Belgium (Brussels Morning Newspaper) The rich countries of the industrialized world are to blame for climate change. Yet, shamelessly, they hector and preach to the developing world, which is bearing the brunt of the consequences of their misdeeds, past and present.
The typically sanctimonious French President, Macron, says that no country should have to choose between “reducing poverty and protecting the planet”. Grandiloquence aside, this is the kind of incomprehensible tripe that the West habitually proffers in lieu of hard cash and concrete planning.
The New Global Financing Pact summit in Paris aims to square multiple circles: ease debt burdens, fund green initiatives, and ameliorate poverty – all without committing lucre to these lofty goals.
Macron called for a greater involvement of the private sector (fat chance). To remove any doubt as to the reluctance of the public sector (aka governments), the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs has warned that global public debt has reached unprecedented levels in the wake of the pandemic: one third of developing countries and two-thirds of low income ones are now faced with “excessive debt”.
“The trend of poverty reduction over recent decades has stalled”.
Rather than deal with the emergency of global warming, the summit proposed a new “effective” international financial architecture which is supposed to miraculously provide more resources even as it “shelters the most vulnerable countries from shocks” (whatever that may mean).
One more nonsensical oxymoron: “realize sustainable development goals while financing the energy transition”.
Developing countries are aghast. Their “Bridgetown Initiative” is a desperate, last ditch attempt to veer the conversation in a direction that is at least less inane, if not more productive.
The core problem is the cost of financing. It renders green projects and debt repayment unfeasible. “Loss and damage” is the uninspiring title given to reparations claimed by the suffering poor from the polluting rich. The latter pledged 100 billion USD which have yet to materialize.
None of this unseemly haggling is going anywhere. Nor is any of it relevant: climate change is here to stay, an inexorable process, an inalienable feature of the future, a fact. Rather than squander billions on futile attempts to reverse or halt it, we need to begin to learn to co-exist with it in the long-term.
We should take an inventory of what we know and act upon it resolutely (mitigation): emissions from fossil fuel combustion should be tamed, captured, stored, sunk, and sequestered (aerosols to be further studied in conjunction with global dimming and ozone depletion); measures for population control and family planning enhanced; alternative and renewable fuels should be studied and incentives provided to energy-efficient, clean and green technologies; cement manufacture should be tweaked; cap and trade (or tax) schemes implemented on the national, corporate, and individual levels; weather-resistant, energy-conserving, and green construction technologies pioneered; the diets of livestock should be adapted to restrict biological emissions; deforestation and reforestation should be rationalized as should be land use; drought-related indigenous agricultural and water management knowledge and crop varieties should be preserved; coastal flood defenses erected or strengthened; cities should be relocated inland; and weather-monitoring capacity should be extended and modernized. These measures make good sense, whatever the urgency of the problem facing us may be.
But we should invest the bulk of our scarce resources in research and innovation. We should accept that climate change is inevitable and work out ways of harnessing it to our benefit.
We should come up with new agricultural methods and strains; new types of tourism; novel irrigation techniques; water desalination, diversion, transport, and allocation schemes; ways of sustaining biological diversity and of helping the human body adapt and cope to extreme weather; and global plans to cope with energy production problems, poverty, and disease triggered by global warming.
For the next few centuries, climate change is largely irreversible (as the IPCC essentially admits). To think otherwise is completely delusional. We would do better to re-imagine our existence on this planet (adaptation).
As temperatures rise in certain locales (and drop in others!), new economic activities and routes of commerce would be made possible or rendered feasible; new types of produce and forests will flourish; new technologies will be developed to cater to a emerging and growing set of needs.
We would do well to not consider global warming a crisis, but reconceive of it as a massive change, or even an opportunity.
The initial costs of every transformation and transition in human history have been steep (recall the Industrial Revolution and, more recently, the transition from Communism to Capitalism). Climate change is not likely to be the only exception.
Such a massive realignment implies severe disruption and great distress. But, invariably, tectonic shifts are followed by an extended period of creativity and growth. This time will be no different.
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. As always, we remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.Sincerely, The Brussels Morning Team
