Publications
Partners
THE big climate summit taking place in Paris at the moment is perhaps one of those defining moments in world history which could have a decisive influence on mankind’s future.
It is not like the Minsk summit earlier this year, which helped to prevent the Ukraine crisis from escalating into a war between Russia and the West – nothing as dramatic as that. In fact, the consequences of what will be decided in Paris during the two weeks of the summit will only become visible very slowly, and be spread out over decades.
Those in the know say that we are slowly nearing a tipping point in climate history, a point of no return where climate change will have a devastating effect on our planet.
Apparently, 2015 is set to be the warmest year since 1880, when the first temperature measurements began. The record is held by 2014.
To be sure, there is a great deal we cannot be sure about.
Some say that climate change is being affected by human intervention in the form of billions of tons of CO² being spewed into the atmosphere – by coal-fired power stations, the massive burning of forests from Indonesia to Brazil, motor car and aircraft engine emissions, etc.
Others point to strange fluctuations in the earth’s climate in the distant past, as testified by tree rings, ice samples from deep beneath the surface of the poles, and so on. They say present climate change may well be a natural and passing phenomenon.
We cannot be sure. But it really doesn’t matter. Climate change as such is an undeniable fact, and we will do well to recognise the symtoms, the dangers that they pose, and measures we could take to ameliorate the negative consequences.
Computer models predict that the world will experience many more tropical storms, typhoons and hurricanes as well as floods in some parts of the world. In others, the result will likely be drought, such as the one suffered by South Africa at present.
Of course, it is impossible to be categorical about this. Droughts occur from time to time - I remember several in my lifetime. We even used to joke about the old Jew's comment on hearing that the good Christians were holding a special service to pray for rain: “You can try, but the wind is blowing from the west…”
At present, conventional wisdom is that the earth can take a warming of 2 degrees Celsius before a tipping point is reached. This was the result of a report by 15 experts in the 1980s.
However, one of those, the American Jon Koomey, now thinks that the planet cannot handle more than 1.5 degrees. In fact, the measures taken so far, experts say, will mean a warming of 2.7 degrees.
They say that the ice caps at the poles are probably more vulnerable than previously thought. In fact, the Greenland ice cap may become unstable even at a single degree’s warming.
The point is that the melting of the polar ice, which has already reached alarming proportions, will cause sea levels to rise, which would mean the end of a low-lying island group like the Maldives. It will also cause severe problems for the coastal areas of the Netherlands and Flanders, which are already below sea level, as well as other places.
Plant and animal species to bear the brunt
Other experts think that an increase of 4 degrees will mean a severe habitat loss for almost two-thirds of all plant species and a third of all mammal species.
While this may well be exaggerated, we cannot be sure and it is better to err on the side of caution.
If the doomsayers are correct, technology has placed mankind in this problematic position. It will also be technology that could save us – but then the new technology will have to be economical. In other words, it will have to generate a profit.
Let us take the question of motor cars. Together, vehicles pump millions of tons of CO² into the atmosphere. The technology for cleaning up vehicles has been on the drawing board for years but oil companies, fearful for their profits, prevented them from being developed properly.
Now that the end of the planet’s oil reserves is slowly coming into sight, they see that they have to embrace new thinking to save themselves. The alternative of electrical engines merely relocates the problem, as the batteries have to be charged with energy coming from "dirty" power stations.
The solution may lie with hydrogen engines, which produce only water vapours as exhaust gas. The first production models, I gather, are already on the road in Europe.
Another measure might be the development of crops able to withstand extreme weather.
The bottom line is that rational thought should be employed, instead of the shouting and hysteria so often displayed by the green prophets of doom.
As The Economist put it in its latest issue: “In short: thinking caps should replace hair shirts, and pragmatism should replace green theology. The climate is changing because of extraordinary inventions like the steam turbine and the internal combustion engine. The best way to cope is to keep inventing.”
* Leopold Scholtz is an independent political analyst who lives in Europe. Views expressed are his own.
