Speaker at WCCC condemns ‘social inertia’
Jupiter | 01.10.2003 11:44 | Ecology | Technology | Cambridge
Cambridge Indymedia continues its series of reports from the World Climate Change Conference in Moscow.
The second full day of presentations and forums at the World Climate Change Conference has seen many scientists portray the state of the climate as severe.
In fact, the whole impact of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere might not even be apparent at the moment because air pollution temporarily counteracts global warming and the full potential of the greenhouse gas molecules may not be realized yet. The ‘social inertia’ of governments around the world, rich and poor, refusing to face the challenge of reducing emissions was condemned by one highly respected senior scientist. In fact, the reductions of the Kyoto Protocol if it were ratified could be dwarfed by the potential increase in emissions by the US and developing countries. It is estimated the US will increase their emissions by 10% in 2012 (since 1990) whereas the Kyoto agreement sees a reduction of an average of 6% during that same time in only a few countries (e.g. EU, Canada, New Zealand). Another interesting point was that long-term solutions may be futile since the knowledge about climate change will evolve greatly over time. Therefore it is advisable to act now on the knowledge we have with immediate goals and then adjust goals as the science becomes available.
A forum on Energy and Climate Change presented ongoing projects, mostly in Russia. One of the issues explored was the energy that can be harvested from the oceans. Apparently oceans can be a source of energy as powerful as the sun. There have not been very many research attempts at harvesting this energy.
The conference has also allowed for voices of ‘climate change skeptics’ to be heard. I get the impression that there is a common understanding in the Russian public that climate change may actually be beneficial to this vast country. There are a few scientists that are looking at the beneficial impacts of climate change and also some social scientists who are questioning the political interests behind the pro-Kyoto lobby. Since the EU has made quite some headway in renewables technology, there may be a case for arguing that this lobby is trying to gain competitive advantage by interpreting science on the cautious side.
In the evening an American NGO held a business forum on the Kyoto Protocol. Members of the Moscow business community were invited to learn about the opportunities that the KP can offer them. They were urged to pressure the Putin government to ratify the treaty. Outside the hotel there was a small demonstration (ca. 20 people) holding handwritten signs against the Kyoto Protocol. I talked to some of them and one person said ‘the Americans think we are stupid, but we are not so stupid’ implying that the US will benefit from not ratifying the treaty whereas Russia will suffer from ratifying. It was not very clear. Nobody in the crowd could tell us who organized this demo, and who the group or even spokesperson was. One demonstrator told us that he did not know at all what this was about and that he was paid to be here. A journalist asked him directly: ‘you were paid to be here?’ and he answered yes, but we were not sure if his English was sufficient to communicate. Later there was a rumor that a Russian company opposing the KP paid people to demonstrate in front of the hotel. I can post pictures and the sound bites on Indymedia next week.
In fact, the whole impact of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere might not even be apparent at the moment because air pollution temporarily counteracts global warming and the full potential of the greenhouse gas molecules may not be realized yet. The ‘social inertia’ of governments around the world, rich and poor, refusing to face the challenge of reducing emissions was condemned by one highly respected senior scientist. In fact, the reductions of the Kyoto Protocol if it were ratified could be dwarfed by the potential increase in emissions by the US and developing countries. It is estimated the US will increase their emissions by 10% in 2012 (since 1990) whereas the Kyoto agreement sees a reduction of an average of 6% during that same time in only a few countries (e.g. EU, Canada, New Zealand). Another interesting point was that long-term solutions may be futile since the knowledge about climate change will evolve greatly over time. Therefore it is advisable to act now on the knowledge we have with immediate goals and then adjust goals as the science becomes available.
A forum on Energy and Climate Change presented ongoing projects, mostly in Russia. One of the issues explored was the energy that can be harvested from the oceans. Apparently oceans can be a source of energy as powerful as the sun. There have not been very many research attempts at harvesting this energy.
The conference has also allowed for voices of ‘climate change skeptics’ to be heard. I get the impression that there is a common understanding in the Russian public that climate change may actually be beneficial to this vast country. There are a few scientists that are looking at the beneficial impacts of climate change and also some social scientists who are questioning the political interests behind the pro-Kyoto lobby. Since the EU has made quite some headway in renewables technology, there may be a case for arguing that this lobby is trying to gain competitive advantage by interpreting science on the cautious side.
In the evening an American NGO held a business forum on the Kyoto Protocol. Members of the Moscow business community were invited to learn about the opportunities that the KP can offer them. They were urged to pressure the Putin government to ratify the treaty. Outside the hotel there was a small demonstration (ca. 20 people) holding handwritten signs against the Kyoto Protocol. I talked to some of them and one person said ‘the Americans think we are stupid, but we are not so stupid’ implying that the US will benefit from not ratifying the treaty whereas Russia will suffer from ratifying. It was not very clear. Nobody in the crowd could tell us who organized this demo, and who the group or even spokesperson was. One demonstrator told us that he did not know at all what this was about and that he was paid to be here. A journalist asked him directly: ‘you were paid to be here?’ and he answered yes, but we were not sure if his English was sufficient to communicate. Later there was a rumor that a Russian company opposing the KP paid people to demonstrate in front of the hotel. I can post pictures and the sound bites on Indymedia next week.
Jupiter
