Climate change

What will our children think? That we are a smart species or not? Should you smoke in your home, what will you do to clean the air: open the windows or stop smoking? We should find a similar solution for our planet, the sooner, the better, shouldn’t we? Here we go COP21. Don’t expect too much from it, though. No silver bullet, until our attitude will change, at least. But the change could begin right in Paris: stronger commitments and a shared sense of urgency.

Actually it should have changed back in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, but little has happened since then nor during the following meetings. Emissions of greenhouse gases have risen with droughts, sea level rise and atmospheric temperatures rise. One thing has changed: in Rio there were 150 nations, now they are 196. Another difference is that we call this one “our last hope”, which reminds me of “There’s still HOPE!”. And so let’s hope it could mark a turning point.

Nothing can be taken for granted: think about Kyoto and Copenhagen. Lobbies are very powerful, opposing any action to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. Let’s not mention entire groups of politicians denying the scientific statements on climate change: they must know something we don’t (and have very large wallets).

The point is that a global problem requires a global solution, to find a global solution everyone must agree on that solution, i.e. we already have the impossibility to solve the problem. Wherefore poor nations haven’t contributed to present levels of pollution and don’t even want to hear about stopping burning fossil fuels (like India), as richer nations has never done it themselves.

The same frictions between industrialized nations and developing countries were already seen in Copenhagen. And even among richer nations there are strong oppositions: e.g. think about Republicans in America. It’s also true that 170 countries out of 196 have submitted pledges this time. Although evaluating those pledges scientists have already calculated that temperature increases will reach more than 4 degrees by the end of this century (I’m talking about Celsius, or more than 6 d. Fahrenheit). May I remind you that the limit is considered to be 2 degrees Celsius? Maybe scientists will be wrong (I’m not convinced about my sarcasm). As a matter of fact there are contradictions among individual (individual) scientists too.

Let’s also hope another thing: that those pledges are only the beginning and not the end. It’s very difficult for me to have faith because there are no plans for monitoring and reporting on emissions. It’s like having a law with no police.

Do you know what I really rely on instead? Future technology (which is already constantly improving) and basic economics 101: China is already realizing that the costs and negative health/social impact of pollution related issues are superior that the benefits deriving from production of goods supported by fossil fuels’ energy. If China is at a turning point as it seems to be, America will be obliged to follow. Fingers crossed and eyes on Paris.

Back to my initial question: what will our children think about us? I’ll leave the answer to you.

….Always humble,

Angiolino