I recently watched the movie 2012. It?s futuristic, portraying cataclysmic events unfolding in the year 2012. It posits an end of time theory based on the fact that the calendar of ancient Mayans ends on December 21, 2012.
The film revolves around an ensemble cast of characters as they narrowly escape multiple catastrophes in an effort to reach ships in the Himalayas, along with scientists and world leaders who are attempting to save as many lives as they can before the disaster ensues.
Now hypothetically, assume that the leading scientists of the world were to discover that such an event is indeed going to take place, may not be in 2012 but by say 2022. If the world were to know that it had about a decade to avoid the catastrophe, it would be unlikely for governments of different nations to spend that time squabbling among themselves to determine who needs to do what and how much, to avoid the catastrophe. Each nation would put in its best effort to avoid the collective disaster. Even in times of financial distress, governments would mobilise resources to fight the extraordinary danger. They would look beyond the near-term costs, to focus on avoiding the bigger danger.
Yet, when it comes to global climate change today, it seems like it is nobody?s problem. True, climate change is slow and gradual. It is unfolding on a time scale that confounds our politicians, and even our economists. Scientific studies indicate that accumulated carbon dioxide emitted from the burning of fossil fuels, along with contributions from other human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, is leading to warmer surface temperatures. These biophysical changes, in turn, have had significant effects on the functioning of ecosystems, the viability of wildlife, and the well-being of humans?including their economic welfare.
Over a century back, people worldwide began burning more coal and oil for homes, factories and transportation. Burning these fossil fuels released carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These added greenhouses gases have caused the planet to warm more quickly than it had in the past.
Warmer waters in the shallow oceans have contributed to the death of about a quarter of the world?s coral reefs over the past 100 years. Carbon dioxide dissolving into the oceans has made seawater more acidic. Many of the coral animals and other marine life have died due to warmed acidic seawaters. Warmer temperatures have led to more intense rainfall events in some areas while in other areas they have caused a higher rate of evaporation resulting in acute drought.
In the last few decades, hurricanes have changed in frequency and strength. The number of intense hurricanes has increased since 1970. Heat waves have become common in many parts of the world. Moreover, due to climate change, the pollen season has grown longer, resulting in more allergy attacks. There have also been some changes in the ranges of animals that carry diseases due to warmer temperatures.
As for actions being taken to reduce and reverse these disorders, precious little has been done in tangible terms. Until now, the efforts have been primarily directed at arriving at a consensus on the plan of action. Last month, there was a climate summit in Copenhagen, at which leaders from 192 countries met to decide the future course of action. US President Barack Obama told the participants, ?Choose action over inaction, the future over the past?with courage and faith, let us meet our responsibility to our people and to the future of our planet.?
Regardless of what gets said, the fact of the matter is that we are still trying to arrive at an acceptable global climate treaty. It seems it will take months or years before nations come to an agreement because not all countries see eye to eye on how greenhouse gases should be reduced, which countries should make changes and who will pay for the cost of slowing the rate of global warming.
If only the leaders took a leaf out of the characters in 2012, they would realise that climate change is not an ?us-against-them? battle. It affects all of us?slowly but surely. The costs in economic, humanitarian and biophysical terms are too humungous to ignore. The good thing is that, unlike in the movie, there is no urgent, impending disaster. In a way, that?s not such a good thing either, because it obscures the predicament we are in right now and makes us complacent. As preposterous as it may sound, I would not mind a manageable and prominent emergency that alerts leaders across nations about this collective problem. I would rather that we face short-term pain over long-term misery.
I wouldn?t mind if a miniature, manageable and avertable version of 2012 were to come true, if it could alert our leaders to the gravity of the problem and make us stand united in fighting a common concern. A much more desirable option is that even without a conspicuous emergency, all nations relent from their myopic, self-centered agenda to contribute as much as possible to minimise the humanitarian and economic damage from climate change. As they say in Mayan, ?yan kaxtik tuumben chuunuj??we seek a new beginning.
The author, formerly with JPMorgan Chase?s Global Capital Markets, is CEO, Quantum Phinance