Bloomberg on Climate Change: “Most People Unfortunately Don’t Care”

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg was the belle of the ball this morning at a international climate change conference here in Hong Kong. He was here as the new chair of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, a group of 40 cities worldwide committed to tackling climate change. (Here’s a map of participating cities.)

Bloomberg shared the stage at the Hong Kong Convention Center in a brief roundtable with (freshly ousted) Toronto mayor David Miller, Johannesburg major Amos Masondo, and Edward Yau, Hong Kong’s Secretary for the Environment, to talk about how their respective cities have stepped up to the challenge of greening themselves. In his remarks, Bloomberg talked about how cities that got built up several decades ago — like New York and Hong Kong — share a unique dilemma that newer cities don’t. In most places,  the bulk of carbon emissions comes from transportation, and a lesser percentage comes from buildings. In New York and Hong Kong, it’s just the opposite, so both cities are faced with challenge how retrofitting old buildings.

Figuring out how to get people involved, he said, was the task at hand. Bloomberg, who has made environmental issues a central theme of his office, has made slow but steady progress on his green initiative PlaNYC. When you talk about what emissions are going to do to the earth in 50 years, “most people unfortunately don’t care,” he said. He went on to say that it’s more effective to frame the argument for improving policy in terms of how people’s lives are affected today — and that goes as much for the air they’re breathing as for the money in their pockets.” Capitalism works,” Bloomberg said. “When you build parks, they enhance property values. When you plant trees, they enhance property values.”

Maybe in New York. It was a bit of an odd roundtable, frankly: three of the richest cities in the world, and Johannesberg, where some 20% of the city lives in informal settlements that lack roads or electricity, and another 40% live in housing defined as inadequate with inadequate city services. When the moderator asked Masondo what more Johannesburg could be doing to commit to a low-carbon future, he said, in a somewhat discouraged manner, that the humanitarian needs of the city were so great, that whatever the city does manage to do, “It is never enough.” Pass mike.

It would be hard to come up with a better illustration than that of the importance of a report that the UN is releasing on Friday from its High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing (AGF). In Copenhagen, countries promised to raise $100 per year by 2020 to help developing nations mitigate the effects of climate change, among other things. Since March, AGF has been tasked with figuring out how that can be done, and the final report will be made public today.

ClimateWire got of a draft of the report, and reported that the the key path to raising that money was by putting a price on carbon either by taxes or cap-and-trade, along with other taxes. But this week’s elections in the U.S., which may have been the nail in the coffin of cap-and-trade in the U.S., underscore just how difficult the whole proposition is; as governments come and go, the political feasibility of climate aid will come and go with them. As a result, the report draft emphasizes that governments should not rely exclusively on public funding streams for their contributions, but a healthy mix of both pubic and private money. Will capitalism work? We’ll see.

Related Topics: Cities, Climate Science, Politics
  • Latest on Ecocentric

    Alexander Demianchuk / Reuters

    Global Warming: An Exclusive Look at James Hansen’s Scary New Math

    A new analysis by the NASA climatologist for the first time ties specific weather events to human-induced climate change

    Victor Fraile / Getty Images

    By Sea, Land and Air: Hong Kong Inventor Leads Charge in War Against Pollution

    One Hong Kong engineer puts the city’s surf and turf to work toward a cleaner future

    Paul Souders

    Can Polar Bears Keep Their Heads Above Water in a Warming World?

    Polar bears are classified as marine mammals, like a seal or a walrus, which might come as a surprise given that they’re usually pictured on land. But polar bears spend a lot of their time in the waters of the Arctic, fishing or swimming among the sea ice. They may look awkward in the water, but no creature with paws is a better swimmer.

  • firstpoppa

    Maybe if Bloomie pulled his head out, he’d also note that several of the more prominent “global warming” advocates own LARGE homes, ride around in caravans of SUV’s, and don’t believe in anything other than private jet travel.

    Yeah, MOST advocates show how much they ‘care’, don’t they?

  • http://davidnutzuki.wordpress.com mememine69

    How many climate scientists did it take to change a light bulb? NONE. But they did have consensus that it would change.
    Why wasn’t Climate Change ever regarded as the number one issue of prime importance to everyone since we were told climate change was to have been immanent death for the planet, as in SAVE THE PLANET?
    Why did we enjoy condemning our kids to their graves with CO2 death warrants and CO2 death threats? This is liberal love?
    Was it necessary to threaten my kids with death by CO2 just to get them to turn the lights out more often?
    Why were there thousands of more “consensus” scientists than protesters?
    Why did CO2 levels rise despite our contributing less with the world economic downturn?
    Wouldn’t the plants have shown effects long before the climate would shown effects?
    Why did the leftwing hope for the CO2 misery to really have happened and the rightwing discounted it as corrupt exaggerated and politicized science?
    Why were scientists not called what they were, fallible and mortal human beings and lab coat consultants?
    Didn’t scientists pollute the world in the first place with their chemicals?
    Why didn’t the countless thousands of consensus scientists march in the streets if this was certain death we were facing?
    Since Climate Change denied ancient climate, did the doomers therefore deny evolution too? Who’s the knuckle dragging neocon now?
    Why didn’t the people know that the UN’s scientific warning, predicted the effects of CO2 were to have been anything from “nothing at all” to “unstoppable warming” (death)?
    Will history view climate scientists as being to science what witch burners and The Crusades and abusive priests were to religion?
    History has already shown that Climate Change was to the Democrats what the Iraq War was to the neocons, lies, and fear and politics.

blog comments powered by Disqus