Climate Crisis and the “We”: An Essay in Deconstruction

Professor Chomsky has in his erudite speeches on YouTube compared global warming with nuclear confrontation as similar menaces. This is though hardly adequate, because run away climate change is worse. Nuclear confrontation is avoided by mutual arming and threat of annihilation. The Nash equilibrium is to swerve in a Chicken game. Global warming is not a game of interaction, but evolution. Evolution has a different logic – Hawking irreversibility and not rational human calculation as in gaming interaction.


INTRODUCTION
The new theory of abrupt climate change, drawing upon numerous so-called "tipping points", projects a dire future for mankind. Serious climate and earth scientists may go so far s to predict the coming end of the human species with billions of dead. Time is tight, according to some them, reducing the time span of 100 years figuring in the COP21 Treaty to just 10 years for "business as usual". This predicament is attributed to "WE", asking what shall we do against this most dangerous threat against humanity ever? One may consult post-modern deconstruction theory to critique this widespread notion of "WE". Who are the real actors in this now unfolding drama?

THE MENACE: HAWKING`S IRREVERSIBILITY
Professor Chomsky has in his erudite speeches on YouTube compared global warming with nuclear confrontation as similar menaces. This is though hardly adequate, because run away climate change is worse. Nuclear confrontation is avoided by mutual arming and threat of annihilation. The Nash equilibrium is to swerve in a Chicken game. Global warming is not a game of interaction, but evolution. Evolution has a different logic -Hawking irreversibility and not rational human calculation as in gaming interaction.
Nuclear armament is very expensive and totally meaning for both parties when they pursue the very same strategy. Iran and Saudi Arabia should make a deal to stop nuclear proliferation and invest in ecology. Run away climate change lacks a set of actors in interaction, because it is Nature simply with its colossal forces. So, can "WE" stand up against global warming, with global coordination and policy-making and implementation? No, because there is behind the "WE" a great multitude of different actors with opposing interests: civil society organisations, governments, business, financial institutions, and ordinary people. Some groups in the set of humans make money on global warming, whereas other groups loose assets. Some rise their voice, while others look the other way. Bjorn Lomborg as the only remaining cornucopian (Planet Earth can accommodate has yet to understand the issue. The truth is: a) global warming is driven by an incredibly insatiable need for energy; b) Global coordination does not worktransaction costs and defection: c) Country resilience is lower than many believed, as Nature has the upper hand.
These points are often bypassed by natural scientists, but they can be stated clearly in the social sciences.

ENERGY NEEDS
Thus, energy consumption is closely related to country affluence. The poor countries can only improve living condition by increase energy supply. Their energy demand can only go up, because energy supply is highly skewed to the advantage of the rich countries, but they emit most CO2s -see Figure 1.

Figure1. Energy and affluence globally
Energy is the capacity to do work. And work is the Adam Smith and J-B Say sources of human welfare. The growth in energy consumption since the industrial revolution and especially after the Second World War has been just immense, especially the supply of fossil fuels. In poor countries, the demand for energy is huge for economic development toward "catch-up", whereas rich countries are heavily dependent of fossil fuels for economic growth. The majority of countries in the COP project are in poverty, as they need more energy. Thus, they can only decarbonise when renewable energy sources become available. This is the redistribution task of C0P21: decarboisation against support for renewable energy by the Super Fund.
The majority of countries in the COP project are in poverty, as they need more energy. Thus, they can only decarbonise when renewable energy sources become available. This is the redistribution task of C0P21.
The living conditions in the poor countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia as well as the Pacific reflect the low level of energy employed. This basic fact determines life opportunities in a most dramatic fashion. The low access to energy has consequences for the environment and the life situation of people, including health, schooling, work, food and potable water.
African countries are poor because they have too little energy. Thus, they have much less GHGs than Asia. Yet, they need the COP project of the UNFCCC to renew their energy sources and move from fossil fuels and traditional renewables to solar power. Hydro power depends upon water availability that shrinks with global warming.
African energy deficit is conducive to a dire environment with enormous damages and risks. Consider the following global figures. Figure 2 shows how low energy leads to am unsafe environmental. Low energy use leads to poverty, malnutrition, deceases, lack of potable water, insufficient sanitation, etc. Typical of many Latin American, African and Asian nations is the lack of stable electricity, which hampers everything and reduces environmental viability. Figure 3 has the global picture. The access to safe and stable electricity is crucial for health, schools, food, water, etc. Figure 4 links energy with proper sanitation.

