Politicians must be made to feel heat over climate responsibility
The outcome of the climate change conference that took place in Copenhagen last month has been officially described by Environmental Affairs Minister Buyelwa Sonjica as "disappointing".
The failure of the representatives of 192 countries to clinch the "real deal" for which Archbishop Desmond Tutu so eloquently pleaded is more than just disappointing — it could be calamitous for the human species.
Those who are concerned about the health of the planet, and this should (but sadly does not) include everyone, are now taking stock of the situation.
Despite the propaganda of the fossil fuel lobby, made more palatable by our natural desire to doubt that our species is responsible for a not-so-slow form of collective matricide, the smart money has it that climate change is real. Global warming is occurring, at least in part due to the activities of humankind.
Only the rate and extent of this phenomenon are debated among the approximately 2000 scientists around the world who make it their mission to assess such matters. As with AIDS, the time for denialism is past. It is the materialism and greed of too many human inhabitants of the earth, coupled with unchecked population growth of the species, that are jeopardising the sustainability and indeed survival of human life on earth.
Deforestation, desertification and pollution of the atmosphere with carbon emissions all threaten the future of our species. Already, wars are being waged over access to oil and potable water. Vested interests endeavour to protect their turf with no regard to the effect that the continuation of the old ways of making a living is having upon the sustainability of life on earth.
The generation of energy with which to drive the world economy is a major source of toxic emissions — be they from coal-fired power stations or petrol-driven internal combustion engines. Humankind's carbon footprint has every prospect of growing to fatal proportions if urgent steps are not taken to reduce the harmful side effects of human activity as it is currently structured, organised and powered.
Africa is arguably the most vulnerable continent. Already, in Darfur, there is warfare over access to potable water. The arable land in Africa is shrinking as deserts and semi-desert areas expand, with deforestation proceeding at an alarming pace.
In SA, the biggest polluter on the continent, parts of the Garden Route are running out of water this summer due to drought of unheralded duration. It is reliably predicted that the glaciers of Kilimanjaro, Africa’s highest peak, will be history within five years. This threatens the way of life of the Masai people of Kenya, who depend upon the seasonal run-off of melting ice for their water supply. Eskom plans to continue to rely on coal as fuel for its planned and existing power stations, without due regard to the long-term environmental cost to the planet of burning coal on the scale needed.
Solar energy is abundant but remains unharnessed despite the benefits to the environment that its use would entail. The vast job opportunities that converting to solar energy would entail are spurned in favour of burning the mere 400 years of cheap and nasty coal supply available locally.
Going green comprehensively has the potential to put a major dent in the unemployment statistics in SA, but vested interests and a failure to have regard for the longer-term interests of the country and the world trump any such considerations.
If the planet’s rate of warming continues and nothing is done to limit the rate at which humans breed, it is anticipated that low-lying areas will be inundated by rising seas, causing a “tsunami” of climate refugees to move to higher ground of limited availability and less propitious carrying capacity than the flooded ports and low-lying plains they are obliged to vacate.
It is not as though the problems posed by climate change are insoluble. Alternative sources of energy do exist. Renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, water, organic matter and hydrogen are already all available. What is needed more than any newfangled technology is the political will to stand up to the short-sighted vested interests and speak up for an environment that is not harmful to the health and wellbeing of humanity.
Ordinarily, elected politicians survive from election to election and accordingly view issues in approximately five-year cycles. They seek to do things, implement policies and guide affairs of state in a manner that is conducive to their re-election. The time horizon with climate change is somewhat longer than five years. However, the issue is sufficiently pressing that citizens would be entirely justified to demand from politicians that the viability and sustainability of their practices and plans for addressing climate change are sound.
Those in business should have regard to the definition of sustainable trade devised by the International Institute for Environment and Development. Sustainable trade takes place when the exchange of goods and services yields positive social, economic and environmental benefits, reflecting sustainable development which:
- generates economic value;
- reduces poverty and inequality;
- regenerates the environmental resource base; and
- is carried out within an open and accountable system of governance.
The "top-down" solution sought in vain at Copenhagen could perhaps be replaced with a "bottom-up" approach if the challenges posed by climate change are to be successfully met.
This involves raising public awareness of the urgent need to rise to the occasion. Sustainability consultants are going to have their work cut out persuading the ignorant and unconcerned that the planet needs to be saved if the species is to survive.
The young, who obviously have the most to lose if the climate becomes hostile to sustaining life, have an important role to play in pricking the consciences of leaders to the downside of delay on this issue. Our common home, the earth, has finite resources and a limited capacity to sustain life. Ordinary people can encourage leaders to devise reasonable and accountable means of dealing with climate changes that threaten the continued existence of our species on earth. Campaigning to this worthy end is a social responsibility deserving of serious consideration.
The unsatisfactory outcome of Copenhagen is at least in part attributable to the failure to approach the issues of climate change as issue s that ought to unite humanity in a common front against a common threat.
If climate change leads to the collapse of an environment that can sustain human life, then all of the hard won human rights that are enjoyed by most humans on earth will be rendered worthless. This will apply equally to the developed and developing nations, to the rich and to the poor. We are all in this together and the earth does not have an emergency exit.
'The young, who ... have the most to lose if the climate becomes hostile to life, have an important role to play in pricking the consciences of leaders'
Paul Hoffman
January 2010
