Back Issue - August 2001
NOW THAT BONN IS OVER...
... what are we left with? A triumph for the rest of the
world, to the exclusion of the current US administration,
or a con trick? According to Mark Lynas, writing in The Guardian
UK newspaper (27 July), the agreement reached in Bonn will
result in a rise of about 0.3% in world-wide carbon emissions
and not a fall at all. This is due to deliberately weakened
targets since Kyoto by a number of the most resistant governments,
and their monkeying about with the 'carbon credits' and 'carbon
sinks' mechanisms in order to nullify the targets. So is it
"the essential ladder needed to build global action to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions", as proclaimed by Greenpeace,
or not worth the paper it is written on?
We in Save
our World do not have a definitive answer, and maybe no
one has. But we don't need one. We can leave that to others
to argue about, if they think it worthwhile. I
suggest that NGO's need to move away from being 'right' or
'wrong' in their analyses of outcomes. Our role is to keep
pushing for what is really needed: 60-80% reductions in CO2,
and leave governments and the corporations (which governments
still do not have the honesty to admit control them), to find
ways of doing so. If we applaud or decry them for specific
agreements we make ourselves partly responsible for the outcomes,
with no more legitimacy than corporations.
It
is, however, our role to challenge them on their intentions
and motivations, and their dishonesty, on behalf of the sections
of civic society that we claim to speak for. An
understanding of the motivations and intentions of the various
parties is an essential prerequisite for judging the trustworthiness
of their claims and the kinds of tricks that can be expected
of them, either now or in the future.
At
a deeper level there needs to be a paradigm shift from arguing
about facts, since governments can no longer be relied upon
to act on logical, rational and scientific grounds. While
we still keep playing the facts game we have to respond to
the idiotic statements of the likes of Republican Senator
Peterson by treating his claims as factual until shown otherwise.
He claimed
on a recent BBC Newsnight TV programme that thousands of scientists
dispute the evidence of climate change, whereas most informed
people believe it to be around ten, employed by the fossil
fuel industry. On
a BBC Radio 4 programme 'The Battle For Kyoto' (31 July),
the training of young Republicans to go to Bonn to say the
evidence for global warming is 'wrong', come what may and
without their finding out whether it is true or not, makes
the conflicting evidence game even more absurd. It is also
commonplace for government ministers and their opponents hurl
conflicting statistics at one another, fruitlessly, on Radio
4 news comment programmes.
If you start from an assessment of motives instead of arguments
the whole game becomes much clearer. It is usually pretty
obvious why the said ministers are making the claims that
they do, as well as their opponents; and blindingly obvious
where it comes to Republicans opposing the evidence for global
warming. Ignore their arguments until you have challenged
their motives. The paradigm shift comes when you regard everything,
even something as simple as a chair, as the outcome of some
person(s) intention, in place of simply as an object with
certain physical characteristics. Incidentally I owe this
simple realisation to an eminent sociologist, called Talcott
Parsons, who called it 'the action frame of reference'.
In
fact, the cardinal place of values, intentions and motivations
in attitudes to climate change, hit me during a conference
last March about preparations for Earth Summit 2002 next year.
Somewhere
inside me a bulb lit up and I realised that it is a sheer
waste of time to produce, voluntarily and unpaid, technical
or scientific advice for government, to which it already has
ample access but may be totally unmotivated to utilise. So,
when the opportunity was presented of joining in an issue-based
working group in the afternoon of the Conference, I set out
to declare that I wanted to address just the values behind
sustainable energy and climate change.
That was easier
said than done, since most members of the group were scientists
who still assumed that governments act on rational arguments,
based on scientific evidence, which is logically and therefore
irrefutably based. And so I felt distinctly unheard at the
end of the session - and still do, after two follow-up meetings,
which have followed the conference. This is despite my preparing
and circulating the paper 'A Values Approach to Energy and
Climate Change' (which is posted to our Yahoo Group
on our Links page). It has also been emailed to others
who are hopefully more open to this viewpoint.
Consistent with
these observations, I have been taking a different line from
most of the speakers at recent Against Bush street demonstrations
on climate change. Instead of joining in with simply abusing
Bush, in our speech to the Green Party demonstration on Saturday
14 July, I said that Save our World is about
transformation - of attitudes, beliefs and life-styles, as
stated in our Principles (on the About Us web page).
This is not simply on a practical level, like re-cycling waste
or walking instead of driving your car. It is about transformation
of hearts and minds, not just personally, but socially, nationally
and globally. Unless we care passionately for this exquisite
planet that we have been given, develop resolution and determination
to defend it, endurance and perseverance to sustain it, we
will not be any use in the times that lie ahead.
However, those on the demonstrations, to whom I paid tribute,
are already showing some of the commitment needed. Instead
of buying the labels of 'violent agitators' that Naomi Klein
wrote, last March, are being thrown at demonstrators by politicians
and in the media, they should proudly call themselves New
Altruists. For many such demonstrators give of their own time
and money to support causes that they deeply believe in, travel
to other countries, rough it, and endure harassment and arrest
- with no direct gain for themselves.
There are also many habits of mind to be undone. These are
very pervasive and subtle, like the assumption which is shared
among practically everyone that we meet, including family
and friends, that life will carry on much as it is at present
- indefinitely; and that we who take environmental issues
seriously are worrying unnecessarily about our own pet interest
- that does not affect them in the slightest. These habits
of mind regard it as normal to consume all you want, when
you want, drive around as much as you like, and divert yourself
with chat-shows and winning the lottery. So it is not surprising
that one of the most urgent studies is into 'States of Denial',
a book by Stanley Cohen written about ethnic atrocities and
suffering, which appears equally relevant to amnesia about
climate change and its implications. More of this in a future
Boiling Point.
Meanwhile, speaking of intentions, ours to shame the US
Congress to ratify the Kyoto Agreement etc. through our on-line
Petition may well not succeed but it is certainly firm and
clear. What is more it is standing the test of time, having
been initiated last summer, and is just as relevant now as
it was before The Hague conference, the US Presidential election,
Bush's revolt, and Bonn.
It gave me much pleasure to read out the text of the Petition
over a microphone to the crowd in front of the US Embassy
in London on Saturday 28 July, and invite people to sign by-hand
versions which we are inputting into the on-line version.
I said that the Petition runs till the Earth Summit in September
next year, but needed to add, as I do here, that its real
effectiveness will be through networking and coalitions with
other organisations in order to expand it exponentially over
what is really little time till then - as well as helping
to develop world citizen action as a real force. If you are
part of or know of a potentially linked campaign, I invite
you warmly to contact me through jimscott@save-our-world.org.
Keep in touch!
Jim
return
to contents
Feedback
Please feel free to leave your comments
and air your views,first mentioning the title of the Boiling
Point issue to which you are referring.
If you prefer, you can email
your comments directly to Jim Scott, Chairperson of Save
Our World.
|
bravenet.com