Monday, November 06, 2006

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.