Figure4. Sanitation and energy
Source: Environmental Performance Index, Yale University, https://epi.envirocenter.yale. IEA Statistics © OECD/IEA 2014 (http://www.iea.org/stats/inde) Especially, the rapidly growing African and Asian mega-cities lack entirely sewage plants. Thus, dirty water is put into the big rivers where other cities downstream take their potable water. The access to safe and stable electricity is crucial for health, schools, food, water, etc.  Air quality too depends upon energy access ( Figure 6). Typical of many poor nations -Latin America, Africa, Asia -is the lack of stable electricity, which hampers work and reduces environmental viability. The access to safe electricity is crucial for health, schools, food, water, etc. Given the lack of enough energy in poor countries being conducive to the above bad living conditions, one understands the hopes of the poor countries for help with energy transformation leading to better access to just energy

Figure6. Energy and air quality
In terms of GHGs, rich countries have much higher levels of yearly emissions compared with poor countries, holding population constant. Only when a poor country has an enormous population is it a big CHG polluter.. Strict linear relation holds between GDP, energy consumption If, as we believe, energy consumption is behind global warming, the set of poor countries face a most difficult dilemma. On the one hand, they can demand much more energy like fossil fuels, but they then contribute much to climate change, On the other hand, global warming while fabricated by the rich nations and a few very populous poor nations, will have very negative consequences for poor nations. The only way out of this dilemma is that all countries contribute to halting global warming by turning to renewables, especially the set of rich countries.
The figures above present a summary of the human development theory with its UN sanctioned HDI measurehuman development index. Poor nations and emerging economies know all too well that their developmental goals depend upon access to cheap. Thus, they will never accept global decarbonisation if they must give up fossil fuel energy without compensation.
Several poor nations strive for "take-off" and the emerging economies go for "catch-up" at any cost. They demand assistance for achieving some form of decarbonisation. So they were promised a Super Fund of 100 million dollars per yearwhere is it?
The advanced economies accept decarbonisation, only it can be combined further economic growth. Energy gives affluence and the climate change problematic. Can the COP21 project succeed?

L POLICY MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION: SOME FALLACIES
As a matter of fact, a few dominant theoretical frameworks doubt the achievebility of major policymaking and implementation project. Let us consult them with regard to the COP21 endeavors.

Bounded Rationality (Simon And March)
Simon Simon argues that only bounded rationality or restricted decision-making is feasible, both for single individuals and organisations or groups. Especially organisations pursue "standard operating procedures", according to March, meaning simplifications of the requirements of full rationality, as laid down by the neo-classical decision model in economics. As a matter of fact, the arrival of abrupt climate change makes the COP21 project already outdated.

Implementation Gap (Wildavsky)
Scholars with the discipline of public administration follow the teachings of A. Wildavsky (Pressman and Wildavsky, 1984) about an inescapable gap between policy ex ante and implementation ex post. Implementation theory was developed for national policy-making with finding of a major gap between blue-prints in the centre and implementation failure at the local or regional levels. Policymakers engaging in nation-wide programs face bounded rationality. Thus, each and every national policy includes uncertainty and has to be adapted or changed locally.
The same policyimplementation gap applies to international relations where coordination efforts are not only hampered by bounded rationality but also the restrictions from public international law, especially the principle of state sovereignty.
The COP21 Treaty may have been a great leap forward from one point of view, namely environmentalism as philosophy, but the entire COP21 project face enormous implementation difficulties, as policies are vague and management lacking.

Organised Chaos (March And Olsen)
In the theory of organisation, one has been very interested in the possibility of groups of people to engage in rational action, like the governments of the world setting up a plan for global decarbonisation. The answer is that individual rationality may be feasible at the micro level, but large organisation with many decision-makers must fail at the macro level. There will be simply too much conflict, confusion, mistakes, lack of consistency over time ⁻ in one word chaos. In organised collective action, leadership is luck, preferences changing and information biased.
Judging the COP21 Treaty from the perspective of March and Olsen (1976), launching their conception of government as organised chaos, one may have serious doubts about the implementation of the COP21 project. A promise is made of giant money in a Super Fund, but how to fund it? Global decarbonisation is set out in three main stages, but it is a too slow process with many loopholes. And the conflicts among states are deep concerning which countries should do the most and contribute the most to the Super Fund.

GLOBAL COORDINATION: TRANSACTION COSTS
The UN has conducted no less than 23 COP global meetings besides the standing agency IPCC, but decarbonisation has NOT begun. CO2s are still increasing 2017, globally. Inter-state decision-making faces almost insurmountable difficulties, according to international relation theory.

Reneging or Cheating
Even if one accepts that the COP21 project is rational or semi-rational decision-making (clear preferences, reasonable technology, game theory would warn that it is wide open to strategic behaviour and asymmetric information. It does not matter it is micro level or macro level choice, as both individual and collective decision-making can be cheated upon by reneging upon promises (Dutta, 1999).
The COP21 Treaty is nothing but a paper with promises for a very long time and with enormous practical consequences. Why deliver upon it? Energy transformation is costly and affect ordinary people. When costs go up, maybe defect from promises made a time ago? Or demand a hefty compensation from the Super Fund?
The paradox of the famous PD game lies at the core of the COP21 project. It is rational for each single participant in the common pool regime (CPR) to defect hoping that the others will deliver (N-1 problem) or to delay contributing because the benefits will be shared by others (1/N problem). The US has already reneged because the Trump administration does not to contribute to the Super Fund or India's decarbonisation costs. As the COP21 project moves along, there will be many opportunities for defection, especially as the PIL sanctions this.

