Much noise has been made over the last few years about the dangers we face, as fast-paced global warming threatens to dramatically change the environment. Many people claim that global warming is somehow related to human activity, while others deny the clear, scientifically-proven existence of such a link.
While the movement supporting some kind of action has gained momentum within activist circles (à la Al Gore) and the international public opinion, I for one am not hopeful of any significant change over the near future.
In the international relations arena, the divide between those that favour action to curb climate change and those who deny the pertinence of such action is a very clear one: on one side, you have the Bush administration, Australia and Canada (whose previous administration failed to implement the Kyoto Protocol and whose current one has no intention of upholding it); on the other the "rest of the world", including world leaders, NGOs, international bodies, public opinion, etc... Kyoto, without the participation of the United States (25% of world emissions) and of China and India (who ratified but are exempt from emission cuts for the time being) is truly dead.
No change can come from the top on climate change: those who can enforce change will not betray the industries that pollute the most, because they are direct or indirect beneficiaries of industry. Most declarations of politicians concerning curbing emissions is mere lip service, as what really drives the world is the bottom line: profit, re-election, consumerism, comfort, all of which can be neatly tucked into that most American (indeed, Western or globalized) of ideals - the pursuit of happiness, which means that not enough consumers care enough to demand a change in attitude from their elites, or from themselves.
What I am getting at is that the whole discussion on whether or not climate change is man-made is deeply flawed. Rather, it sidesteps the issue. If you deny human activity as a catalyst for climate change, then clearly there is no issue. If, on the other hand, you agree that the current fast-paced climate change is related to human activity, then you wallow in self-pity, blaming the lack of will of those who are in the position of actually bringing the mass scale change that is necessary to revert the trend.
But, as I said, both sides have missed the real issue: human misuse of the world. Whether or not our activity is causing global warming does not matter. What matters is that it is NOT sustainable. Changing from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy makes us feel warm and fuzzy. Recycling is a great thing, although very little of it is done on a global scale. Organic food? Great, if you can afford it.
Clearly, though, those solutions (including carbon emission reduction) are but band-aids, typical of the Western-turned-global mindset: we treat the symptoms without addressing the disease. Have a problem? Pop a pill and keep moving! What we need is a paradigm shift. We need to change as a society, as individuals even. I could go first, but what's the point - are you gonna follow???
While the movement supporting some kind of action has gained momentum within activist circles (à la Al Gore) and the international public opinion, I for one am not hopeful of any significant change over the near future.
In the international relations arena, the divide between those that favour action to curb climate change and those who deny the pertinence of such action is a very clear one: on one side, you have the Bush administration, Australia and Canada (whose previous administration failed to implement the Kyoto Protocol and whose current one has no intention of upholding it); on the other the "rest of the world", including world leaders, NGOs, international bodies, public opinion, etc... Kyoto, without the participation of the United States (25% of world emissions) and of China and India (who ratified but are exempt from emission cuts for the time being) is truly dead.
No change can come from the top on climate change: those who can enforce change will not betray the industries that pollute the most, because they are direct or indirect beneficiaries of industry. Most declarations of politicians concerning curbing emissions is mere lip service, as what really drives the world is the bottom line: profit, re-election, consumerism, comfort, all of which can be neatly tucked into that most American (indeed, Western or globalized) of ideals - the pursuit of happiness, which means that not enough consumers care enough to demand a change in attitude from their elites, or from themselves.
What I am getting at is that the whole discussion on whether or not climate change is man-made is deeply flawed. Rather, it sidesteps the issue. If you deny human activity as a catalyst for climate change, then clearly there is no issue. If, on the other hand, you agree that the current fast-paced climate change is related to human activity, then you wallow in self-pity, blaming the lack of will of those who are in the position of actually bringing the mass scale change that is necessary to revert the trend.
But, as I said, both sides have missed the real issue: human misuse of the world. Whether or not our activity is causing global warming does not matter. What matters is that it is NOT sustainable. Changing from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy makes us feel warm and fuzzy. Recycling is a great thing, although very little of it is done on a global scale. Organic food? Great, if you can afford it.
Clearly, though, those solutions (including carbon emission reduction) are but band-aids, typical of the Western-turned-global mindset: we treat the symptoms without addressing the disease. Have a problem? Pop a pill and keep moving! What we need is a paradigm shift. We need to change as a society, as individuals even. I could go first, but what's the point - are you gonna follow???
