Another year goes by and another UNFCC summit on Climate Change comes to an end with semi-promises agreed to and hesitant agreements made in the name of progress. Cruel, hard facts still stare at us - none of this is going to prevent temperature rise by 2C in the next 40 years - yet global leaders, expected to be strong-willed and seeking the benefit at large of their national society, cannot look beyond petty short-term gains and bargains. After the delegates have all flown home in jumbo-jets, thus adding a few more tons of CO2 each to the atmosphere, the bitter truth stares us in the face - humans cannot solve this problem until they stop being humans.
Let me point out a couple of the human aspects of this problem, as I see it.
Greed
The hunger to have more, when one already has more than enough, is something most humans can see, but cannot always act against. All around us, especially in a socially lopsided country like India, we see greed build a billion dollar mansion standing up against the slums. The rich know how to get richer, working through the system until they become the system itself, blind to any adverse effect it may have on the poor.
I wholly agree with the Bolivian president Evo Morales when he says capitalism, with its guiding principles always feeding individual greed, can never solve the world's problems - including tackling climate change. Yes, it makes the rich richer, and the poor a little less poor over time, albeit a lot slower than you can get richer. But, at what cost? Those same rich are desperate to hold on to their riches, built by burning gigatons of coal, millions of barrels of oil, chopping down forests with abandon and dumping waste where no one questions them. And so they deny climate change. Spread hoaxes to brain-wash those who are now so used to the comforts of always available cooling and heating, as well as personal transport. Lobby governments that depend on their investments not just to keep the economy moving, but also to fund political campaigns. The result, corporate greed screws the poor farmers and jungle foragers that make up more in numbers than the corporate class, but have a smaller voice of opinion.
Selfishness
At the global round table, selfishness really becomes nationalism - a more aggregate form of selfishness. Yet, the results are the same. The developed nations fail to look beyond the loss of economic advantage and a potential drop in the so-called "standard of living" to acknowledge other nations have more severe problems to deal with. The developing nations are caught in the trap of seeking justice, for the "right to pollute" as much as the others have for decades. The poor countries, who cannot even pollute if they wanted to, are left to negotiate over the remaining scraps.
It will be no surprise to watch a few islands disappear while other nations fail to look beyond this self-focused view of the world. Poor countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, nations in Sub-Saharan Africa will soon face devastating bouts of drought where they will struggle to save lives. Yet, the Americans will count how many Americans are affected, while the Indians will do the same. It is here where Jairam Ramesh's departure from the staid stance of waiting for the developed countries to act in the name of justice, seems so mature. The "status quo" is not good enough, and it is not too hard to realise this.
What would Gandhi do?
It is hard to guess what the Mahatma would have done today, but it would have involved sacrifice, of individual good for global welfare. He would have passionately asked Indians first to consider the choices they have - a life where they might live with all the comforts they can afford today, where they may never have to face an unnatural natural disaster, but their children will have no such choice. He would have asked those who believe that their short life isn't as important as the health of the Earth, the mother who rears us all in her womb without a sigh, to follow him. He would have then led them to sacrifice these comforts, sacrifice the security of a capitalistic economy, and work together to show the world how to live within one's means, in harmony with nature, and yet live a full and satisfied life.
He would have hoped the other nations notice this act of mass sacrifice, and Gandhis sprout up all around the world, against the oppression of the corporates who are now losing their massive markets as more people give up unnecessary comforts. Eventually, just like the whole Indian nation rose up against the British Raj, perhaps most of the world will rise up to the corporate bullies, and let the real human nature - one where we care about everyone, do not distrust other nations, and work for a collective good - shine through to solve this unique problem.
Is this just Utopia? Can humans, who have never been able to see past their petty differences for a million years, suddenly rise and solve this problem we have created for ourselves? Or are we condemned to be extinct soon, like dinosaurs, except that the dinosaurs weren't stupid enough to kill themselves.
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Why Create Man?
I've often wondered about the meaning of life, God's (whoever or whatever you call God) greatest creation, and how I fit into all of it. Of late though, I seem to wonder more about how mankind as a whole fits into the picture. All around us, atleast to my pessimistic presence, one can witness how this greatest of all creations selfishly threatens not just the existence of its own species, but Life on Earth itself as we know it.
Hence the question - Why create man when the best we have done is to threaten a climatic disaster worse than any asteroid collision could ever cause? Why create man as the example of a greedy species that cannot think beyond itself, and considers all else in nature as a never-ending pile of birthday presents? Why create man as the single most intelligent creature, that has conquered all else in nature to ensure its own subsistence beyond everything else?
