Written by
Malcolm Bailey
Extreme weather
patterns, fires across Australia, ocean and air pollution, decimation of the
rain forests, plastic waste, melting of polar ice, loss of species diversity
and other environmental degradations have recently shocked the public
imagination, especially the young. Human caused climate change and global
warming now meet growing public understanding and recognition of impending
catastrophe.
The public mood
is changing. Climate and environmental science is respected, in contrast to
distrust of politicians and anger at ‘fake news’. President Trump and
anti-science lobbies are seen as mistaken whilst recognition of climate change
is founded on evidence from decades of research by scientists. Our confidence
in what is happening to the global climate is testimony to the power of
scientific methodology.
This positive
view of science has spread beyond environmental science. This evidence-based
view is of intrinsic benefit. Public
interest in nuclear and particle physics has waned despite the Large Hadron
Collider and the Higgs Boson discovery, but enthusiasm, excitement and wonder
at amazing planetary exploration and merging black holes is growing. Advances
in biology and medicine yield new approaches to treating disease.
Inevitably
there are areas of disquiet, conspiracy theorists are still active. New 5G
networks generate health fears which are not supported by adequate scientific
evidence commanding scientific consensus, however, surveillance issues go
mostly unchallenged, and AI and robotics concern many. Some still distrust
vaccines but the importance of facts, rigorous science and evidence-based
policies is widespread and growing.
Applied science
and technology can be a scourge or boon for humankind, and it’s important to
recognise the difference between them. Scientific theories must be falsifiable,
and scientists accept that favoured theories may be wrong. Science is the
organised attempt by humankind to discover how things work. Waddington [1] has
defined the scientific attitude of mind as an interest in such questions.
Science is not neutral. Scientists have a social and ethical responsibility to
speak out on human behaviour.
Climate science
has moved forward driven and coordinated internationally since 1988 by the work
of the United Nations agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). The remit of the IPCC is to report on the ‘scientific and technical
information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of
human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation
and mitigation’ [2]. Thousands of
scientists contribute to IPCC reports,
Professor Myles
Allen, lead author of the recent IPCC ‘Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5
°C’ has explained [3] what the 12 year scenario means: there is between a
1-in-2 and 2-in-3 chance of keeping global warming below 1.5° C if emissions
are reduced to around half their present (2018) level by 2030: ‘Climate change
is not so much an emergency as a festering injustice: it means we have to act
now, and even if we do, success is not guaranteed’.
The New
Scientist [4] comments that ’thanks to the likes of Greta Thunberg, public
acceptance of the basic science of climate change, and awareness of the dangers
it poses, has, of late, grown hugely across the globe, even in parts that were
previously resistant, such as the US ….
the world seems to be waking up to the need for radical action on this
and other serious environmental challenges.’
Yet there is
failure to act on climate change and progress the Paris Agreement of 2015.
There are obstacles and struggles, shown internationally by the tortuous
progress of the annual ‘Conference of the Parties’ (COP) meetings, under the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which receives
the IPCC science reports.
The latest
COP25, last December, emphasised the difficulties. The 27,000 delegates
conferred for a record two weeks plus, but there was no overall consensus. UN
Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said, ‘the international community lost an
important opportunity to show increased ambition on mitigation, adaptation and
finance to tackle the climate crisis’. Even the latest IPCC science reports
were merely ‘noted’ rather than ‘welcomed’ – a feeble response. Greta Thunberg
told the plenary session that COP25 ‘seems to have turned into some kind of
opportunity for countries to negotiate loopholes’.
The New
Scientist [4] states ‘Even when it comes to climate change, undoubtedly the
defining issue of the coming decade, there are grounds for cautious optimism
that we can pull together to stave off catastrophe’. But where? The present
global economic system depends on endless growth. Governments appear to act
with a misplaced confidence in the capacity of a greener capitalism to solve
the climate and social justice crises. It’s an unconvincing prescription of
greenwash, techno-fix and ecomodernism.
Ecosocialism
identifies and indicts capitalism as the enemy of nature (5), bringing together
social justice and environment crises, linked and interacting. The fundamental
significance of this linkage must be recognised, based on analysis underpinned
by a scientific, evidence-based approach, forming the foundation of a rational
response to the crises. Sometimes the current economic system appears
impregnable and permanent, but it has intrinsic stresses which will become ever
more tested under the deepening global environmental and social justice crises.
References
2 IPCC, https://www.ipcc.ch/
3 Allen, Myles, 2019, https://theconversation.com/why-protesters-should-be-wary-of-12-years-to-climate-breakdown-rhetoric-115489
4 New Scientist, 2019 https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24432615-000
5 Joel Kovel: The Enemy of Nature, Zed Books, 2007
Malcolm Bailey
is a member of Luton and Bedfordshire Green party and the Chair of Green Left
No comments:
Post a Comment