While the debate simmers in copenhagen, Rahul Chaudhary explores a tizzying array of perspectives that would've sent our planet spinning, if it weren't already...
Even as world leaders converge in Copenhagen to save the world from impending doom, induced at least in part by man-made global warming, scattered but strong voices that dismiss the save-the-planet clamour as a figment of the collective imaginations of the climate scientists, are getting louder. Clearly, the global warming debate is far from settled. In fact, it might just have received a shot in the arm, especially after the events in the run up to Copenhagen, touted as the most decisive meet on global warming and climate change.
As we wait for action to heat up in Copenhagen, where negotiations begin in the true sense with governments fighting hard to haggle for concessions and cuts in emissions besides deciding on future mitigation targets, there are those who believe that the only winning party in the whole exercise will be states and groups who stand to gain with the introduction of discriminatory licensing policies, taxation regimes and expensive technology, thus offloading the costs of vital economic development on the developing world in the process. The sceptics believe that such a scenario would only serve the purpose of entrusting governments with greater control over our lives, and therefore our destinies, and cause further economic and social disparity in the world.
Climate change believers on their part maintain that ‘deniers’ are often funded by rich corporations (biggest consumers of fossil fuels) who contribute much to the climate woes facing the world. They cite examples like the 2003 heat wave in Europe that killed close to 35000 people to support their theory.
Scientists are after all humans, and therefore capable of erring, not to mention the assumptions that go into the climate models. So whose word should the common man go by? Perhaps the answer to that lies in the question. Without, for a moment, subscribing to either view (and there is a good reason for that, for one cannot impress the public by mere number crunching, or by explaining just how these climate models work, nor can we risk mistaking the words of climate change sceptics as gospel truth), let’s consider both possibilities. Let’s for once believe that we’re the ones causing climate change or global warming, however, big or small our contribution. Let us say that doomsday prophecies of melting glaciers and rising sea levels, of food shortages and resulting epidemic are a future reality, however distant. What then? We can then take solace in the fact that the world at large is on the right track. For clearly, there is evidence-based consensus among the ‘green’ scientists and that forms the basis for the global warming mainstream thinking endorsed by international governments. And if the world, as they claim, is really falling apart, then whatever we achieve at Copenhagen or in any future agreement will only help us buy more time for future generations.
Even as world leaders converge in Copenhagen to save the world from impending doom, induced at least in part by man-made global warming, scattered but strong voices that dismiss the save-the-planet clamour as a figment of the collective imaginations of the climate scientists, are getting louder. Clearly, the global warming debate is far from settled. In fact, it might just have received a shot in the arm, especially after the events in the run up to Copenhagen, touted as the most decisive meet on global warming and climate change.
As we wait for action to heat up in Copenhagen, where negotiations begin in the true sense with governments fighting hard to haggle for concessions and cuts in emissions besides deciding on future mitigation targets, there are those who believe that the only winning party in the whole exercise will be states and groups who stand to gain with the introduction of discriminatory licensing policies, taxation regimes and expensive technology, thus offloading the costs of vital economic development on the developing world in the process. The sceptics believe that such a scenario would only serve the purpose of entrusting governments with greater control over our lives, and therefore our destinies, and cause further economic and social disparity in the world.
Climate change believers on their part maintain that ‘deniers’ are often funded by rich corporations (biggest consumers of fossil fuels) who contribute much to the climate woes facing the world. They cite examples like the 2003 heat wave in Europe that killed close to 35000 people to support their theory.
Scientists are after all humans, and therefore capable of erring, not to mention the assumptions that go into the climate models. So whose word should the common man go by? Perhaps the answer to that lies in the question. Without, for a moment, subscribing to either view (and there is a good reason for that, for one cannot impress the public by mere number crunching, or by explaining just how these climate models work, nor can we risk mistaking the words of climate change sceptics as gospel truth), let’s consider both possibilities. Let’s for once believe that we’re the ones causing climate change or global warming, however, big or small our contribution. Let us say that doomsday prophecies of melting glaciers and rising sea levels, of food shortages and resulting epidemic are a future reality, however distant. What then? We can then take solace in the fact that the world at large is on the right track. For clearly, there is evidence-based consensus among the ‘green’ scientists and that forms the basis for the global warming mainstream thinking endorsed by international governments. And if the world, as they claim, is really falling apart, then whatever we achieve at Copenhagen or in any future agreement will only help us buy more time for future generations.