An Alien View
One of my favorite twitter users is Soichi Noguchi for he posts the most amazing pictures from on-board the International Space Station, reminding us of the beautiful and bountiful heaven we have inherited. We didn't create this, but it is ours to enjoy.
At the same time, he also wonderfully captures the ugly footprints we leave behind. The orderly concrete jungles of Manhattan are hardly eye-catching to a visiting alien, while the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico tells them all they need to know about how much we care about our own home. Man has clearly not contributed to the beauty of nature with their technological advancements, nor are we the most pleasing creatures to look at. Beside every majestic Taj Mahal runs a black, greasy Yamuna river.
Harking Back to the Vedas
Perhaps the answer is in the ancient scriptures, I mused to myself. A brief dive into their content revealed one important answer. The Vedas teach us that the sensory world and its many sparkling attractions are merely Maya - a web of illusions distracting us from the real purpose of our existence. What this purpose is, is never defined, because it cannot be defined for each individual. Rather, one is urged to be ready and prepared to always serve Nature, because behind all the genealogy and evolution, is a broader brush-stroke which is bound to eventually serve creation itself.
Another answer provided by the brilliant scriptures is the fact that Man, and all Life and existence included, is really one with the Universe itself. There is nothing but this Universe (Brahma), and Life is but only one way for the Universe to express its creative (and destructive) urges. The human mind is said to be the medium through which The Universe can therefore finally, see and understand itself. This doesn't mean that Life has reached its evolutionary peak, but it does lead somewhere.
One Possible Answer
If all this sounds too deep and vague, you are not alone. But this is perhaps the only answer to the questions I raise - despite all the follies of Man, Nature must have a grander plan in its natural scheme to extend Life somehow. Else, Mankind should have been struck out by evolutionary forces, not left to continue its plundering.
It is well established that while the Earth is likely the womb as well as the cradle of Life, it is not expected to last forever, and with it Life as we know it, will perish too. Perhaps Nature created an intelligent, logically-oriented, creative, techno-savvy Man so that one day we could eventually transport Life onto another new home. While what will likely drive us to do that would be our selfish survival instincts, Nature as a whole might just benefit by continuing its existence elsewhere. Perhaps Nature knows the risks it takes in seeking this goal. Perhaps we may not be needed once we find a new home for Nature.
I am not sure we are any closer to finding a new home than we were when the first human was created, but the situation we continue to place ourselves in is going to force our hand sooner or later. Maybe the Vedas are right - we need to stop focusing on our material needs and start listening to what Nature created us for. There is no Planet B today, but we might have to find it - fast.
Hence the question - Why create man when the best we have done is to threaten a climatic disaster worse than any asteroid collision could ever cause? Why create man as the example of a greedy species that cannot think beyond itself, and considers all else in nature as a never-ending pile of birthday presents? Why create man as the single most intelligent creature, that has conquered all else in nature to ensure its own subsistence beyond everything else?
An Alien View
One of my favorite twitter users is Soichi Noguchi for he posts the most amazing pictures from on-board the International Space Station, reminding us of the beautiful and bountiful heaven we have inherited. We didn't create this, but it is ours to enjoy.
At the same time, he also wonderfully captures the ugly footprints we leave behind. The orderly concrete jungles of Manhattan are hardly eye-catching to a visiting alien, while the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico tells them all they need to know about how much we care about our own home. Man has clearly not contributed to the beauty of nature with their technological advancements, nor are we the most pleasing creatures to look at. Beside every majestic Taj Mahal runs a black, greasy Yamuna river.
Harking Back to the Vedas
Perhaps the answer is in the ancient scriptures, I mused to myself. A brief dive into their content revealed one important answer. The Vedas teach us that the sensory world and its many sparkling attractions are merely Maya - a web of illusions distracting us from the real purpose of our existence. What this purpose is, is never defined, because it cannot be defined for each individual. Rather, one is urged to be ready and prepared to always serve Nature, because behind all the genealogy and evolution, is a broader brush-stroke which is bound to eventually serve creation itself.
Another answer provided by the brilliant scriptures is the fact that Man, and all Life and existence included, is really one with the Universe itself. There is nothing but this Universe (Brahma), and Life is but only one way for the Universe to express its creative (and destructive) urges. The human mind is said to be the medium through which The Universe can therefore finally, see and understand itself. This doesn't mean that Life has reached its evolutionary peak, but it does lead somewhere.
One Possible Answer
If all this sounds too deep and vague, you are not alone. But this is perhaps the only answer to the questions I raise - despite all the follies of Man, Nature must have a grander plan in its natural scheme to extend Life somehow. Else, Mankind should have been struck out by evolutionary forces, not left to continue its plundering.
