I don’t know about the other parts of the world but in the UK a major theme is that of “carbon footprint”. Everyone talks of it and of how they are trying to reduce it. Correction – organizations talk of it all the time, the media talks of it a lot- I am not sure how much the people bother about it.
The “carbon footprint” and its continuous increase is one of those nuggets of information which the global warming lobby uses to convince people of the imminent dangers if things are not set right now. Not imminent danger but imminent catastrophe! And that just maybe where they are going wrong.
We have all heard of imminent catastrophe before. Many times!
About 12-15 years there was this huge catastrophe waiting to happen. Aeroplanes were going to fall out of the sky. Pacemakers were going to stop working. Electrical systems were going to fail. In essence, Armageddon was upon us!!!. Then 1st January 2000 came… and went. And the Earth continued on its axis around the Sun and nothing really happened.
Around 2004, I think, the world went crazy about a bird…and the flu it was going to spread. Hundreds of thousands of birds were culled. In spite of that, health officials warned of a possible death of 150 million people. A UN health official said "It's like a combination of global warming and HIV/Aids 10 times faster than it's running at the moment,". The US stockpiled on the vaccine and in general there was panic. But not too many people died.
In 2009 swine flu was the flavour of the season. I remember landing in Bombay and being stunned by the number of people wearing “gas masks”. Again, this too did pass.
So, I believe there is now a bit of fatigue about the "imminent dangers" of global warming.
Let me say, that I am not a “global warming denier” as many people are. I do believe that man affects the environment, generally negatively, though one can debate the extent. Indeed, I am quite paranoid about not wasting energy and doing things efficiently. I insist on switching lights off when leaving a room. I absolutely hate it when I see people brushing their teeth while the sink continues to flow. I almost always prefer to use public transport over personal transport; though that might also have to do with spending the last decade in 2 cities – Bombay and London- where the public transport is decent and the roads are congested. I am quite comfortable with wearing a light sweater and turning the heat up less, rather than cranking it up and roaming around in shorts in the middle of December. In general, I am particular about not wasting energy –at times to the extent of being stingy.
None the less, I am irritated about hearing about global warming all the time. And it’s beginning to sound like the boy who cried wolf.
There is one difference between global warming and the cases above. It is much more long term. The results in the other cases were immediate. The world was expected to stop - not in 2100 but 2000, just a few years away. If I were to die of bird flu, I was going to die in the immediate future. Hence scaremongering works. If I choose to ignore the scaremongerer, I do it at my own peril because I will see the effects in my lifetime…or by its end. That, unfortunately is not true for global warming. This makes scaremongering easy to ignore. But, it also makes genuine concern easy to ignore. If I turn up my heating today by 5 degrees, it might mean a tribe in Central Africa getting less rainfall 50 years from now. I really don’t care! Even if I do turn down my heating, it’s as a salve to my conscience that I am doing my bit – I still don’t care about that tribesman in 2061 because it’s too abstract. In effect, it’s just trying to make me feel guilty- nothing else.
So, what is the net effect – you are asking people, generally in the advanced world to change their lifestyles – often in disadvantageous ways – especially economically – in wait for some distant disaster- which is unlikely to affect them or their children- in a context where over the last decade many such forecasted disasters have proven to be red herrings. It almost wants to make me re-think my views on global warming! What impact are you likely to have on a nay sayer who does not want to be made to feel guilty about all the evils in the world.
And, of course, none of this is helped by the various controversies generated due to occasional shoddy research by bodies such as IPCC. The kind of research which has shown to be wrongly motivated is perhaps not enough to detract from the reality of direction indicated by the research. But it is enough for those who are already sceptical to remain sceptical.
I feel the global warming argument has to change. It has to focus on some positives. Green activists tell us that good environmental sense is also good economics. They tell us there are millions of green jobs to be developed over the next few years. They say that any upfront expenditure will repay itself over time. But they never focus on these issues. These are always secondary sentiments. The primary thought always is “do this or else the world will get destroyed!” Why not focus on the positives which going green can give us.
It’s not as if there are no precedents for this. CFL lamps require more up-front investment but the running costs more than make up for that and save energy over all (there is a mercury angle to this but recycling takes care of that). And their usage is increasing. Similarly, insulation in terms of double glazing, lofts, etc has start-up costs but pays for itself in reduced heating bills. Again, this is something which is picking up in cold climates.
This then, to my mind, needs to be the future of managing global warming campaigns- focus on the positives. Campaigners will struggle to find positives in all issues. But if enough positives are being bandied about, the odd bad news can be legitimately slipped in. So, urge people to car pool by reducing the congestion charge by GBP 2 for cars carrying more than one passenger in office times. It might mean a bit of hassle for people but might reduce the cars on the road. Perhaps, focus on how recycling will keep the local parks open for the children because the council will not need more space for landfill - even though it means more effort for people to recycle.
These are perhaps bad ideas but I am sure there can be better ones. The bottom line remains that green campaigners need more carrots and less sticks! That is the way this battle will be won…for all our good.
No comments:
Post a Comment