The "Stern Report" on Climate Change - Consequences?

Last week, one of the main news was the Stern Report on Climate Change written for the UK government. Here in the UK, this led to an intense discussion on what could and what should be done.

This is a serious problem. But it is not really news: those who have been "consciously" watching in the past 30 years, knew it all along that these would be tough first 50 years of the new millenium, not even mentioning the following decades and centuries. Pollution has already destroyed big parts of the natural the environment and is continuing to do so, although some progress had been made:

• Cars are nowdays much cleaner and more efficient than a few decades ago. This is very visible for example in Southern California (around Los Angeles), an area that had been notorious for smog and pollution, but where since the mid-1990s there were only very few smog days. Lead has been removed from gas, and the fuels are more efficient and burn cleaner (although with some other negative side effects, such as polluting the water supply near gas stations).
• Renewable energies receive more funding and are being integrated into power networks.

But nevertheless, these improvements did not do much to the fact that pollution increases, and the earth's temperature goes up. Or at least the energy content of the atmosphere - in terms of stronger storms for example. Not completely clear, from a scientific point of view, is if the temperature actually would go up, or if increased pollution would finally stop the sun rays from warming the earth, and might in fact let it cool down (particle emissions). However, undoubtedly, the human activity has an effect on the climate.

But what to do? There are some suggestions: in the UK, at a radio talk show, there was a caller who wanted to abolish shopping on Sunday - in order to conserve energy. Others call for a reduction of flights. And while there are certainly measures that could be undertaken in order to reduce emissions and energy waste, I hesitate to support some short-sighted activism which only would have a tiny effect, but which would make life for me personally quite inconvenient. I will not give up shopping on Sunday: the hectic and wasteful driving on congested roads on Saturdays and during restricted opening hours is not a solution to the world's energy problems. And I will not give up flying: I fly a lot, just recently I had my 380th take-off (and landing, fortunately) since my first flight in 1982. Short-haul flights are unnecessary, but there is no alternative for long-haul air transport.

Any measures that the established Western industrial world would take now, no matter how drastic they might be, would not be able to offset the real "threat": the rapid industrialisation of upcoming Nations such as China and India. I heard recently, that in China every week a new power plant is opened, and every year China adds the emissions of the total UK's emissions to the world - despite that these new power plants are the cleanest in the world. Now should we be upset and stop China from expanding their energy production? Don't they also have the right to electricity, to refrigerators and dish washing machines? Or would any of us here in the Western World be willing to give up all our luxury while altruistically allow others to have their 150 years of industrial revolution too?

This makes me believe that nothing can be done against the global pollution problem, except to enforce strictest standards as possible, filtration systems etc. In fact, China is very much aware of this: the new additions to their shipping fleet are nowadays the cleanest ships on Earth (as I havebeen told last year by an insider into ship emissions), with new ships fulfilling the strictest emission standards. But nobody can forbid growth, and even the strictest standards will then prevent a reversal of this global warming trend.

So I have taken the not-so-ethical stand of arranging myself with the coming catastrophy. My recommendation: move to northern countries which will actually benefit from the global warming. For example, Leeds here in Northern England where I live now, experiences the warmest summers and autumns ever - that is fine with me. Greenland will be the up-and-coming land to settle - maybe buy some real estate there soon! Also, avoid settling near the coast, as the sea level will inevitably rise. The Alps will no longer have snow-caps and glaciers - this is a real loss, and good-bye to skiing! This is really a pity, as future generations will just see the Alps as a collection of eroded rock piles, similar to parts of the Rocky Mountains in the US.

There is nothing that can be done to prevent this coming catastrophy. Every little saving of energy that we could provide, will be more than overcompensated as the whole world catches up. Still, I buy these energy-saving lamps, hoping that this will eventually make them cheap enough so that they will be used by everybody. I know that this will not help much, but I still do it - something irrational for the conscience.

The real trouble of this climate change will be not for me, but for other people: 100 millions of fugitives are to be expected, from the zones in the now subtrocpial and tropical areas. Africa is already a dying continent - the climate change will accelerate this. We should be prepared for these fugitives, build the infrastructure, prepare the societies for this wave to come. Because it will be coming, no matter what will be decided on the next climate summit.

Saddam Hussein - Death Sentence

So now the sentence has been spoken. Will this bring peace to the region? No, on the contrary: this verdict will be seen as the victory of one of the two sites: Shiites are jubilating, Sunnies are revolting.

Ok, Saddam was a "bad guy", as they say in the US in their simplifying way (even the official media use this expression). But there are so many worse guys in this world who do not get sentenced to anything. Saddam deserved a trial and a sentence, and I think that he got a fair trial - although there are voices who express concern about that (for example, Amnesty International claims that this trial had not been). But he got a verdict that comes out of the attitude of the middle ages: death by hanging. Is this barbaric verdict appropriate to the justice system of the 21st century? I do not think so. In the US, the only Western country where the death penalty is still legal, there is of course no objection to this sentence. It is, however, quite revealing how in the other Western countries this sentence is being commented: here in the UK where the death sentence is outlawed, the officials wind themselves in justifying this verdict, without condoning explicitly the death penalty - a true display of double standard, of hippocracy.

This verdict will be a burden for the future of Iraq - it will be seen as a revenge act which will provike further revenge acts.