It is well established that while the Earth is likely the womb as well as the cradle of Life, it is not expected to last forever, and with it Life as we know it, will perish too. Perhaps Nature created an intelligent, logically-oriented, creative, techno-savvy Man so that one day we could eventually transport Life onto another new home. While what will likely drive us to do that would be our selfish survival instincts, Nature as a whole might just benefit by continuing its existence elsewhere. Perhaps Nature knows the risks it takes in seeking this goal. Perhaps we may not be needed once we find a new home for Nature.
I am not sure we are any closer to finding a new home than we were when the first human was created, but the situation we continue to place ourselves in is going to force our hand sooner or later. Maybe the Vedas are right - we need to stop focusing on our material needs and start listening to what Nature created us for. There is no Planet B today, but we might have to find it - fast.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Talking Morals
December 18. Copenhagen. After 12 days of verbal warfare, intense debates, poor nations shifting blame on the rich, and multiple attempts at cutting deals, there was no consensus arrived at regarding emission cuts agreed by members attending the United Nations Climate Change Conference, 2009. Despite allegations of moral debt against the developed nations, the G-7, led by the strong resistance from the US, stuck to their view of sharing in a larger way the burden of solving the climate change crisis.
All neutrals, the scientists and environmentalists who care about the global climate change crisis, are concerned this could be how the papers report the failure of another attempt by the United Nations to broker a deal amongst nations on an issue of global concern. All the signs during the build-up to the conference also seem to vindicate their fears.
The Haves against the Have-Nots
The climate change debate is unique in the sense that it has the potential to turn the tables on the rich and powerful nations that have decided, or at least guided, the fate of the billons across the world for decades. For once, the attributes of wealth and technological prowess don't enhance one's resume when sitting at a table debating global issues. If anything, it only puts you on the back-foot right away.
"The Haves" here are of course, the developed nations of this world, that have steamed ahead - nah, smoked ahead - on the back of the Industrial and technological revolution in terms of economic prowess, without much recourse to the costs therein, as it now emerges, of a rampant and rapacious over-use of fossil fuels.
"The Have Nots" are the nations that missed this train, either due to problems in local governance or under the clutches of colonization, and are still striving to alleviate basic problems for their citizens that the Haves have long addressed. While a few of these Have Nots are marching to the top of the emission and economic charts, the fact remains that they still belong in this latter category simply because the majority of their populace lacks access to basic needs.
Two Extremes
In the US, I have seen personally from close quarters, the total disdain toward consumption of energy. While in Pune, we would turn off monitors, and lights and computers when we left for home, I would sigh in disgust at all the lights left turned on in the offices in Austin when people left for the weekend. While 2-wheelers and bicycles and bullock-carts jostle for a share of the road in Chennai, huge mini-trucks and SUVs and sports cars with a single occupant sped across the roads of Houston. Excessive demand for energy, has maintained energy costs low in the US, leading to a more ravaging misuse of greenhouse gas emitting fuels.
The poor nations are watching themselves hit by more floods than ever, bizarrely early melting of snow, onset of droughts in places that have never witnessed one for centuries, lashing typhoons and cyclones with a higher frequency than ever. One show to watch for real-life views into how major cities in the developing world are facing a sudden incidence of such problems is the BBC's Hot Cities series.
Why is it that the profligacy of the rich, is affecting the poor on the other side of the world? Because in our nationalism and selfishness, we easily forget that the Earth is an inter-linked, living-breathing, intricate system, and no one part can be unconnected from the rest. To understand this better, one must watch the brilliant documentary-movie "Home"
Skeptics of global warming thrive on statistics showing a fall in the average global temperature. But, hard facts from the lives of people who have lived in the same place for generations speak louder than numbers to me.
Moral Obligations
Some numbers speak loud enough though. Per capita emissions of carbon dioxide show US and Australia as the large industrialised nations that have been on the top for years. A more general list of per capita emissions of greenhouse gases tells the same story. The US accounts for 20% of global emissions. Granted China is ranked first on this last list at 21%, Chinese emissions have only grown rapidly in the last decade or so.
For a nation that claims to be driven by morals, and with Barack Obama, a Nobel Peace prize winner at the helm, one that increasingly sees itself as an idol and a system to emulate, the US seems to be falling way short when it comes to the issue of climate change. Forcing democracy across the world, which is an oxymoron by the way, claiming to punish war crimes by dictators, saving people from tyrants, the world waits to see what the US will do this time, for a crisis that seemingly affects everyone we know of. All this, while the climate change bill wrangles its way through the houses of representatives in Washington, D.C. with the world hoping it makes it through in time for Copenhagen.
