By Konstantinos Kolokotronis
Climate change and global warming, contrary to popular belief have not materialized just recently for the first time in human history. With the industrial revolution radically transforming the means of production and laying the foundations for the rapid industrial development that would subsequently follow in the West that gave birth to the global version of capitalism that the world currently operates by, humanity has additionally been endowed with a near-divine power and potential. Man’s capacity to change, destroy and reorganize the natural environment and exert enormous influence and power over the natural world as a whole has been greatly enhanced over the years and the brave new world that humanity currently finds itself in is arguably inescapable. The consequential importance of the dawn of the industrial revolution and its subsequent technological evolution is peerless and can only be matched by the gift of fire by Prometheus to the mortals, as per Greek mythology. Although the industrial revolution did not constitute a God-given gift, humanity has elevated itself, ever since, to a near-divine status that is bordering on hybris. It is no surprise that John Locke, one of the theoretical founders of modern capitalism, the kind of capitalism that has enabled climate change to foster, understood human action and agency under the workmanship ideal that viewed humanity as miniatures of God. Therefore, humans have total control and absolute right over what they create. When the workmanship ideal is pursued to the maximum in the context of modern capitalism and climate change, the outcome can be catastrophic.
For years now, activists and fervent proponents of environmentalism have preached the gospel of an imminent environmental apocalypse unless the sovereign nations of this world come up with a holistic and global approach to the human-created problem of climate change. The COP summits, intergovernmental meetings of global leaders and their representatives, have been designed and carried out with that purpose in mind. However, it would be difficult to argue that significant progress has been made since the first Conference of the Parties (COP) summit took place in Berlin, Germany in March 1995. On the contrary, weather phenomena and heat waves have seemed to grow in intensity and duration as this last summer proved beyond repudiation in the Eastern Mediterranean, in countries such as Greece, Turkey and Italy who suffered from numerous wildfires and floods in residential areas. Although the situation is indeed critical for the future of humanity and the planet’s fauna and flora, the nations of this world still have time to prevent catastrophe from materializing, contrary to what the proponents of the environmental apocalypse claim.
Since the dawn of the industrial revolution, the planet has heated up by approximately 1.4C after 200 years of emissions, pollution, and environmental destruction. The effects of this significant rise on the global thermometer have been evident so far. Beyond the blazing wildfires and floods, the heat has ramped up in places like Iran (46C), Morocco (43.5C), China (38.9C) and South Korea (32.3C). As a result, the past decade has been declared as the hottest ever to be recorded. In the context of this bleak contemporary reality, more than 125 nations’ representatives have been gathering these days for the 26th COP session which aims at keeping an increase of the global temperature within 1.5C, following the Paris climate summit and deal. This year’s COP also coincides with renewed declarations by the US, China and the UK among others to reduce their CO2 emissions and their dependency on coal. Recently, just before the summit began, Turkey became the latest state to ratify the Parris accords. It becomes clear therefore that the current strategy pursued by world leaders is one of containment. With the increase of global temperature to 1.5C above preindustrial levels seeming to be inevitable (currently the world is at 1.4C), the objective is to maintain that level and prevent a potential subsequent increase at 2 or even 3C which would have as a result far more catastrophic implications for the natural environment and humanity’s place in it.
So, what can one realistically expect to come out of this COP?
One could hope for the world’s greatest historical emitters, biggest economies, oil pumpers and gas producers to devise a global strategy and reach a multilateral compromise to halt the catastrophic path set by climate change and global warming before it will all too late. Several notable absences, however, that include Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, China’s Xi Jinping, Brazil’s Bolsonaro and Saudi Arabia’s Mohammad bin Salman have been detrimental to addressing holistically a variety of pressing topics. How can global leaders commit to ending deforestation by 2030, as announced this Tuesday, without consulting with Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro? Of course, many would point out correctly that the right-wing populist President has done its best to destroy the Amazon so far and no one could expect that ecological appeals would convert the Brazilian President. Be it as it is, the Amazon remains the world’s most important means of offsetting carbon emissions and further deforestation would have as a result a rapid decrease in the amount of CO2 the forestry absorbs. On the other hand, India, China, and Russia opted out from an alliance of more than 90 nations – covering two-thirds of the world’s economy – aimed at curbing methane emissions by at least 30% by the end of the decade. The rationale was that more advanced and wealthier nations should lead the way. More promisingly, a greater coalition of states pledged to decrease dependency on coal. Even states, like Poland and China, whose economy is organically linked to fossil fuel, have promised to phase out coal-fired power and increase reliance on sustainable sources of energy instead. Diversification of energy production is key for economies that rely disproportionately on a single source of energy. Even though China’s commitment to grow out of its coal habit seems quite unrealistic and hopelessly optimistic due to the vitality of coal production to the country’s economy, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that those commitments, if kept, could take global warming down to 1.8C. The dynamic process of meeting those standards, however, suggests that an increase to 2.7C is still a very possible outcome if commitments and promises are to be abandoned.
