The Moral Paradoxes of Global Warming

Despite what you may hear from Kyoto or Bali, there are a large number of people in the developing world that see global warming as a semi-conspiracy on the part of the industrialized nations to deprive them of a higher standard of living.

Here's a current example, as reported by Canadian TV, as well as one of my favorite blogs, The Ecolibertarian.

India's Tata Motors is unveiling the new Nano, a four-door compact that retails for between $2,500-3,000, potentially allowing tens of millions of Indians to upgrade from motorcycles and carts to automobiles. Tata says the vehicle will meet European emission standards and achieve fuel efficiency of about 45 miles per gallon.

A triumph for capitalism and innovation? If you thought that, you're wrong.

According to UN Chief Climatologist, Dr, Rajendra Pachauri (co-winner of last year's Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore), he's "having nightmares" about the possibilities of the Indian subcontinent teeming with cars that the average family can afford. Not only would all those vehicles create noise pollution and congestion, but they will contribute materially to global warming, the depletion of world oil reserves, and rising fuel prices across the planet. The Asian Development Bank predicts that the Tata (which will fairly soon be joined by another cheapo car from a joint Renault-Nissan venture) may cause India's CO2 emissions to increase SEVEN times over the next thirty years.

Two interesting caveats here:

1) Dr Pachauri was actually originally supported by the Bush administration to head the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, because he appeared to be the most conservative choice available. After all, Pachauri had once worked for the Tata Energy Research Institute (no, the correspondence of the name with Tata Motors is not a coincidence), and Exxon-Mobil had lobbied for the US to push his appointment. Once in office, however, Pachauri pulled an "Earl Warren":

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told an international conference attended by 114 governments in Mauritius this month that he personally believes that the world has “already reached the level of dangerous concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere” and called for immediate and “very deep” cuts in the pollution if humanity is to “survive”.

So Dr. Pachauri has, to say the least, an interesting history.

2) The Asian Development Bank is not exactly a neutral commentator, either, but rather is committed to a specific economic-ideological model of development in Asia directed toward the elimination of economic inequality rather than a market economy. Thus, ADB leaders

endorse redistributive policies targeted at promoting "equality of opportunity" and "funded through mechanisms that do not detract from economic growth." Chief among their recommended polices are putting more public moneys into rural infrastructure including irrigation, electricity, transportation, and agricultural extension services, as well as expanding access to basic health care and primary education.

The problem for Tata Motors is that when ADB says "transportation" in the quote above, it means "mass transit," not privately owned automobiles. ADB needs the emerging Indian middle class to remain good little urban peasants who compliantly take buses and trains to work.

Then there's the very parochial western fear that increased competition for gasoline from the Indian subcontinent will send fuel prices soaring yet again for Europe and North America. Indians with their own automobiles could be at least partly responsible, notes Canadian TV, for oil hitting $150/barrel in the next two years.

Those damn Indians and their selfish urge to have cars! They are either going to (a) ruin the quality of life in India; (b) accelerate global warming; (c) throw a monkey wrench in ADB's plans for forced income equality; or (d) screw up gas prices for their betters in the industrialized world.

Here's how IndieQuill, a homegrown blog, assesses the situation:

PRO - It’s a marvel of engineering! The world will never be the same again! Tata rocks! The car has been reinvented again! And also, Jesus, Vishnu, Moses, Mohammad and the Buddha called and said this was the best they could have hoped for humanity. Amen.

CON - It’s a disaster of unimaginable levels! Civilization as we know it has come to an end! Tomorrow we shall wake up and find ourselves choking to death! Polar bears will drown, whales will be eaten and tigers will end up as Viagra. I hope you’re all happy, doing Satan’s work!

Truth, like always, is somewhere in the middle.

On the one hand, where the hell do any of us get off making the case that cars should remain a luxury? Ratan Tata might be indulging in a PR exercise but he’s got a point when he says there are tons of families out there who’re making do with extremely unsafe modes of transportation because they can’t afford safer alternatives. Anybody who’s seen a woman balance a tiny baby on her lap while clinging to her husband as they sit on his bike and make their way through bumper-to-bumper traffic has a lot of nerve arguing that that couple ought to stick with their bike so that the rest of us, with more money in our bank accounts, can swan around in our a/c cars.

Of course, this is not what a lot of people are saying. They’re making entirely valid points about congestion, pollution and sustainability. But they’re directing their ire at the wrong target. There isn’t a single company on this planet that holds the sole solution to these problems. Collectively, however, we all do. And it is the responsibility of our governments to make sure that the task of saving our planet falls equally on all our shoulders. It is again the government - and in India, I’d like to remind you, we follow that fabulous system of a government that’s by the people - that needs to improve infrastructure. They should do that irrespective of whether or not the Tata Nano is launched because we pay our taxes for a reason but the introduction of the Nano means that they have an added incentive.

By targeting a company that is releasing a product meant for the less privileged, you’re automatically setting yourself up for charges of elitism and discrimination. It doesn’t matter if your points are made of gold and come wrapped in diamonds that magically nourish the starving who lay eyes on it - the moment you start saying giving poor people access to something is bad, you’re automatically the bad guy. Live with it.

There aren't any easy answers here, and we're going to see more situations like this over the next decade.