Time To Act
The time for negotiations and arm-twisting is gone. The only thing nations can do now is act, and act fast. It isn't easy to cut emissions and still maintain living standards, which is why efforts must start sooner rather than later. For once, when the world really needed a leader, the US doesn't seem likely to step up to the mark, instead becoming the major stumbling block with the economic crisis acting as an alibi. Developing nations, facing the brunt of the climate change problems, are forced to deal with them already. Will the rich nations be humbled and shamed by the efforts of the poorer nations? Or will status quo preside and small non-obligatory deals be the only outcome from Copenhagen?
All neutrals, the scientists and environmentalists who care about the global climate change crisis, are concerned this could be how the papers report the failure of another attempt by the United Nations to broker a deal amongst nations on an issue of global concern. All the signs during the build-up to the conference also seem to vindicate their fears.
The Haves against the Have-Nots
The climate change debate is unique in the sense that it has the potential to turn the tables on the rich and powerful nations that have decided, or at least guided, the fate of the billons across the world for decades. For once, the attributes of wealth and technological prowess don't enhance one's resume when sitting at a table debating global issues. If anything, it only puts you on the back-foot right away.
"The Haves" here are of course, the developed nations of this world, that have steamed ahead - nah, smoked ahead - on the back of the Industrial and technological revolution in terms of economic prowess, without much recourse to the costs therein, as it now emerges, of a rampant and rapacious over-use of fossil fuels.
"The Have Nots" are the nations that missed this train, either due to problems in local governance or under the clutches of colonization, and are still striving to alleviate basic problems for their citizens that the Haves have long addressed. While a few of these Have Nots are marching to the top of the emission and economic charts, the fact remains that they still belong in this latter category simply because the majority of their populace lacks access to basic needs.
Two Extremes
In the US, I have seen personally from close quarters, the total disdain toward consumption of energy. While in Pune, we would turn off monitors, and lights and computers when we left for home, I would sigh in disgust at all the lights left turned on in the offices in Austin when people left for the weekend. While 2-wheelers and bicycles and bullock-carts jostle for a share of the road in Chennai, huge mini-trucks and SUVs and sports cars with a single occupant sped across the roads of Houston. Excessive demand for energy, has maintained energy costs low in the US, leading to a more ravaging misuse of greenhouse gas emitting fuels.
The poor nations are watching themselves hit by more floods than ever, bizarrely early melting of snow, onset of droughts in places that have never witnessed one for centuries, lashing typhoons and cyclones with a higher frequency than ever. One show to watch for real-life views into how major cities in the developing world are facing a sudden incidence of such problems is the BBC's Hot Cities series.
Why is it that the profligacy of the rich, is affecting the poor on the other side of the world? Because in our nationalism and selfishness, we easily forget that the Earth is an inter-linked, living-breathing, intricate system, and no one part can be unconnected from the rest. To understand this better, one must watch the brilliant documentary-movie "Home"
Skeptics of global warming thrive on statistics showing a fall in the average global temperature. But, hard facts from the lives of people who have lived in the same place for generations speak louder than numbers to me.
Moral Obligations
Some numbers speak loud enough though. Per capita emissions of carbon dioxide show US and Australia as the large industrialised nations that have been on the top for years. A more general list of per capita emissions of greenhouse gases tells the same story. The US accounts for 20% of global emissions. Granted China is ranked first on this last list at 21%, Chinese emissions have only grown rapidly in the last decade or so.
For a nation that claims to be driven by morals, and with Barack Obama, a Nobel Peace prize winner at the helm, one that increasingly sees itself as an idol and a system to emulate, the US seems to be falling way short when it comes to the issue of climate change. Forcing democracy across the world, which is an oxymoron by the way, claiming to punish war crimes by dictators, saving people from tyrants, the world waits to see what the US will do this time, for a crisis that seemingly affects everyone we know of. All this, while the climate change bill wrangles its way through the houses of representatives in Washington, D.C. with the world hoping it makes it through in time for Copenhagen.
Time To Act
The time for negotiations and arm-twisting is gone. The only thing nations can do now is act, and act fast. It isn't easy to cut emissions and still maintain living standards, which is why efforts must start sooner rather than later. For once, when the world really needed a leader, the US doesn't seem likely to step up to the mark, instead becoming the major stumbling block with the economic crisis acting as an alibi. Developing nations, facing the brunt of the climate change problems, are forced to deal with them already. Will the rich nations be humbled and shamed by the efforts of the poorer nations? Or will status quo preside and small non-obligatory deals be the only outcome from Copenhagen?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)