|
Storm surges have left parts of Denmark under water this week |
I know it no longer
gets as much media attention as it used to but global warming has
been back in the news again lately with the COP17 meeting in Durban.
Of course, you could be forgiven for not noticing it as it hasn't
received as much press coverage partly because of lowered
expectations that anything can be achieved by world leaders but also
because the anti global warming talking heads have convinced enough
people that it's a non-issue cooked up by greedy scientists and
megalomaniac one world order socialists.
So it's all the more
ironic that almost two years to the day after the Copenhagen talks
ended Mother Nature has served a reminder of just who runs the show.
A few days ago a powerful storm swept down from the North Atlantic,
passing over Denmark as it continued south. The resultant storm surge
saw sea levels rise quite dramatically around the coastlines and a
number of areas were flooded, including Copenhagen's picturesque
Nyhavn tourist area. Not since
King Cnut has anybody seen anything
quite like it before and, strangely, even though the storm was over
several days ago sea levels remain high. I took the picture at the top of this post on
a walk to my nearby beach this morning and you can see the rocks that
act as sea defences are still, well, defenceless (and yes, that's an oil fired power station and incineration plant in the background).
Rising sea levels are
of particular concern here because it is a pretty flat low country.
Where I live is one metre above sea level, so even if the more modest
predictions come true then where I am currently typing this blog will
be part of the Baltic Sea before too long. Of course, readers of the
Spectator would rubbish this claim, if they'd taken any notice of
this
week's
cover story which claimed sea rises are, yes, a scam.
And there lies the dark
irony because it was at the COP15 talks here two years ago that the
world learned that political leaders are particularly useless when it
comes to acting for the common good of securing (and acting upon) a
deal to phase out hydrocarbons. A powerful binary has been created
that says we can either save the planet or save the economy. Of
course, even my six-year-old daughter could point out that the
economy is part of the planet and not the other way around, but
politicians and business leaders insist that this isn't so and we
need to 'fix the economy' before we can 'fix the environment'. We are
told this relentlessly. Just in the last week, by way of example, we
have had in the news:
UK chancellor
George Osborne telling us that protecting the environment places a
'ridiculous' cost on businesses.
-
US Republican
hopeful Newt Gingrich mocking President Obama for delaying the
Canada to Texas oil pipeline, implying he was a flake for heeding
environmental concerns above economic ones.
So, if you believe all
this, we can either have an economy with jobs or we can have a
habitable planet. Relatively few question the assumption that we can
have a third option - an economy without growth that could provide
for us reasonably well without distorting the biosphere. But that's
not up for discussion at present because all politicians can talk
about is this magic thing called 'growth'.
We all know what growth
is, of course, but most people don't realise that it has only been
the aim of economic policy-makers since the end of the last world
war. Before then we were quite happily going along without any
explicit attempt to fuel it. But with the de-hitching of the money
supply from anything of value (e.g. gold) and letting financiers
write their own rules, we've seen an explosion of fractional reserve
banking and consumers being led by the nose into unsustainable
high-debt lifestyles. Why has this happened?
Italian Peak Oil writer
Ugo Bardi has a pretty good answer. In his recent essay '
Why
is Economic Growth so Popular?' he points out that with a ready
abundance of cheap energy at hand the path of least resistance is
always to exploit non-renewable resources in the short term at the
expense of the long term. If the economy hits a sticky patch on its
upward trajectory the political pressure is there to offer stimulus
packages to the most exploitative and short-termist industrialists in
order to get the ball rolling again, whatever environmental damage it
causes.
And that's part of the
reason any top-down conferences on what to do about the predicament
of global warming will always end in failure. National governments,
who for the most part are elected by individual voters, can only ever
retain their power by maintaining their unholy pact with the voters,
who by and large demand a higher standard of living. I can't
personally think of any election won on the promise of 'less jobs and a lower income for all!'
I was there at the
COP15 two years ago and witnessed the wheels coming off first hand. I
had convinced the publisher of the newspaper where I worked that we
should print a daily newspaper covering the conference. He refused at
first, but when it got closer and he became aware of what a big deal it
was he smelled money in the air and agreed to let me go ahead with it –
provided I was 'neutral' in my editorial tone (of course I wasn't,
but his English skills were not too hot and so …). We were just a
small newspaper normally, run from an office in an ex-slaughterhouse
in the red light district area of the city. Our audience was normally
comprised of disgruntled expats, multinational employees on hardship
postings out in the wilds of Jutland and the pampered diplomatic
classes, whose functions we were expected to attend and photograph.
