文章 Articles

War passes; the climate is forever

Humans are better at dealing with crises than long-term problems, writes Tom Burke. The future could judge us harshly.

Article image

This is arguably the most important year in human history. The grandiose invites suspicion, so the previous sentence was written reluctantly. But ideas do not seek permission before they enter your mind, nor are they always the most welcome of guests.

The idea that this might be the most important year in human history was prompted by the headlines that greeted the New Year. War and recession, tragically familiar sources of human misery, dominated. Yet it was what was missing from them that provoked my unwelcome thought.

In December, a meeting on an issue far more important than war or recession to the future prosperity and security of literally everyone on earth will take place in Copenhagen. Yet, nowhere did its prospects make the front pages. Terrible though they are, we know that consequences of war and recession pass. Climate change is forever.

The punctuation of history is marked by the names of the places where order was restored after chaos had prevailed – Westphalia, Versailles, San Francisco. It is not an exaggeration to say that what happens – or does not – in Copenhagen in December will shape human destiny more deeply, and for longer, than any of them.

The reason for this is the unique nature of the climate problem. We know that dangerous climate change is a threat to the fragile film of order we humans have built around the chaos of events and call “civilisation”. We know, because Europe’s political leaders told us, that a rise in global average temperature of more than two degrees Celsius is dangerous. We know from our scientists that greenhouse gas emissions must be moving downwards globally by 2015 if we are to have any chance at all of staying within that limit.

Once a given concentration of carbon is in the atmosphere the climate it drives is inexorable, even if it takes decades or more to fully express itself. In the most literal sense, the sins of the fathers will indeed be visited on their sons and daughters and well beyond the third and fourth generation.

Climate change does not suit us. We have little experience with the irrevocable and dislike exacting time limits. The nature of the climate is such that the future cannot redeem today’s mistakes. We have one chance, and only one chance, to reach a political agreement to reduce global carbon emissions in time to stay safe. This is the year in which we take that chance.

Compared to the diplomatic effort needed to achieve success in Copenhagen, that required for a final settlement in the Middle East is small. But there is no sign that an effort on the required scale is yet being made. Compare the amount of media coverage, and intensity of political effort, given to the Middle East to that accorded to climate change.

This is not to diminish in any way the magnitude of that tragedy, nor to argue that less should be done to address it. It is rather to point out the classic human error of allowing the more immediate to obscure the more urgent. History does not have an agenda on which items can be prioritised. Either you deal with the events it throws at you or they deal with you.

We humans do not learn easily. We try and fail and try again. Our progress is incremental. We are prone to repeating our mistakes. Too often, we are content to let the future redeem the mistakes of the present.

No leader will want to come away from Copenhagen saying they failed to solve a problem they have recognised as the most serious facing humanity. But the appearance of success will be easier to achieve than the substance. It will consist of words and the less the success the more interpretable the words.

To get emissions on a downward path by 2015, 200 nations must agree to so coordinate their energy policies as to build a carbon neutral global energy system by 2050. This will require the greatest cooperative endeavour in history. Agreement in Copenhagen is the key to the lock on the door to that 40-year endeavour.  The political conditions needed to turn that key are not yet there. We have this year to build them.

Deeds rather than words will play the biggest part in building those political conditions. US president Barack Obama has pointed the way with a stimulus package aimed to deliver economic, energy and climate security together. If the European Union and Chinese stimulus packages are also well designed then US$1.5 trillion dollars will be spent in ways which really will begin the transition to a low-carbon energy system.

Most of the world has played a far smaller part than the OECD countries in creating the problem. Their reluctance to act is understandable, if unwise. Without significant financial help from rich countries to meet the cost of adapting to the climate change to which they have been committed by others, and to help with building their own low-carbon economies, they will be unable to support the necessary agreement. We are talking tens of billions, not millions.

Words will matter too. But the words that will count most are those of political leaders, not official negotiators. Count the number of times a month presidents and foreign ministers are in the media talking about climate change. Note the number of times they hold press conferences on the issue. If they are not going up month by month, we are failing.

Climate change is a bad problem that is getting worse. For the moment it remains manageable. Pretty soon it will become unmanageable. We already have both the technology and the capital to solve this problem. What is uncertain, and will be determined this year, is whether we have the political will to do so.

I grew up in a world engaged in another long-term, large-scale cooperative endeavour. It spent billions of dollars on building weapons it hoped never to use. When they became obsolete it threw them away and built even more sophisticated and expensive weapons which it hoped never to use.

We did that for 50 years. Eventually the world really did become a safer place. The threat of climate change to the prosperity, security and well-being of everyone on the planet, especially anyone under 40, is far more certain than was the threat of the Cold War going hot. Maintaining climate security in the twenty-first century will require at least as big an effort as maintaining peace did in the last century.

Tom Burke is a founding director of E3G, an environmental policy adviser to Rio Tinto plc and a visiting professor at Imperial and University Colleges, London.

 Homepage photo by Oxfam International

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

经济危机

在国务院出台的十大产业振兴规划中,钢铁、石化等都属于产能过剩的行业,这样一来,节能减排的目标能顺利实现吗?

Economic crisis

Within China’s state council’s top ten industry promotion plan, steel and petrochemical industries among others have been classified as over-capacity industries. If this is the case, can energy conservation & emission reduction targets become a reality? (Translated by Tian Liang)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

没人关注!

有时候想,是不是我们搞环保的过于敏感了,或是总是从环保的角度来思考问题,进而把很多东西都看得非常严重。
环保问题还是仅仅停留在口头层面上,虽然现在说的人多了,国家领导说,专家学者谈,企业老板讲,可谁能够把环境保护作为终极的目标呢,谁有能够真正把环境保护与政治稳定,把环境保护与学术造诣,把环境保护与追求利润有机地结合起来呢。
没人能够真正地做到。

Nobody cares!

Sometime I wonder whether we environmentalists are over-sensitive, or always looking at problems from an environmental perspective, thus seeing everything as very serious. Environmental issues are still in the discussion stage, and although everyone talks about it a lot –- country leaders talk, experts and academics discuss, the heads of companies speak -- but who is able to make environmental protection their ultimate target? Who can organically integrate environmental protection with political stability, academic achievements and the pursuit of profit? No one can do this properly.

(translated by Nichole)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

最后,终于说到了这个事实

这是一篇无比重要的文章 — 全面提到了可能发生大灾难的事实,而绝大部分绿色活动现在对这个仍是闭口不谈。不给一点威慑让他们不再争吵,你会发现很难和他们一起合作一些事情。Tom在这里就是以一种前所未有的文雅和强势的方式做到了这点。我也一直试图通过我在中外对话的文章 和我们的博客www.psychlotherapist.blogspot.com 表达这个观点。 Mark Brayne

(translated by Fangfang CHEN)

At last, naming the truth

What an exceptionally important article - naming full-on the truth of looming catastrophe which even most of the green movement is still avoiding. It's so hard to engage with people about this without scaring them out of the debate - and Tom has done it here with more elegance and power than I've yet seen anywhere else. And this from someone trying to articulate it as well, in my own earlier article here on chinadialogue, and on our blog at www.psychlotherapist.blogspot.com.

Mark Brayne

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

Deeds rather than words

Let us listen to the political leaders and express our will. Copenhagen should not fail.

少言多行

让我们倾听政治领袖的意见,并表达自己的意愿。哥本哈根会议不应当失败。

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

战争还会出现

只要看看中东或者阿富汗,你就会明白至少在21世纪上半叶这个世界依然不会太平,关于气候变化的谈判依然取决于国家间的政治博弈,并不是人人都会从环境的角度来出发,作者的观点似乎并不现实。

War would come back

Just take a look at the Middle East or Afghanistan and you can see that, at least in the first half of the 21st century, the world wont be that stable. Talks about climate change still depend greatly on political games among countries. Not everyone can take the interests of the environment as their starting point. The author's point isn't realistic enough. Translated by diaoshuhuan