The most recent IPCC summary of the world as they see it
is a scary document.
It is meant to be!
We should all take the trouble to read what they are
saying even if we think it is a load of cobblers. It is, after all, the
considered opinion of a large group of eminent scientists who would appear to
have all reached the same conclusion about the effects of climate change to the
planet and the steps that should be taken in mitigation of this threat.
They deserve a response from all of us.
Having agonised for ages over the merits of their
argument, l am like most people, still unconvinced about some of their key
claims, especially the one about it all being our fault.
My reading of the literature from both sides of the
debate leaves me between a rock and a hard place - we're damned if we do and
damned if we don't.
However, that isn't an excuse for doing nothing.
I am convinced that climate change is real and has the
potential to do serious damage to communities in areas where people less
fortunate than ourselves are most vulnerable.
There is enough evidence out there to suggest that this phenomenon
is going to dramatically affect a huge percentage of the world's population who
have no resources that could help them prepare for this onslaught.
If we concentrate on the side issue of who or what is to
blame, we will achieve nothing so that aspect of the discussion should be
disregarded as we turn our attention to the things we can do something about.
So, let's examine it from the perspective of committing
ourselves to programmes that will be effective measures both here at home and
overseas irrespective of the outcome of the lPCC predictions.
Like the rest of the world, our immediate problem is in
becoming sidetracked into operating outside our own small sphere of influence
where we are already capable of making things happen. Even the IPCC states
clearly that our planet has no chance if all nations don't accept their
individual responsibilities to significantly reduce carbon emissions.
In that context, we should be wary of our government’s
directions to don sackcloth and ashes and introduce self harm policies here at
home that will have next to no effect on the reduction of the world's green
house gas emissions even if we succeed in achieving our own targets. That seems
to me to be nonsensical and a total abuse of administrative power. And of
course, if we embark on that fruitless exercise, it will limit our ability to
really make a difference in areas where the help is needed most.
This is why l am convinced that our most effective course
of action as an equal member of the commonwealth of nations is to prepare
ourselves and help those most vulnerable states within our traditional orbit to
prepare for the changes that are coming.
We can still make progress in reducing our own emissions
by adopting policies that don't require one demonised sector of the community
to carry a disproportionate part of the load. It is possible to achieve targets
without cutting off the hand that feeds us.
That is why l have been saying for ages that our moral
obligations are best served by making changes here in New Zealand based on what
are reasonable expectations of likely damage to our environment and local
economy from climate change.
There is much we can do to prepare our own communities
for the hard times ahead.
Most of ours efforts should be in planning for the
conservation and redistribution of fresh water. When we get that right, we are
in better shape to spend more time and greater amounts of money helping our
more vulnerable neighbours.
Plans to do both can be introduced simultaneously.
Unfortunately this form of future proofing seems to be
falling on deaf ears at the moment while we squabble over who owns the water
and who should pay for a more reliable method of supply and distribution.
It doesn't need to happen this way.
This government needs to understand that it is possible
for it to come out of this period of uncertainty with two of its major
objectives achieved without raising the ire of a large sector of the populace
unnecessarily.
It could gain at the ballot box from being seen as the
saviour of the regions through strategic distribution of the Provincial Growth
Fund to regions needing help to restructure their fresh water supply and
distribution systems. In most cases, part of that process is the inclusion of
policies that will a) significantly reduce water pollution but also b) the
creation of industries and transport systems that will take care of enough
green house gas emissions to put us at least on a par with the best efforts of
other countries. There is absolutely no need to be seen as the world leader in
this battle.
Nor is it necessary to subject large sections of this
nation's people to hardship that is not of their making or their
responsibility.
Will they take this perfectly reasonable advice? Probably
not.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and
community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
No comments:
Post a Comment