make it yourself.
Brink: To finally get back again to Durban: You have said above, this function is no longer so … such a climate conference, the appropriate form of organization. What would it be then?
Edenhofer: Well I think you have to reduce the participants. If you imagine that 20 countries on this planet, causing 80 percent of all emissions, then it’s just not reasonable that it leads the negotiations with 194 countries, at least not to explore compromises. I think that would be something like the G20 as a useful format, and I mean, you could start there with actions, which actually all agree, such as the abolition of subsidies for fossil fuels. A tonne of CO2 is subsidized today on a global scale with nine euros. We could promote renewables, especially in Africa. What few know is that while Africa still emits little, but the cities, the urban growth in Africa over the next two decades to be very, very big. So if we think today there are an effective infrastructure together with our colleagues in Africa, then we can prevent that in the future Africa is a major emitter of CO2.
Brink: Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, we approach the news, Professor Ottmar Edenhofer was, director designate of the new Institute for Community goods and climate change. Thanks for the interview!
Edenhofer: Thank you!
Statements of our interviewees do not necessarily reflect their own views. Germany makes the radio remarks of his interlocutors in interviews and discussions, not our own.