Strange climate summit in Copenhagen

Strange climate summit in Copenhagen

So, another summit about the earth. Our heads of states went there and did their political promotion. Companies increased their influence over the talks and promoted their agenda. Doubts about the climate change are growing as the sceptics are using every trick they can to demonstrate that there is no global warming and if there is, it is not man made.

After listening to Lord Monckton who is by the way one of the people who defended cigarette companies by saying that they do not cause diseases is now promoting the idea that there is no global warming. In order to defend his new cause, he decided that the most efficient way to stop the fight against global warming was to go to court. It is no longer up to scientists to tell us whether or not something in science is true or not, it is up to the court.

He has a clear agenda to fight science by using the judicial systems. He clearly stated it in a interview that the industries of the western world were not going to put the way they were doing business in jeopardy because of the non-sense about global warming. He is in a clear mission to defend companies who are polluting just like he did with cigarette companies.

Now, nobody is saying that companies should not be defended. As a matter of fact since they are employing us and they are giving us the money to survive, it is in our interest that we protect them against anything that is a fraudulent but it should not be done by denying what scientists are claming to be true. It should not be done by rejecting the evidences that scientists are showing us nor by using the judicial system to stop them from speaking about a problem.

We should find ways to make those companies do what they want to do without putting humanity at risk. This is the reasonable way to help those companies and their employees.

Lord Monckton is saying that he doubts not only the sceptics about global warming but also the evidence about global warming but what is strange is that he only came up with arguments which are supposedly proving that global warming is false. He promotes himself as a sceptic of both sides when all his actions are just showing that he is clearly in the camp of people who are refuting the evidence about global warming.

In order to increase doubts about the climate change, some of those sceptics are attacking the models that scientists are using to demonstrate the effects of global warming. Unfortunately, if we go this path, we can refute not only global warming but most of today sciences and economics. Indeed many economical theories are based on models. If someone today wants to destroy one of them, he just needs to attack the premises on which the models are based and everything will collapse and we can do that with all models that are being used in the world. Consequently, this argument is a little bite non-sense.

The big thing that sceptics now want is to a debate against Al Gore. They are using the fact that he declined to debate with them as proof that the global warming is a pure invention. They say that he can not defend his views because he knows that they are all wrong. Of course, among the people who wish to have a debate with Al Gore, as you would have guessed we found Lord Monckton that I have talked about earlier.

Another person who wants to debate Al Gore is Bjorn Lomborg who describes himself as a climate policy skeptic. He does not refute the global warming effect, neither does he rejects the fact that co2 in the atmosphere is causing global warming. He also believes that it is man made. Where he does have a problem is about the policy of cutting carbon emission drastically right now as the only real policy to solve it. According to what he says, it is the most difficult measure to implement and the most expensive. Therefore it should be abandoned.

His argument is that since 1992, we have been trying to cut carbon emissions but we have failed dramatically therefore we should not look at it anymore because it is a bad solution. God! I wish I could have used that argument in school when my grades were good. I should have told my parents: “look it has been two hours that I have been trying to do this math exercise since and I am not able to do it, it means that mathematic is absolutely wrong.” I will never forgive myself for not using it”. Or maybe I should have said to my parents that because mathematic books are too expensive, we should not learn math. I am sure it would have worked.

Alright! I am going to stop with my sarcasms. I actually agree with Bjorn Lomborg when he said that we should explore all the others possibilities to reduce global warming like deforestation, investment in clean energy, geo-engineering etc. First of all, it is not as if organizations, people, local communities never pushed for those things. The reality is that they have been promoting for the implementations of those measures for a long time. He acts as if he has discovered the moon. It has been a long time since people are talking about electric cars, deforestation etc.

He talks about it as if there was something extravanganza about it. There is nothing new under the sun about what he says. Everybody had heard about it and did not wait for him to fight for those things.

One of the reasons people are talking a lot about reducing carbon emission is because it is the principal reason of global warming.

It strikes me as odd that when it comes to something that we know is actually damaging our environment and he agrees with it, he is ready to stop it because we were unable to implement it. The fact that we failed to implement it does not mean that it is a bad solution. It might mean that we lacked the will to do it or that the legislation was not respected or maybe that the companies managed to stop the laws that would have forced them to reduce their emissions. It certainly does not speak against the reduction of carbon emission in the atmosphere.

I have listened to Bjorn Lomborg and I really think that he is sincere but the argument that he uses to reject the reduction of carbon emission can be used to reject the solutions that he proposed such as deforestation or the reductions of others gas that are bad for the environment. It is strange that the basis to reject a solution nowadays is no longer that it is not efficient but that we failed to implement it. Unfortunately with the environment, it does not work like that. If the polluters keep on polluting and the deforestation keep on going as it is, even if we invest in clean energy or geo-engineering, it will not change anything because the atmosphere will still be polluted.

His arguments give strength to companies that are polluting. Nothing that he proposed helps them to change their behaviour. It is as if he is saying, let’s not trouble those companies that have been responsible of polluting our common environment and are still polluting it with the reduction of emission of carbon dioxides but instead let’s focus on clean energy and geo-engineering.

Like I said, it does not solve the problem. It is just saying, we should leave the situation as it is and create new companies that will invest in clean energy. If all the companies were investing in clean energy, I will say yes but that is not what he is proposing. He is proposing that we continue to let those companies pollute our environment and that we create new companies which will invest in geo-engineering. I just have few questions. How’s that going to reduce the carbon emissions that we reject in the atmosphere if the companies that are polluting keep on polluting? How’s that going to stop deforestation if the companies that are cutting trees to create biofuel are allowed to continue to expand?

Another argument that is being used by the sceptics is that global warming is not a priority for the entire world. They are saying that 3/4 of the population worries about malaria, HIV, surviving more than a week and because of that, we should not focus on global warming. 

It is very interesting because the people who are defending the companies are saying that companies should not do anything to improve the way they are doing business because it will change the life style of the western world and they use the third world as well to say that they should not change the world has others priority. They seem to forget that the third world is going to those challenges mainly because of those companies.

So, on one hand, they do not want to change because the life style of the western world will collapse and on the other hand, they also do not want to change because the life style of people in developing countries should improve when the situation those countries are in is partly due to the deals they cut with the governments of those countries.

It is also a very good tactic divide the world between people who are concerned by climate change and people who are not in order to diminish the support for global warming. Indeed if every time we talk about global warming, we are confronted to the others challenges the world is facing, the support for global warming will diminish.

The evidences are there to prove that climate change is real and that it is man made and could have dramatic consequences for all of us who lived either in the developed or developing countries but instead of solving the problem for the good of everyone, we are opposing the world. As if by changing priority, global warming would disappear. Global warming is not in competition with malaria, poverty or HIV. Unfortunately, if the earth is not habitable, none of those problems would matter. This is why we need to focus on the earth first before anything else.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: