The alarmist "Climate Crisis" language now being normalised by the media is becoming problematic in that it detracts (attention and resources) from other critical environmental issues.
I don't know how funding works for international environmental conservation projects, but on the back of the recent IPCC report, hundreds of millions of dollars are now being pumped into limiting global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees. This is to my mind a risky gamble, as it may have absolutely no beneficial effect whatsoever in the long run, and result in other initiatives such as education, reducing deforestation and an increased focus on biodiversity being given less funding than they deserve. My main worry, though, is that environmental discussions are still being framed in an overtly anthropocentric way. So-called Green businesses use the environment merely as a marketing tool. Governments are only being forced to consider the impact of environmental problems because human populations will suffer economically if ecosystems deteriorate. Until we attack the root of the problem (and recognise the natural world as having value, and legal rights, in and of itself - I think currently only Colombia and Ecuador do so) the language we use and the initiatives we fund will have minimal longterm effects. Denying a platform (I’m going to use the term the Guardian is refusing to) to Climate Skeptics - as the BBC has - is an attack on free speech. There is proof that CO2 levels are increasing and that human activity directly contributes to this. But, other than intuition, there is no proof to suggest this in itself has a severely detrimental effect on the health of the planet. Climate change is not an environmental problem - the climate has been fluctuating for millennia. Species adapt. Ours will too. Green energy, sustainable development, conscientious living: all these value-based shifts signal huge positive steps in preserving the health of our planet, but remain in their (post-industrial) infancy. Solar and wind currently provide less than 1% of the world’s energy. More money needs to be pumped into research and development first. Yes, global warming is a problem, but it is nowhere near a catastrophe. The IPCC estimates that the total impact of global warming by 2070 will be equivalent to an average loss of income of 0.2-2% – similar to one recession over the next half century. The panel also says that climate change will have a “small” economic impact compared to changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, and governance. In addition, attributing the causes of weather disasters such as hurricanes to human activity is based not on science but speculation. The Guardian is now using phrases like “climate emergency” and “climate crisis” whilst, in the same breath, stating that “the overall number of hurricanes has remained roughly the same in recent decades” and “prior to 2017, the US had experienced a hurricane drought that had stretched back to Hurricane Wilma in 2005.” It's wise - and long overdue - for us to be more mindful about the health of the ecosystems which both precede and sustain us. But it feels to me like people are gathering up all their worries about environmental negligence and lumping them together under the banner of Climate Change without really examining the science behind the headlines.
0 Comments
|
AuthorEnglish teacher from the UK. Living in Granada. Currently working in Doha. Archives
February 2022
Categories
All
|