Global warming?three current realities; one subjective surmise and a concluding call for public opinion to drive the case for urgent and collaborative action to prevent, mitigate and adapt to the consequences.
Reality 1: The earth is warming at a rate that human and natural habitats cannot adapt to. The earth has historically been characterised by climate change but at a pace that shifting patterns of the eco system have been able to accommodate. Today human action threatens to disrupt this balance. The concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere has moved the temperature trajectory onto a higher and dangerously upward level. The consequential warming will do irremediable damage to the planet.
Reality 2: Read any document on the subject whether authored by governments, NGOs or scientists and one cannot help but be struck by the commonality of the recommendations proposed for tackling global warming. There are of course differences over details, timings and statistics. And there is no consensus yet on issues like the mechanics of carbon trading, taxes and prices; the optimal mix between risk and reward and efficiency and equity; the role of legislative fiat and of course the paymaster? who should pick up the tab ?the industrialised world that is responsible for the crisis, the multilateral agencies like the World Bank?s climate change investment funds and/or the market via avenues like the clean development mechanism. But there is little or no difference in the recommended future pathway. Almost everyone agrees that the most effective way of containing GHG emissions is to invest in energy efficiency, renewable energy and forestation. The reality is that we know what needs to be done; the roadmap is clear and the technologies are familiar and accessible.
Reality 3: ?Politics as usual? continues to define the dialogue on climate change. This is no surprise given the shackles of national politics. Thus even though Obama has ?successfully? pushed a climate change bill through Congress, his hands are tied. He cannot ignore the fact that 212 members voted against the bill not because they had problems over specific clauses but because they still challenged the scientific evidence. One representative Paul Brown of Georgia even asserted that climate change was a ?hoax? perpetrated on the world by the scientific community. His remarks drew broad applause.
Politics limits the space for ?out of box? initiatives by the developing world too. In India, the PM has faced criticism for endorsing the goals set at the Major Economic Forum to limit the increase in global temperatures to no more than 2?C above pre-industrial levels and for agreeing to ?substantially reduce emissions by 2050?. This endorsement is not a legal commitment; nor does it represent a dilution of our refusal to accept binding limits on emission. All it does is to implicitly acknowledge that India will actively participate in overcoming the global challenge of global warming. The criticism is without substance and yet it has compelled a formal explanation. And most likely it will now straitjacket our delegates at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.
The reality is that whilst global warming is a crisis that recognises no borders the political responses have been and are likely to remain strongly ?bordered?. The divide between the industrialised world and the developing countries does not appear bridgeable.
Subjective surmise: Against these realities Copenhagen will most likely conclude with an agreement that reflects the lowest common denominator of consensus. The agreement will contain no doubt some specific action points especially regards the development and deployment of existing technologies but it will not create the post Kyoto platform from which collaborative and collective initiatives can be actioned. The caveat to this surmise is public opinion.
Most segments of society are now engaged?some of course more than others. Governments have set up separate ?climate change? departments; businesses have entered the phrase into their corporate lexicon; NGOs are active with grassroots technical and public awareness initiatives and scientists and academics are debating not the issue but statistical and chronological details. In theory this should make it easy to forge a clear and focused collaborative programme of next steps. In fact the opposite is the case. This is because each of these different groups continue to view climate change as a discrete problem rather than as a component part of a sustainable future. It is also because public opinion has not been galvanised. The public must now be brought into the discussion. How, is of course, a difficult proposition.
?The author is chairman of Shell Group of Companies in India. These are his personal views