|
|
| |
| |
Date Published: 22/10/01
Author: Simon Retallack The horrific events of 11 September were a grotesque manifestation of the violence that man is capable of deliberately inflicting on others. With our sense of security shattered, our attention has focused ever since on how to stamp out the terrorist networks thought to be responsible so that nothing like it can occur again. But if we are to achieve truly enduring security, we must bring a halt to violence in all its forms – including the violence that we inflict daily on the natural world.
|
 |
By altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere and disrupting our own climate, we are unleashing a form of violence upon the planet whose nature, scale and consequences are unprecedented and potentially devastating.
As climate change begins to unfold, a picture is emerging of what could lie in store. In response to rising temperatures, the planet’s ice cover has begun to melt, coral reefs to die, and record-breaking weather events to strike worldwide – such as the super-cyclone that killed 30,000 people in the Indian state of Orissa in 1999 and the unprecedented floods that hit Britain this time last year.
The climatologists of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict that it is going to become a lot worse. They expect average global temperatures to rise by as much as 5.8ºC by the end of the century, almost double their previous forecast. And ground-breaking research by the Hadley Centre predicts that temperatures could rise even higher to well over 8ºC. The impacts of warming on this scale would be enormous; no one would escape the consequences, as the intensity and frequency of storms and floods increase, sea levels rise, new diseases spread, crops wilt, and fresh water supplies dry up.
It is virtually undisputed today that we are responsible. The evidence is clear. We have sent carbon dioxide (the main heat-trapping gas) soaring to levels in the atmosphere which the planet hasn’t seen for as much as 20 million years, by burning coal, oil and gas to generate power for our homes, cars and industries, and by destroying forests and soils which usually absorb carbon emissions.
This means, though, that we can do something about it. There is nothing inevitable about the most extreme climatic scenarios forecast for this century. By using existing technologies and techniques to reduce our demand for energy, switching to renewable sources of power, and protecting the world’s natural emission-absorbing sinks, we can phase out the use of fossil fuels and reduce our emissions sufficiently to avoid the worst.
The problem is that we have very little time to do so – probably no more than 50 years – and the world’s governments have got off to a spectacularly slow start. The best they have come up with is the Kyoto Protocol, which the world’s largest polluter has pulled out of and is now crammed full of loopholes that it stands only a slim chance of reducing emissions below where they would otherwise be. It is a hardly noticeable step that bears virtually no relation to what climatologists deem necessary. What’s more, four years after it was conceived, this paltry offering still isn’t complete – governments must add the final touches to its rules in Marrakech at the start of November and ratify it before September next year if it is ever to come into force.
Kyoto is probably better than nothing, but better than nothing is not what we need. We need an effort of war-time magnitude. We need concerted action.
As soon as Kyoto is ratified, governments need to adopt a much more appropriate global framework to deal with climate change – one that sets a global limit on greenhouse gas concentrations which all countries should agree, in a fair and rational manner, to abide by. A framework known as ‘Contraction and Convergence’ would achieve these goals and it should now be negotiated.
Global cooperation on the scale required is possible. We have just seen an unprecedented global alliance being built at break-neck speed to attempt to deal with global terrorism. The same is needed to combat climate change. But that means abandoning the unilateralism that characterised US policy before 11 September.
In doing so, moreover, not only would our ecological security be significantly enhanced, so too would our physical security. How? By reducing our dependence on the vast quantities of oil that we import daily from the Middle East, whose supply the West has felt necessary to guarantee militarily – one of the key sources of resentment in which terror has bred. Making the transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy, therefore, should be seen as a strategic as well as a climatic necessity; a key element in constructing a safer and more sustainable world.
But we can’t afford to wait for governments to undertake the task for us – they are too easily influenced by corporate interests determined to preserve the status quo to react in a timely manner. However, an array of new ideas is emerging to construct sufficient leverage over governments and corporations to generate action on climate change – ranging from the mobilisation of the private investment community, the law and the public across all sectors of society. The building of a popular movement both to apply pressure for change and to deliver change in people’s daily lives could be especially important. Accessible and viable options exist today to enable each of us to reduce our contribution to climate change dramatically. It is up to us all to take responsibility for the way we live, if life as we know it is to survive in peace on this precious planet.
Simon Retallack
|
| |
| Back to articles related to Energy |
| |
 |
|
|
|
'contentbuilder is a service provided by etribes Limited - www.communitybuilder.com' |
| |
|
|