International Society Versus Anarchy of States
The COP21 Agreement enters public international law, when it has been ratified by the UN member states. Scholars have held great hopes about the PIL, restraining state sovereignty. But it is only forcing governments when it comes to the questions of war and peace, where the Security Council rules if unanimous. Rule of rule in an international society has not yet accomplished, meaning that several treaties of PIL can be reneged upon, like the COP21 Treaty. Governments tend to first and foremost act upon national interests, even when it foes against international norms (Burchill, Linklater and Devetak (2013).

RESILIENCE: FALSE PROMISE OF ADAPTATION
In the great debates between environmentalists and cornucopians as well as around the precautionary principle, the position of resilience was developed by economists and policy analysts. It contains:  do not look for possible ecology disasters ex ante;  wait and see what happens;  take proper action ex post;  do not exaggerate ecological harm;  build up resources for remedies;  do not prevent improbable ecological damages;  always take action afterwards on correct information.
The principle of resilience rejects the principle of precaution. It is based upon a risk approach that underlines probabilities. Even if the possible damage is huge but the probability is low, do nothing, just wait and see. Resilience is much in tone with bounded rationality: What do You really know for certain?
Resilience may give more GHGs. Take China: "Take-off" point me around 1980 pursuing a successful "catch-up" policy for a few decades. Its energy consumption, especially fossil fuels, has skyrocketed with GDP, resulting in the largest CO2 emission globally. Figure 7 has a projection for China.

Figure7. Energy projection for China
http://www.wrsc.org/attach_image/chinas-projected-energy-growth-fuel Decarbonisation does not seem highly probable. Much hope was placed at a recent reduction in CO2s, but water shortages forced China to revert to coal in 2017 with attending augmentation of CO2s. China is investing in both renewables and atomic power, but it also plans for very large energy increases in the coming decades with lots of energy consuming for new huge projects.
It is true that the US has reduced its CO2 emissions during the lats years, mainly by a shift from coal to natural gas. Actually, several mature economies like e.g. the UK have been able to halt the rise of CO2 emissions, either by more energy efficiency or a shift to natural gas or renewables. Figure 8 captures some features in US energy plans.

Figure8. US energy future
Source: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee102/node/1930 Although the Figure 8 predicts a doubling of renewable energy, the dependency upon fossil fuels, including coal energy, will not be much reduced. We are talking here about relative numbers, but if the US increases total amount of energy supply, then there may even be more fossil fuels. The reduction in CO2s during recent years seems to be coming at a reduced rate. The hope is for economic growth without energy increases, but we are not there yet. And most countries demand much more energy for the future.
Resilience could be a promising risk strategy, only when the threat is not fully known or manageable. Abrupt climate change falls outside of these requirements! Among some climate scientists, there is recently a new urgency. The melting of the North polar ice is advancing so quickly that all projections about temperature rise on the Earth must be revised upwards. Quicker warming sets in motion very positive feedback s that threaten human survival. The goal of COP21limit global warming to + 2 degrees Celsiusis no longer achievable. Instead, climate chaos seems more likely. A few predict that mankind has no more than 10 years before things become unmanageable. When the North pole ice is gone, global warming goes much higher than + 2.
The theory that climate change is now becoming irreversible is based on new hypotheses concerning the consequences of global warming:  sea level rise and Arctic ice meltdown is quicker than believed;  climate refugees may rise to 100 million people;  food and water shortages come earlier than believed;  the + 2 degrees Celsius target is misplaced as the Earth warms differently at various regions, i.e. still much hotter at the poles;  the release of methane from the permafrost and the frozen ice at the North pole will bring temperature rise to + 10 degrees Celsius; As the potentially huge methane emissions enter the climate change debate, one fully understands the mounting pessimism. And the entire time scale for fighting global warming shrinks considerably, from 100 years to 50 years or even less.

REALISTIC SOLUTION VERSUS UTOPIAN
One may outline a more radical COP21 policy and ask for its implementation to start now:  Close down of all coal power plants in 2020; replacement of charcoal in poor countries by mini gas stoves;  Massive investments in solar power parkssee below; subsidies for solar installations in private homes;  Accelerated experiments with carbon capture to find accurate cost-benefit calculation.
Here comes the solar power revolution that will allow a massive reduction in fossil fuels. Let us see what it entails in terms of management tasks for global coordination, assisted by for instance the COP21 Secretariat and the IPCC. It will of course be argued against such a 40 per cent speedy reduction in CO2s that it leads to economic recession. So may it be! But it would reduce future much higher costs. After all, economies adapt and will recover due to all new investments needed in a decarbonised world. Ramesh (2015) emphasizes that India needs much economic assistance for decarbonisationa giant task for global coordination to assist poor nations! Let us look at the American scene in Table 2.  Canada  30  230  300  Mexico  25  120  200  Argentina  none  0  80  Peru  none  0  15  Uruguay  none  0  3  Chile  35  25  30 Note: I) The United States has pulled out of the deal; ii) No absolute target; iii) Pledge is above current level, no reduction; iv) Upper limit dependent on receiving financial support; v) EU joint pledge of 40 % compared to 1990.
Some Latin American countries have lots of hydro power, but it may dwindle rapidly due to abrupt climate change. Solar power would be excellent energy for Mexico and Brazil for example. Climate Crisis and the "We": An Essay in Deconstruction