Iraq - the Man-Made Desaster

It is heart-breaking to read, hear, and watch news from Iraq - these news seem to get worse every day. The big bothersome truth is that this mess could completely have been avoided. When in 2003, the US bullied the UN into resolutions which were ultimately used by the "Coalition of the Willing" to invade Iraq, it was clear to anyone with a clear judgement that the premises for this war were artificially constructed. When in autumn 2002 the Bush adminstration pressured Saddam Hussein into concessions, it was evident and clearly visible that with every concession Saddam made, the demands were set higher, so as to demonstrate that Iraq would not be willing to cooperate with the world community. In the end, Saddam was willing to let UN observers in, and to fulfil the requirements made. But it was too late - the US and UK troops were already in place, waiting on their ships and airports for the "go" signal. When governments are determined to start a war, nothing will stop them. Not even the fact that these governments are democracies, did stop them to pursue the path they had chosen to go, against all advice from experts, and by manipulating "evidence" which seemingly supported their case ("weapons of mass destruction") and at the same time withholding evidence that this was all BS (reports from UN weapons inspectors, internal CIA memos, etc.).

Now, after more than 3 years, these democratic governments finally get to feel the heat from this dodged operation: US President Bush is on an all time low in opinion polls, and the yes-men in his political mob finally feel the public turning away from them. And Prime Minister Blair who is actually 100 times more reasonable than Bush but who has - for reasons unknown to anyone of mankind - chosen to pay allegiance to the US on their path of destruction, also pays now the price, being almost "evicted" in shame during the past months of discussions of the end of his term.

But the damage is done. A country which was not ideal and was not functioning to its fullest potential in the time before the 2003 invasion, has been now completely destroyed. It is disheartening to read in the Independent (20.10.2006) a report that 68% of Iraqis have no access to safe drinking water. Or that 72% of Iraqis need reconstructive surgery from gunshot or blast wounds. No functioning hospital system.

The US administration had set aside $243 M for building 142 private health clinics, in a well-intended effort to rebuild Iraq and to improve conditions. 20 of those have been build, the money is gone. Where is it?

It is not hard to imagine how profiteers followed the foot steps of the US soldiers, winning lucrative government bids for "building" up the destroyed infrastructure, and enriching themselves gorgeously at the cost of the US tax payer. This whole war seemed to have been set up as a scheme to enrich some of President Bush's cronies, such as Haliburton and company. This means that most of the money spent and wasted on this war is actually coming back to the US - and with this argument it was obviously easy to win the support of the US legislative for this war.

The ones who suffer from this scheme are the Iraqis. Growing minorities of religious fanatics take over, burying whatever was left after the destruction by the military force.

What always strikes me is how anyone could imagine to win the "minds and hearts" of the Iraqi population, when one sees on TV soldiers in hunt and search action, kicking in doors with their feet, shouting at scared women, and claiming that all this is done well according to established procedure? Not talking about those excesses well beyond the regular established procedure, as shown in Abu Graib, and in the criminal rape and murder cases commited by US and UK troops, popping up like mushrooms.

The invadors of Iraq are loosing the war that they imposed in the Iraqi people. There is one horrible lesson learned from history, on how to win such a war: bomb everything flat until everything is destroyed, in a unconditional capitulation. The example is World War 2, when Germany was bombed and destroyed completely - all the morale and the capability to "fight back" was basically destroyed, and a basis for a long lasting healthy economic recovery afterwards was prepared. There was no insurgency... because there were no means to fight anymore. In Iraq it seems that the insurgency gets stronger every day, sucking out the livelyhood of the Iraqi civilian population.

Let's hope that the invadors will not learn this lesson from WW 2: let's hope that they will not apply the proven tool of complete destruction. Fortunately, it seems that they do not learn from history anyway - otherwise they would not have started this war in the first place.

About this Blog

Already a long time ago, when I first had access to the internet and set up a web server in 1994, I thought that it would be great to use this medium to post reflection, comments, and opinions, to share with others. At that time, nobody knew the term "blog", but people were setting up personal web pages. And so did I, just providing a few bits about myself and my interests. But I never came around to transforming my web site into an opinion page. It was just too much hassle, to set this up, keep it updated, and write all the HTML code for it from scratch. I even had the title "My two cents" in mind for this, but never found the time to implement this.

Nowadays, there is a great variety of blog software, allowing exactly that kind of opinionated publishing that I envisioned in the mid 90s. As I tried to find a place for posting and sharing pictures online, I found the Picasa / Hello tool from Google. From there, I was led to the Blogger site, which is what I use now for my blogs. The easy to use interface and the general well designed operation prompted me to give this a try. My first blog here, which I set up in summer 2005, was devoted to my many travels which I did as a part of my job or for leasure (Reinhold's Musings). I felt that it may be interesting to some people, friends, colleagues, or just anyone else, to read a bit about different impressions and events. In that blog, I generally kept a quite "low profile", trying not to offend anyone, not so display too personal thoughts and descriptions, and not to post on possibly controversial topics. Now, this blog here is my second blog. I feel more comfortable to be a bit more direct and open, writing about my opinions and thoughts about issues. This blog should be taken as such - as a personal account and a set of reflections on current or general issues.

I hope you enjoy this blog - you are very welcome to post your replies and participate in possible discussions. I may not post regularly nor reply to comments, so please do not expect much interaction, as my profession does not leave me very much time for this. However, I find that blogging is a valuable tool for engaging with a world-wide audience. As the world is growing closer together, blogging provides a way of bridging cultures through sharing experiences and opinions, across all boundaries.