Dissatisfaction and “greenwashing”
World leaders have faced widespread criticism about the insufficiency of the existing agenda and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Young Swedish activist Greta Thunberg has been a fervent polemicist of the very apparent hypocrisy of many world leaders regarding climate change and their inability to fully accept the science that has been alerting humanity for generations now. Thunberg, however, regardless of her intention, has elevated the fight against climate change and her commitment to it to a crusade that borders all too comfortable with a religious-like fanaticism and a vision of climate apocalypse that is often presented as an undeniable fact of the imminent catastrophe that is to come in the coming decades. Despite Greta’s very public profile and idealisation by a generation of young climate change warriors, Thunberg’s platform and style of communication had never accommodated compromise or advocated for meaningful negotiation with world leaders for the sake of the planet. This was exemplified in this latest COP during which young Greta furiously walked out while condemning the participants for “greenwashing” and not truly tackling the problem. Her stance, however, did not contribute to anything. This kind of negativism and monolithic self-righteousness that blatantly disregards the historical and very substantive importance of the COP does not reflect the ethos of a socially responsible and thoughtful climate activist. In the end, Greta is not going to save the planet. The vilified and much-hated world leaders, by Greta and her climate apocalypse cult, are the only individuals that have the capacity and potential to do so. Denying the UN’s importance in fighting climate change and disregarding the intergovernmental proceedings of the likes of COP suggests a dangerous dissociation with reality and the way global politics operate. Climate activists should rather engage productively with those at power and seek to raise awareness responsibly, rather than preaching the gospel of climate apocalypse. Michael Shellenberger argues that apocalyptic claims about climate change are not only wrong but also do more harm than good. “Few have underscored the threat more than student climate activist Greta Thunberg and Green New Deal sponsor Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The latter said, “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.” Says Thunberg in her new book, “Around 2030 we will be in a position to set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control that will lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.” (Shellenberger, 2019). Although, such careless claims of an imminent climate apocalypse have been disputed by scientists who present a much more complicated but rather not much more optimistic perspective, this kind of widely publicised rhetoric has very real social consequences: “Apocalyptic statements like these have real-world impacts. In September, a group of British psychologists said children are increasingly suffering from anxiety from the frightening discourse around climate change”. Meanwhile, many prolific climate activists promote the idea that the ongoing 6th mass extinction (Holocene extinction) is about to claim humanity real soon. The scientific reality once again is much more complicated and does not fit neatly into the apocalyptic narrative of self-proclaimed climate activists: First, no credible scientific body has ever said climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species. “‘Our children are going to die in the next 10 to 20 years.’ What’s the scientific basis for these claims?” BBC’s Andrew Neil asked a visibly uncomfortable XR spokesperson last month.
“These claims have been disputed, admittedly,” she said. “There are some scientists who are agreeing and some who are saying it’s not true. But the overall issue is that these deaths are going to happen.”
“But most scientists don’t agree with this,” said Neil. “I looked through IPCC reports and see no reference to billions of people going to die, or children in 20 years. How would they die?”
Last but not at least, the propagation of apocalyptic claims of climate change cannot contribute to a positive degree to combating climate change and the worst of its effects. The solemn acceptance of the coming of a climate apocalypse and the subsequent fearmongering constitute a sum of negative statements and propositions which do not offer a way out and have a very poor empirical record of instigating change. What’s the point of fighting climate change if the climate catastrophe will be upon us in the next decade? Apocalyptic claims do not provide hope nor can constitute the foundational basis for radical actions to curb climate change. Science offers a much more complicated picture that paints a dim vision for the immediate future if the temperature rises above 1.5C. By no means, however, the materialisation of that scenario will equal the extinction of mankind.
Human Hybris:
The roots of the climate crisis can be solely found in the irresponsible and hubristic conduct of humankind vis-à-vis the natural world. The industrial revolution enabled humanity to remake nature in its image. The deforestation and relentless destruction of nature, in the name of economic progress, industrialisation and modernisation lay the foundations for the creation of immense urban centres, factories and industrial areas, all very human creations that are supposed to enhance human welfare and wellbeing. Ironically, however, the uncontrollable technological and industrial progress, the most defining characteristics of the modern world will ultimately doom humanity itself, if they remain unchecked. And that’s what all the COP sessions so far are about in the end. Fighting and resisting the destructive force of human hybris that has doomed the natural world which gave birth to humanity in the first place and is about to endanger the future of mankind itself. If nature is to be symbolically portrayed as a divine mother figure, then humans have been behaving in the most gruesome of heretic manners which would beget the harshest of divine punishments. Are the COP sessions sufficiently equipped to halt the destructive effects of decades of human hybris? That will remain to be seen. However, Cop26 and the intergovernmental cooperation that will surely follow as a result are the best chance humanity has of correcting the malevolent path it has been following for too long.
Add comment
Comments