Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFar from stymying the environmental cause, the downturn in the world's economies highlights just how pressing it is
Last year marked a watershed in awareness of environmental issues, and in particular the challenge of climate change. Among many breakthroughs, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its fourth assessment report - laying out the science of global warming more clearly than ever - and the Nobel peace prize was co-awarded to the panel and Al Gore.
Today, however, many nations are facing recessionary trends and high rates of inflation. Oil prices are at an all-time high, and look likely to rise even higher. A price touching $140 per barrel is something no one could have predicted even six months ago, despite spiralling prices throughout 2007.
Food prices have also increased as a result of fundamental factors, including rapidly increasing demand for food grains against prolonged stagnation in supply. Increasing prices have hit some of the poorest countries most severely, particularly those that have low incomes and are largely dependent on imports for basic subsistence. According to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, annual food expenditure of the most vulnerable countries has more than doubled since 2000. In a number of these nations food now constitutes 70%-80% of family expenditure. It is not at all surprising that we've seen food riots and large-scale demonstrations.
In this context, there is growing worldwide concern that the economic slowdown could lead to a parallel slowdown in environmental progress, with governments less willing to advocate the hard steps essential for reducing greenhouse emissions. This is indeed a worry, but I see a ray of hope, as I believe that global society is seriously questioning whether today's problems can be solved through short-term measures, as has been the case with routine ups and downs in the economy during past cycles. Could this lead to a widespread realisation that today's problems are the result of fundamental flaws in past growth and development patterns? There are, in my view, two reasons to suggest that the answer could be yes.
First, the world has reached an unprecedented level of awareness of the science behind climate change, with the contents of the IPCC's fourth assessment disseminated extensively by the media worldwide. A growing number of people - and not just typical environmentalists - now believe that climate change is not a concern for the distant future but something we are witnessing here and now. The cyclone that caused massive devastation in Burma and the extensive floods in Iowa, for instance, are linked in the public perception to climate change. Public concerns in several parts of the world have been heightened to such an extent that extreme weather events are invariably attributed to climate change. Never before has human society been gripped by such a strong realisation of the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels - and even change our lifestyles - in order to reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Second, this existing resolve is being strengthened considerably by increasing oil prices, which prompted even a conservative Republican like President Bush to state that America is "addicted to oil" and must switch to alternatives. Car manufacturers are already investing heavily in electric vehicles - which reduce oil dependency and emissions - and public transport systems are getting renewed attention. As some politicians in the UK and elsewhere have recently argued, with high oil prices the world can't afford not to go green.
The possibility of a shift to other forms of energy is something that is not lost on the major oil producers. So it's no surprise that Saudi Arabia has convened a summit of producers and consumers to see what needs to be done to stabilise oil prices. A continuing increase in prices would accelerate a move towards renewables, which would not support the interests of producer nations.
Based on all this, and on my discussions with policymakers, I believe the world is beginning to look at the deep underlying causes of its current problems, and is preparing for radical change. Barack Obama's performance in the US presidential race is, I think, symptomatic of a widespread thirst for such a change.
What we have today is no routine downturn in the conventional economic cycle. It is, and is seen to be, the crossroads in human progress that compels a major turn in direction. I believe the current generation is ready for such a shift and is unlikely to be distracted for long by an economic downturn that emanates from serious systemic distortions in existing patterns of growth.
Rajendra K Pachauri chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is director general of The Energy & Resources Institute.
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
11 Comments so far
Show Allbbr-001 wrote:
"...That is the most impossibly wide eyed optimistic article I have read in years. I feel like digging out the old Mary Poppins VHS tape..."
Yep.
No change as long as the Economy, growth, job loss, cheap fuel, are the dominant paradigms for policy makers. Even though the economy is dependent on the environment, the "needs" of the economy will prevail over environmental preservation.
I wonder if the masters of war and the titans of oil care about their own children? Do they think their money will buy their progeny a safe space in a planetary meltdown? I hope some of them have at least a shred of concern for their own future families.
Radical change? Perhaps Obama is bicycling his way around the country right now instead of flying in fuel guzzling jetliners. There may even be a website where we can track his progress!
This is a logical way of summarizing a partial solution to our plight. Unfortunately, it's one that will apply to only part of our nature - the logical part.
The sleeping half, where the Gods reside, has veto power over how some of us percieve the world. Therefore, severe storms, droughts, or the Leafs winning the Stanley Cup, can be equally attributed to super natural forces or to global warming. Divide and conquer, sit back, and watch the mahem.
John Maynard Keynes should never have said, "In the long run, we're all dead." He gave every government on earth a perfect excuse to live in the Now ...
Those who have large amounts of money invested in coal and oil, and Middle East land and oil acquisition live for themselves and their own generation only. Until the power of these vested interests is over-countered, there is only underground change. The masters of destruction do not appear to have given up yet.
Hold everything, I've got it. Here's how we reduce CO2, that killer gas. But first, let me tell you why me must reduce greenhouse gas.
It's simple. Mother Earth spawned all life on earth, therefore She comes first. No this is not some new religion to replace Judeo-Christianity, which we all know has caused far more harm than either fascism or communism. Thank goodness for Hinduism, which in spite of giving rise to a caste system has been so good for the cause of Mother Earth that people from all over the world have been rushing from Christendom to live in India. Hence India's explosive population growth over the years.
Anyway, we must preserve Mother Earth at all costs, so that she can continue to spawn new life and so that more people can move to India and enjoy the blessings of Hinduism. So what do we do? We're in this testy quandary. We want more people to enjoy life, especially future generations, but the more we live the more CO2 we exhale and harm poor Mama Earth.
So I got it. We need to drastically reduce the carbon emissions of human beings. And here's my plan. And the cool thing about it is that it will make me a lot of money.
We do a Silicon Valley startup and call it LowCarb. At LowCarb we manufacture two things: brain chips and pacemakers. We program the brain chips to slow down the metabolic rate. This will, all on its own, reduce carbon emissions from those pesky human beings. We program the pacemakers to slow the heart rate. This will reduce respiration which increases the carbon emissions even more, because we exhale that nasty CO2 gas that is such a pollutant. And don't tell me CO2 is good for plant life because plants breathe it and then exhale O2 which we breath in. We all know CO2 is nasty. Period.
And besides, I need CO2 to be nasty to sell my two flagship products at LowCarb and do my IPO at $15/share (I figure, modestly) and become a billionaire in about 3 years...or less, depending on whether the Dems get elected and push my plan from the White House. We'll see. Or maybe I can get the UN to push it, which would be even better for me.
Anyway, I think this is a really neat way to reduce the greenhouse effect and knock out GloboWarming before it knocks out future generations. Okay, my logic is not quire coherent. But hey, if I can get sillyConValley and Obama on my side and make a killing in the market and re-ignite the foundering US economy in the process, I'll be a hero! I'll even be on TV! And get more girls. Yessssssss!
See you in sillyConValley();
www.sillyConValley.net
That is the most impossibly wide eyed optimistic article I have read in years. I feel like digging out the old Mary Poppins VHS tape. Someone needs to send this guy the stuff Hannity, George Will, Cal Thomas, Heritage Foundation... are all saying and writing.
I hope he's right.
How many divisions can they put in the field? Is their concern strong enough to defenestrate a psychotic genocidal Empire ruled by a psychotic Oligarchy that wants only one thing, Everything, Forever, For Themselves? Whatever their concerns they will receive nothing from the US but the back of our hand - until we all die. I did say Psychotic.
...if only we were informed and rational.
www.StudentsForTheEarth.org