Greed and the art of destruction

Most recent climate change report more dire than ever

ANDREW LODGE

“I think the odds are no better than 50-50 that our present civilization on Earth will survive to the end of this century . . . Human actions are ravaging the earth — we are destroying the book of life even before we have read it” — Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society and professor at Cambridge University.

The panel for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its latest report on Feb. 2, 2007 and the prognosis is grimmer than ever: our planet is in deep trouble. The IPCC brings together over 2,500 scientists from over 130 countries who have examined the issue for the past six years. Nonetheless, despite all lip service, the authours will be immediately dismissed and ignored, in the familiar pattern that has become the norm for capitalism’s response to concerns other than generation of more capital.

It makes sense not to listen to these folks. After all, they’re just scientists. Only the ones who gave you your penicillin, your nukes, your plasma TV, your goddamn IPod, deserve your attention.

Meanwhile in the report, a top scientist from the U.S. says that “there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities.” Canada, because of its Arctic regions, may experience some of the greatest warming. However, the report also says that the poorest countries are those likely to bear the brunt of the changing environment, at least at first.

What’s striking about this report and ones released prior to this is not the pessimism, but rather the optimism. The best-case scenarios, those that will occur if the world takes massive, concerted, and frankly inconceivable action, will also require massive, concerted, and just as absurdly, unrealistic planning on the part of the international community to manage the disruption in economies, national borders, and resource access. Not to mention the scarcity, and the consequent migration patterns as those in most battered regions seek refuge elsewhere.

This is the best-case scenario. The worst-case scenario? What’s the point in discussing it? Our moneyed masters and our governments won’t even begin to acknowledge the best case. If there is some political turning of the tide among mainstream politicians in this country and in the U.S. (and one can guarantee that it won’t make a dent because it is not genuine), it is no coincidence that it comes as public opinion now pits the environment as one of the electorate’s top concerns.

Besides, it’s largely irrelevant which scenario plays itself out. “The American lifestyle is not up for negotiation.” So said George Bush Sr. back in 1992 when he pushed for dramatic changes before signing the Rio Climate Treaty. Sound familiar? It gets worse. His boy, Bush Jr. refuses to this day to sign the Kyoto Protocol, arguing that it would “cause serious harm to the U.S. economy.”

Bush Jr. also called Kyoto “unfair,” suggesting that it deliberately penalizes rich countries while giving poorer nations a “free pass.” Our own leader, Stephen Harper, apparently concurs. In a letter written in 2002, and now made public by the conniving and disingenuous Liberals (under whose leadership, emissions continued to soar), Harper says that “Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.”

So that’s what’s happening. It makes so much more sense now. We’re the ones being victimized by those conniving poor countries. Never mind that Canada pollutes more per capita than any other nation on Earth. Never mind that the U.S. pumps out more carbon dioxide than any other country on the planet. Never mind that our opulence is unparalleled in human history, while at the same time a billion people outright starve and another couple billion live in poverty.

And there remains an outright refusal to curb consumption. To do so would be to slaughter the sacred cow. Instead, the U.S. government has suggested — in all seriousness — an elaborate scheme of dust and mirrors to reflect that oh-so harmful sunlight. What about turning off your Hummer for good? Unthinkable.

Fuelled by greed we manage to lose all perspective. And it’s not just our leaders. True, with the likes of Bush and Harper in all their arrogant vulgarity, it is difficult to compete in terms of expressions of gluttony. But we in the First World (no accident that it is called the “First” World) all share a responsibility. For virtually all of us consume madly, and we are, quite obviously, unwilling to stop. Our appetite is insatiable.

So the planet is dying. We’ve had fair warning. We can rest assured at least that we the rich will be buffered for a while, and meanwhile the savages will burn up. And that’s fine. This is how we have always treated those less fortunate. Why stop now?

Andrew Lodge is a fourth-year medical student and the Manitoban's features reporter.