“Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time.”
Mark Lynas / guardian.co.uk
There seems to be an unspoken belief in the media that scientific consensus is one theory, and non-scientific ideas are another theory that should get the same air-time.
Actually, a theory can only exist in the (international) framework of scientific verification where it can be tested, but an idea (like god’s six day building program for example) can only be sustained by conjecture and driven by a coterie of ‘believers’. Who are usually in it for the power and prestige anyway.
In the case of the absolutely scientifically proven case of increasing annual temperatures things are a bit different. There are many people in the rich world who either can’t or don’t want to cut down on their emissions, ranging from the selfish to the gullible. More importantly, the lack of good scientific education in the community means that concepts like exponential change and unstable equilibrium are not well understood by the citizens. Why has a threefold increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 created warming anyway? (clue: “greenhouse effect”). Why will the rapid thawing of the (100000 year old) Siberian permafrost quite probably hasten climate catastrophe? (clue: “methane” ).
The next problem might be called transgenerational dysfunctionality. As mammals we are hard wired to love our young and prepare them for the future. Right up to the time when they can have young and pass on mum and dad’s DNA. But recorded culture and complex language extend our perception of humanity, and increasingly labels like teenager, grandfather are becoming less important.
For most people thinking about your great grandchildren seems pointless. You might be dead by then anyway. Like the old bloke on the beach at Bondi on the front page of the Australian who reckoned he hadn’t seen much change in sea level over the years and no he didn’t think it would affect his grandchildren. (who are probably in their teens anyway). The ability to visualize the misfortune of future civilizations seems like science fiction to most people. In the abstract because “…I will not be here then, anyway”. But the future comes closer, quicker.
