The climate change debate
So Al Gore’s on my twitter feed, and he alerted us to a great piece in the FT by Prof Nicholas Stern and Joseph Stiglitz, which I thought was very well-argued.
Had a debate with a colleague at lunch yesterday and he argued that the problem with climate change-related stories is that it assumes everyone believes in climate change, but the reality is everyone is not convinced.
As I have mentioned in my previous posts, climate change is a subject that involves a degree of foresight. When humanity actually witnesses the full-scale of the effects of climate change, it will have been too late. Already, we are seeing the first wave of its consequences, from Hurricane Katrina, to Victoria’s bushfires, and still some choose to be what Dr Pachauri labels as, “deliberately ignorant”.
What is especially discouraging is you actually see this “deliberate ignorance” exemplified in mass media, especially from some comments and letters from readers, who tell you to “get real” when you talk about making a difference, however minute, in your own actions.
The reality is people - the general masses - are not going to sacrifice their standard of living, whatever they might say, so the only solution is to revolutionize the world’s services, products, and infrastructure, so that the same standard of living can be enjoyed - preferrably with some conscious reduction of consumption on our part - while ensuring that our consumption and way of life is sustainable.
Let’s say, hypothetically, climate change doesn’t exist. Let me ask this question then: Are there any, what economists call “negative externalities”, to greening our economy anyway?
At the very worst, if climate change turned out to be exxagerated, we have a world economy that’s far more sustainable. If we don’t address it, however, the worst-case scenario is probably beyond even our imagination. Will you risk facing that sort of future, just because you want to be stubbornly ignorant today?
Something Prof Stern said in Abu Dhabi recently really resonated with me: “Let’s remember, there are many benefits that come with this low-carbon economy: a quieter, less polluted, more energy-secure, more biodiverse world, if we stop deforestation and pollution. This is a very attractive proposition.”
I completely agree with him, and it baffles me that anyone in our modern, supposedly educated society, could still be “unconvinced” of our global problems. More revealingly, such parochial mindsets say more about the person than anything else. If they are the majority, perhaps then the world is doomed already.
Read full post...
Day 3 of my stake-out and I’ve hit jackpot.