A catastrophe is happening on this earth: the global warming. Experts and international organisations agree that it must be stopped; anyway that a 1.5 degree global warming is the maximum acceptable; okay, let’s say 2 degrees, for a recent report says that in the period from February 2023 to January 2024 the global warming was already 1.52C compared with the preindustrial era. [1] In the meantime many measures have already been taken to combat the global warming. But will humanity succeed or can it keep the temperature rise within the 2% limit? Here are ten reasons why the answer is NO.
- Planners and politicians tend to overestimate their skills and capabilities, leading to an underestimation of the time and costs needed for the projects concerned. So, the measures and plans proposed are often too optimistic or not realistic.
- Pressure to present too optimistic plans. Environmental groups put pressure on governments to take action. That’s okay, but the result is that the targets set are often not realistic and accordingly the plans and measures aren’t. This provokes resistance from groups hit by the measures, which makes the implementation of the plans is delayed.
- The effects of the global warming become increasingly clear but often they are still vague (they might have happened by chance; happen gradually, etc.) and casual (they hit some people more than others and also some people hardly or not). Moreover, there is no clear end date in the sense that at date X the world will collapse and come to an end because of the warming. This leads to, what I want to call, the “procrastination effect”: too many people (governments, international organisations but also individuals) tend to postpone measures that are necessary.
- Conflicting interests. A part of the measures against the global warming must be taken at world level, but, for example, oil producing countries will try to slow down the implementation, because they’ll lose a part of their income, while countries that are dependent on oil import have a reason for a quick implementation.
- The rich countries, which contribute much to the global warming, should have to give up their rich lifestyle and privileges, which they don’t want to do. At most, they want to stay at the level they have reached. In the first place, within the rich countries the richest people should give up their lifestyle and privileges, since they contribute by far above average to the global warming compared with the less rich people in the rich countries, but as yet there is no sign that this will happen.
- The poor countries, which contribute by far below average to the global warming, will not give up their plans for improving the standard of living of the poorest people in their already poor countries. With right, but the implementation of these plans will contribute to the global warming.
- Corruption. Although leaders of corrupt countries pay lip service to the need to stop the global warming, they put (at least) a part of the money needed for the implementation of the plans to stop it in their own pockets and spend the money on expenses for their own rich lifestyle which just contributes to the global warming.
- Viscosity. National political measures and measures by international organisations are rarely a matter of “this must be done so we’ll immediately carry them out”. Many people must be consulted. Conflicting interests must be reconciled. Those who are hit negatively must be compensated. Decision procedures take time. Etc. So, it’s a long way from what must be done to the realization of a plan.
- Nobody can force individual countries to fulfil targets set during international conferences. The leaders of individual countries may say “yes” and think “no”. Or there are all kinds of reasons that they cannot or are not prepared to make (realistic) national plans that have been agreed upon internationally.
- Possible risks and uncertainties. Once measures against the global warming have been taken, often they don’t work the way that was expected. This can have both technical causes and human causes. You cannot foresee everything, there are many physical and natural uncertainties and humans react always in a different manner than planners and politicians think. Reality is simply too complicated for human beings.
Without a doubt there are many other factors that will make it very difficult if not impossible to stop the global warming. I just listed ten reasons that came to my mind. The factors mentioned are mainly sociological and political, but I should have added psychological factors as well. But the message is clear: The current approach will not stop the global warming. Maybe we must prepare ourselves for the posthuman era (but of course this is a contradiction, for where there are no humans there is nothing to prepare for humans).
Source
Most of my argument is based on older blogs.
2 comments:
I think your list sums the matter. Can't think of anything missed. A lack of cooperation, due mostly to those conflicting interests, reflects further the lack of will. The shaky balance between cooperation and competition, has never looked so instable, IMHO. Armageddon has mostly been viewed as human-fired destruction, assumed to come in the form of war. There is war going on;just not the sort of directed destruction we normally think of. It is a process of competitive intention veiled by a mistaken notion of the common good.
Thank you for your comment, Paul. Yes, the destruction will be gradual, but I think it will also lead to much violence. For example, many people will leave the areas that have become too hot to live. But where will they go? The migrant problem will only increase. Either they’ll be stopped by violence, or the situation in the countries that receive them will explode, etc. Such things will happen.
Post a Comment