Climate and policy and development are not supposed to be addressed with emotion. These are, after all, high-level negotiations! They must be treated with the sterile gaze of an academic or a reporter. Only the facts.
But today I am feeling sad. I am feeling sad because the two most powerful men in the world are meeting in Beijing to discuss the future of the planet. Our planet. Together their nations account for fully 40 percent of the mess we find ourselves in. Historically one was worse than the other, and so there is a lot of name-calling and finger pointing on who should be the first to say “I’m sorry, let me lead on this one.” There are no leaders in this mess.
It strikes me as unfair that two men that I didn’t elect will decide the fate of our planet. It strikes me as ridiculous that our own elected leader has failed to position Canada in a leadership position, kowtowing instead to the interests of big oil and industry. It strikes me as hopeless that the general consensus now is that Copenhagen will be little more than a dog and pony show for the political elite.
I spend my day in a basement, underground, typing these little memo’s and releasing them to the universe with the sincere hope that someone will read them, feel inspired, demand more. Hopeful that things will change. But today I am feeling sad. I am feeling sad because deep down I wonder if it’s reasonable to demand people far away to sacrifice their economic development for a mess I created. I wonder if it isn’t already too late. I do not want to be typing these memos when I am 50, but I fear that might be the case. I am fearful. This is a sinking ship. Perhaps the only justice in our failure to reach consensus, to co-operate the way we were all taught too back in kindergarten, is that we will all go down together.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Sad post. I’ve been there. Somehow I’ve been able to resist falling back in… maybe because I hit rock bottom a couple years back.
But I think it’s a fallacy that taking action on climate change will result in slowed/destroyed economic development. Not only is there a lot of room for new jobs in overhauling infrastructure, but adaptation (which will obviously become necessary) would damage the economy faaaar more than any preventative measures possibly could, given that it will all take place among increased droughts/floods and all that other stuff you already know about.
Just look at how much it’s going to cost Las Vegas to deal with their increasing water problems…
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/las-vegas-nervously-watches-the-water-drop
(It could be up to $1 trillion. For Las Vegas alone.)
Also, I would be wary to read too much into that article on the Wall Street Journal, which sounds excited as all get-out that Copenhagen might not result in anything substantial. The closing line says it all: “If he and we are lucky, however, the Senate will fail to act too, the EPA will get tied up in court, and the economy will recover faster without the looming burden of higher energy taxes.”
Stuff and nonsense, I say.
I agree with you on the fallacy of economic collapse as a result on action on climate change, but it seems bottom-line-bucks is the international language of this particular negotiation. I myself am wary of an economic model based on carbon credits; Carbon is carbon, regardless of where in the world it originates. I wish we didn’t need high level international negotiations to make action a reality. I’d like to see local tax initiatives in developed nations to limit growth to domestic CO2 without compromising the poverty alleviation and growth goals of developing nations. Alas, my world view means political suicide for any politician doomed to try it. And beyond that, I’m out of ideas on just what to do!