The climate change saga

My father says Copenhagen "is just a talk shop" and that nothing substantial is going to come out of it. He can be cynical at times, but I don't think his cynicism has anything to do with his judgment of the Copenhagen talks. I think it is another talk shop too, and while the optimist desires some kind of positive outcome from this, the pessimist yawns in boredom.

To start off, Climategate and its consequences is going to soak up the atmosphere in conference rooms and the most important question anyone without insider information is going to ask is: Is Global Warming really as bad as it is made out to be?

John Tierney has a well summarized account of Climategate: E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science. It sums up the controversy surrounding the hacked emails that suggest scientists, in order to pursue definitive actions over rising temperatures, have manipulated the data to exacerbate the situation. That, I believe, is a very inconvenient truth. (Are you listening Mr. Gore?)

Placeholder: More links on Climategate controversy here, here and here. (note: The last one shows the actual emails exchanged - with date and timestamps!)

Alright, Climategate aside, the Cop15 official site is a good place to track the conference, get related news and other projects/initiatives that are underway to tackle the potentially-catastrophic consequences of climate change.

In an ideal world, the Copenhagen talks will achieve something substantial; something more than a promise. A definite action(s) into tackling global warming. Assuming we are in that ideal world here are the few ways, I feel we can tackle climate change.

1) Egotism: We need to stop trying to pinpoint who is historically responsible for global warming and who should be made to pay for the clean up. It should be a joint effort instead of a series of compromises made by countries based on what their competitors do. US wants to cut their emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, according to the Bill introduced to the Senate by Senators Barbara Boxers and John Kerry. That's fine. China wants to reduce theirs by 40-45% by 2020. It's a start but the consensus is that if US and China (accounting for 40% of pollution in the world) do not live up to their words, the others are reluctant to lower emission. I think by now there are no strong deniers of global warming - everyone's accepted the phenomenon and hopefully are aware of the consequences that await the generations to come. So why the wait? Why did we even need to go as far as the Copenhagen talks to reach a consensus?

2) Aid: Financial or otherwise. One of the reasons why countries are unwilling to cut emissions is because they are worried about their economic growth. If countries, especially developing ones, make a conscious effort to reduce emission then, they should be helped out for their efforts. China and India's primary concern these days is sustaining high levels of growth to pull their people out of poverty. If the world expects them to reduce pollution/emissions, then there should be ways set up whereby they can reduce without sacrificing the livelihood of their citizens. That's where aid can be an useful incentive to build up the momentum of reducing emissions.

3) Free flow of technology: It goes without saying, the more efficient your methods of production are, the better your chances of saving on your scarce resources. The flow of technology from the west to the east needs to be sped up. More developing countries should have the latest techonological know-how in order to ensure their methods of production are least destructive to the environment. Less IPs and patents might help. Multi-nation funding for Research and Development to find better ways of producing a good, and then distributing that knowledge worldwide can help too - basically the trade off here is your personal ambition vs. the environment's well being.

4) Social responsibility: Pretty much similar to the first one. Countries cannot say, "If X is allowed to pollute more than me, why must I reduce my emission?" Look, in the end, if this continues, we are all screwed. Global catastrophe is not going to pick and choose which of the countries it wants to hit. Everyone dies, so it doesn't matter who is allowed to pollute more and who isn't. Which is why carbon trading in some way does not answer the problem; it doesn't substantially reduce the aggregate amount of pollution present in the air. It shifts the burden from one country to another. Which is why, I think conscious efforts to sacrifice economic prosperity for better, cleaner environment would be better. But here I am, indulging in wishful thinking.

Of course in stating my four points I made several assumptions including the complete insignificance (and disregard) of political agenda, ideological difference, competition (between states), the on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, HIV/AIDS, the stubborn presence of poverty, current financial crisis...yeah the list just goes on. However, I did set out an yardstick where the operative word is ideal.

We see that in every Hollywood blockbuster (or not) dealing with the end of the World - like War of the Worlds, Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow and more recently 2012 - nations come together, as one, after the first wave of damage has been done. It is important to realize, the consequences of rising sea levels will in the future, maybe in 2012 or perhaps even maybe in 2070, have an impact. We can't be certain when it's going to hit us. And unlike in Hollywood movies, mass deaths and destruction will not be performed by cool CGI or stuntmen. It is going to have a definite impact, and people will suffer. All because of our inability to put aside our egoes and work together. (yes I'm very much aware of how I'm sounding like a doomsday prophet, but it is true. It will happen one day. Today, tomorrow or in the next millennium.)

Lastly, this guy tries to manifest a climate-change-oriented version of The Devil's Dictionary. Makes me laugh; and not always in the funny bone tickling way.