RSSThis week saw multinational talks in Bangkok aimed at resolving Global Climate Change issues, and specifically to begin the process of redrafting protocols to replace the Kyoto Protocols which expire in 2012. The talks were generally seen as a failure with very little agreement or consensus and much difficulty in even agreeing on dates for future meetings.
I believe that we face a huge challenge in the next few years. It is not insurmountable. I think that the difficulties will not be in discovering technological solutions. I don't think that technology will necessarily solve the issues, though it will play a significant role - and by this, I mean technology in all parts of the spectrum ... from nano-technology to candles. The real difficulty lies in the implementation - i.e. in changing human behaviour.
Think for a moment about how we treat our own bodies. We have all, at some point, mistreated our bodies for the sake of something immediate ... smashing a few too many jugs of beer, or mugs of coffee, or depriving ourselves of sleep for the sake of short-term gains. The list is long and different for each of us. We find it difficult to extend our planning horizons for our own bodies beyond the present.
How will we be able to deny immediate returns and extend our planning when it comes to something that is communal, especially something that is detached from our current experiences? We struggle to do it for own bodies which are as attached and tangible to us as anything can possibly be. This disconnect between behaviour and planning horizon is amplified by our political and socio-economic situations worldwide. Political leaders are typically planning only as far as the next election. Business leaders are planning as far as the next budget release etc.
Planning, diligence and patience are disappearing from society.
What are the solutions then? I don't know. I think it will require two major changes in the way we approach almost every aspect of life:
1. Think about and plan for the present TO the long-term future
2. No man is an island. We are all connected for better or for worse in the ecosystem that is Planet Earth. Our actions affect everyone and everything else.
Al Gore is calling for a change in Law as well as a change in the behaviour of individuals. I agree with this. I don't want to down-play the value of changes in individual behaviour. I do think that it will be difficult without the encouragement of the law however. In a seminal paper in Science in 1968, "The tragedy of the commons", Garrett Hardin discussed these issues. Do humans have the capacity to act unselfishly? The tragedy of the commons suggests not, but I am optimistic that we do have the capacity. As the Kyoto Protocol and the recent difficulties in Bangkok suggest, finding the balance between the stick (law) and the carrot ([usually] intangible environmental good) will be the immediate challenge for our leaders.
I challenge you to start by applying the two changes I mentioned above to your life - not necessarily just to environmental issues, but to any and all issues. And ... let's hold each other accountable for these things in an encouraging manner.
Peace
Permalink
rudi With the US economy flagging and China's economy on the rise, I think it's politically a difficult time to talk global good. It will be hard for the US to keep to the expensive moral high ground when the Chinese have effectively no ethical restraints at all. And as long as these two countries remain deadlocked, why should everyone else come to the party?
Pete So, if the outcome is that we cannot ALL act selflessly, then we need some sort of protection measures from those who want to act selfishly. This is where the "stick" comes in. The situation is similar in many ways to the common good of world peace - something that spurned the creation of the League of Nations and our current version, the United Nations.
Should the policy-making and policing thus fall to the UN on this matter? It is after all the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that has emerged as the definitive authority on the subject. And even if the UN is the appropriate entity for this task, do they have the clout to enforce it? As we have seen in the US' disregard for the consent of the UN in their military actions over the last 5 years, some of the individual countries are unlikely to comply.
Here is another thought on the China issue - could we, as a worldwide consumer public, force China to comply, by boycotting Chinese products? Is this fair to China and her people? Should we be giving China more benefit of the doubt considering the population control measures they have implemented?
Tough issues...
rudi As far as compliance between countries is concerned, I really don't see consumers themselves boycotting Chinese products en masse (in western consumer society, it's still the cheapest product that wins). Or at least not enough to make China do much more than laugh.
And who in this day and age would introduce national trade embargoes against China? They are investing huge sums in Africa, and it's not a good idea to bite the hand that feeds you.
I would honestly be surprised to see much progress happening on greenhouse gas emissions targets until it really is an international catastrophe and it makes more financial sense to do something about it than to continue doing nothing. I also think that when that happens, China will already be implementing the necessary countermeasures while the rest of us are still arguing about whose fault it is.
This post has 1 feedback awaiting moderation...
Leave a comment: