Copenhagen Part II.

It’s been a difficult year for the green movement. Sceptics are in the ascendancy. They are winning the hearts and minds of the people. There are huge question marks over the origins of their opinions, i.e. that they are paid by the oil industry, directly or indirectly to influence the US government, publish counter evidence of climate change, reach out to the public to convince them that the science isn’t certain. But I don’t think that they’re winning because they’re clever or right. I think they’re winning, because people want to believe that they can keep their lifestyles the same or improve their wealth and increase their consumption without worrying about the long term effects. Al Gore (http://www.algore.com) said it was an ‘Inconvenient Truth’ and just now I watched another great environmental film, ‘The Age of Stupid’ (http://www.ageofstupid.net). Both of these films are bang on the money. They reflect the challenges perfectly from all angles. Watch them, because both of them have convinced me just as I was becoming sceptical.

All week I’ve been hearing experts and commentators discussing the significance of 2015 and the temperature increase limit of 2ºC. I have been distracted by personal problems so I have been half listening to it all on the build up to Copenhagen. But watching the Age of Stupid, I finally realised what they mean. Earlier in the year I heard political leaders discussing keeping the increase in global temperatures to 2ºC. At the time I thought what a stupid thing to have a target of increase of temperature. How is that ever going to be possible? But the point of a limit in increase, is the scientific predictions of what will happen beyond that point. If it goes past 2ºC the world is expected to tip into runaway climate change. The second figure, the 2015 limit, is to point out that to limit this increase, we have to peak emissions at 2015 at current projections. In other words if we continue on our current path, a decline in emissions must begin in 6 years. That’s not a long time.

I became an environmentalist when I was twenty-one in 1995. I began this path after a childhood dreaming of becoming a high flying, high consuming businessman. When my best friends at the time were about to have their first baby, it occurred to me that the end of the twentieth century was a bad time to bring a child into the world. I asked myself whether having a child, would condemn that child to a life of turmoil and peril. I then went into a spin over it. I saw saving the environment in a radically different way to other people. I didn’t see it as a left wing, tree hugging issue. I saw it as a right wing issue, because it was about survival. It would take those aggressive right wing business types and war mongers, and evil capitalists to do the job – to save humanity. I didn’t want to hug trees, and espouse love of the world. I was serious about saving the planet. I didn’t want to leave it to a committee. I wanted the best minds, the most motivated, the clever and the devious; the rich, the most convincing people to commit themselves to the task. Only then could we avert the crisis – when those people destroying the world, turned their resources and skills to saving it.

So in Copenhagen do the leaders need to sign up to a target or two? In the entry below (if you want to read it) I said no. I wrote this at about 6pm tonight. But in between writing that and writing this, I saw The Age of Stupid and Hot Planet, by the BBC. I realised just how important new technology is, a long time ago. But tired and angry about politicians not reacting effectively to the challenges we faced, I stepped away from believing that an agreed binding reduction target was possible. I now believe that instead of backing away because of the inadequacies of our leaders, I now believe that more pressure should be put on politicians. Much more. So much that they cannot walk away from their responsibilities any more. Technology and the Manhattan Project of green technology that I wanted, should still happen. But targets are still vital to the process. Also, it has been proposed by climate campaigners that a target of reduction of use of fossil fuels should also be negotiated. In the film the Age of Stupid, it was explained that there should be a cap on fossil fuel use with a slight reduction each year until 2065, when use is ended. While America, the EU and Australia gradually reduce, India and China can continue to increase until they match larger economies on their way up and then they would begin to reduce emissions, equalising their emissions with the larger economies as they go. This is what should happen. And Copenhagen is a chance to do something like this. However, I still do not believe that politicians will achieve a decrease in carbon use by 2015. The political will just isn’t there and it is entirely the fault of the nay-sayers that this is happening. The sceptics that keep the public questioning are ruining the deals that could be made. If the public isn’t convinced then politicians tend to agree with them in similar proportions. For example, Obama can come to the conference and tell the world he wants quick and ample reductions in emissions. However, a large amount of politicians in the US just don’t want that and will vote it down in the Senate and the House. His hands are tied. All he can do is agree a target and then put pressure on his colleagues to pass it, like he did in the case of his Health Bill. There just isn’t enough time though. Six years is a very short period of time in the world of global politics. All we can hope for is that the projections are wrong.