In the short term, there'll be no major action against climate change
To tackle global warming we need a shift in attitudes unprecedented in
peace time, says Thomas Crowley
Tuesday December 11, 2007
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2225410,00.html
Nicholas Stern's piece on the Bali summit for climate change states
that "rich countries must lead the way in taking action" (Bali: now
the rich must pay, November 30).
Even though I am a climate scientist concerned about global warming, I
cannot help but conclude that such well-intentioned proposals -
including some in follow-up Guardian articles (What breakthrough would
best advance the fight against climate change?, December 3) - are not
going to work.
The basic problem is that they call for a level of action and attitude
changes probably unprecedented in human history (outside of total
war), and history argues strongly against the likelihood of such
changes.
A deal in Bali and its enforcement, says Stern, "will come from the
willing participation of countries driven by the understanding that
action is vital". However, to take one example, we have the capability
to save millions of lives now by making inexpensive means of clean
water available. If we cannot do that, what makes anyone think we can
do something about a bigger problem in the future? This inertial human
factor applies even to preservation of the self. For example, it has
taken 40 to 50 years to change attitudes in Europe towards smoking.
Developing nations rightly wait for first-world countries to take the
lead on global warming. But as long as the United States and its
powerful interest groups merely give lip service to the issue, the
matter seems dead-on-arrival at any negotiating table.
As a US citizen, I believe it would be rash to assume that things will
change even after George Bush leaves office. The interest groups will
still be there.
After 15 years of discussions and agreements on global warming, there
is little to show in terms of actual reduced emissions. It is
necessary to consider whether anything humbler - but more reliable -
can be done now.
Countries' actions are based primarily on self-interest in the near
term. From this perspective, perhaps the most reasonable option for
any British action is the need for protection against the whims of
Russian gas and Middle-Eastern oil.
The government should therefore take stronger action in two areas:
first, enhance market options to stimulate energy efficiency and
innovation across the economy; second, massively increase spending on
technologies for clean coal and carbon capture and storage (CCS),
currently the only method of directly preventing atmospheric
greenhouse gas increases. Since fossil fuels are responsible for about
85% of the total world energy usage, they will have to be used for the
next 30-40 years. In addition to providing a job stimulus, it is
conceivable that a concerted thrust on CCS will enable Britain to
become the world leader in these technologies.
This may not seem like a grand restart to addressing a problem of
imminent concern, but it is at least realistic. In the long-term we
can reach for the stars, but now is the time for action.
--
If you disagree with the theories and dogmas of Marxism or Scientific Socialism
then you are a tool of Capitalist interests. If you disagree with the theories
or dogmas of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming then you are a tool of
Capitalistic interests. Notice a pattern here? -- Captain Compassion
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius
"...the whole world, including the United States, including all that
we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark
Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights
of perverted science." -- Sir Winston Churchill
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
.
|