All in all it was not dissimilar to the fictional Rome newspaper in
Tom Rachman's excellent book
The
Imperfectionists. So it was quite a change to suddenly find
ourselves at the centre of the then biggest media event on the
planet.
It was a surreal couple
of weeks. The city suddenly became more multicultural than it had
ever been, with huge numbers of protesters from all over the world,
including in their numbers plenty of indigenous folks from far
mountain kingdoms and perpetually shivering tropical islanders in
their thin polyester suits. Our normally placid office became a round
the clock hive of activity with swarms of journalists and
distributors traipsing in and out. We worked feverishly, sending the
final proofs to the printers close to midnight and picking up 20,000
copies way before dawn broke so that the army of distributors on
bikes could get them out to every corner of the city.
We interviewed everyone
from Nobel Laureates and landless Amazonians to film makers and film
stars (yes, Arnold Schwarzenegger was there, advising us that the
only way out of the impasse was to give more power to big business).
I got to meet and talk to some of my then environmental heroes, such
as Bill McKibben and a pre-nuclear George Monbiot, and I'll never
forget the phone call from the Israeli Embassy saying that Shimon
Peres wanted to talk to us about his new electric car scheme. One
day, introducing myself to a tired-looking man hunched over a laptop
at the next desk whom I assumed to be a streetwalker feeding off our
WiFi connection, I found out I was talking to the editor of
Politico.
“Are you always this busy?” he asked.
But all this is not
just to walk down memory lane and air a few choice anecdotes. I
remember the distinct mounting excitement among invited delegates
that Obama was going to fly in at the end and strike a historic deal
that would save us all from damnation. I wasn't so sure. The news
leaking out of the conference centre was not good and the over
zealous Danish police had spent two weeks cracking down hard on
peaceful protesters, leading to a frustrated feeling of betrayal in
the air. The night before the end of the conference we received a
leaked email detailing a plan to railroad a deal through that
favoured the big industrialised nations at the expense of the smaller
ones. So, predictably enough, when Obama did finally arrive on his
big blue plane there was simply no way the US and the Chinese were
going to sign anything that remotely committed them to a binding
deal. Obama was shunned by the Chinese, and the only thing that
prevented him from looking a total fool was the Danish hosts' fig
leaf of a treaty aka the Copenhagen Accord.
The conference had
ended with a whimper and the clean up crews got straight to work
erasing every trace of the fact that the city had been occupied by an
unruly army of people whose cause for optimism had been crushed. Polar bear
suits were retuned to rental shops to be dry cleaned and a wheelie
bin outside our office was full of signs that said 'Stop Global
Warming!'.
The two years since
Copenhagen have lead many campaigners to despair. What is the point of
protesting if you just end up in a 'free speech zone' kettled in by
the police and ignored by the media? What hope, they ask, do we have
if neither individuals nor government are prepared to act?
It's a good question
and I'm not claiming to know the answer. Maybe we can hope that
consumerism dies and is replaced by something more connected to the
natural cycles of the Earth. Stranger things have happened in history
– but even so, consumerism is a relatively recent phenomenon and,
malevolent as it is, an end to consumerism won't mean an end to
resource over-exploitation. Some believe that a return to a monastic
way of life could be our saving grace, but my pessimistic side tells
me that's not likely to happen any time soon.
But perhaps there's a
silver lining in the dark cloud that is Peak Oil. The direst
predictions of environmentalists such as James Hansen all assume that
we will be accelerating our extraction and use of fossil fuels far
into the future. Peak Oil tells us that we can't and won't. Indeed,
the more one looks into the idea of the decline or collapse of
industrial civilisation the more one can see that the forces which
power our most rapacious technologies are running out of steam and
running out of supporting resources. Furthermore, given that many
energy sources, such as coal, have a high level of fossil fuel subsidy in
the form of oil, could we soon see these becoming unproductive? Is
that why China is importing so much coal right now?
Whatever, given what we
know of the likely climate and energy situations we know that we will
be hit hard. The question is, do we as individuals let ourselves be
knocked down by it, or do we try to roll with the punch? The choice,
unlike the fate of global climate deals, is up to us.