Higher temperatures, glaciers melting, severe droughts and intense downpours, reappearance of diseases. Climatic changes affect the delicate eco-system in which we live as well as our own existence Alberto Barlocci

Alberto Barlocci

 

We are the problem Buenos Aires – Over 500 scientists who are part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presented in Paris the fourth report with “overwhelming evidence” about human responsibility in the heating of the atmosphere. This puts forward political measures, but also a process of cultural change. We talked about these issues with Sergio Rondinara, Environmental Ethics professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University of Rome, coordinator of the EcoOne network which gathers scientists, students and citizens who are committed with environmental issues. Are there any news in this fourth IPCC report? There are two: over 90% of the IPCC scientists believe that it is almost certain that global warming caused by greenhouse effect is the consequence of the emissions of contaminating gases produced by human activity. I say “almost” because there is never absolute certainty in the scientific field. There are other activities that produce greenhouse effect naturally, such as volcano eruptions, humid swamp areas, but on the whole, their influence is not so important. The other news is that the increase in the average temperature of the planet is accelerating. Changes are stronger than forecasted five years ago. This means that the phenomenon is out of control and that the effects of the damage suffered by the planet will extend to at least another millennium. What kind of climate changes are taking place? The forecasts are that in this century there will be an average increase ranging from 1,8 to 4 degrees over the present average. We must bear in mind that the IPCC estimations tend to be rather conservative. And if contamination is not reduced, temperature could increase up to 6 degrees. As a consequence, among the different types of climates, we have the radicalization of atmospheric phenomenon, especially the extreme ones such as droughts and downpours, or the very high temperatures and those of intense cold. Common people do not find it easy to imagine that one degree more or less can make such a difference. It may seem like a tiny little change, but deep down, the planet is like our own organism, which is a system with several very delicate balances that are easily deteriorated. When we have one more degree in our body we don’t feel good and with two more degrees we are already in bed. In the case of the planet, one more degree in temperature can have several effects: it causes the melting of glaciers, which threatens the sources of sweet water for tens of millions of people. It also causes the return of diseases such as malaria in areas where it had disappeared. The largest damage is suffered by the ocean eco-system, with the disappearance of 80% of the coral reef. Two more degrees forecast 10 to 30% decrease in the harvest of several continents, with all this implies. There would be further diseases, the level of the sea would increase threatening coastal areas of high agricultural production. Three more degrees would mean the danger of extinction for 15 to 40% of animal species. An increase in four degrees, which is the scenario we forecast for the next 100 years, means a very serious perspective: the Mediterranean basin would start to suffer 10-year-cycle droughts. The lack of water could affect another thousand million people. The ocean currents, which distribute humidity in the planet, could change substantially. And if there was a 5 degree increase, it would be a real catastrophe, because the glaciers of the Himalayas would disappear, in other words, China and India would have no water reserves left, the level of the sea would force the evacuation of cities like New York, Tokyo or London. The Kyoto protocol should be applied immediately... The Kyoto protocol is no longer useful because it proposes a 5% reduction in the level of emissions of 1990, whereas now we have to reduce our present emissions by half. This drastic reduction of the gas emissions implies a different model of growth and sustainable development, different from the present one. The present model is based on the irrational use of the sources of energy. You mean we are seriously delayed? Had there been a dramatic reduction of the contaminating emissions at the end of the 50s, we would have been capable of stabilizing the present effects. The problem is serious and real and what’s most distressing about this is the carelessness of global policies. What measures ought to be taken? I believe this is the opportunity to look for solutions that aren’t be magical and must point to the core of the matter. We are the solution to the environmental crisis. We must check our behavior, our life style, redefine the concept of development. That is why I think it is an anthropological crisis, because we are the ones who are going wrong; I mean that a model of development implies a model of man for that development. So we must redefine what we understand by development. There’s a lot of talking about the new paradigm of sustainable development. But nobody knows what this means, because sustainability is an objective that needs solutions in order to be carried out and these depend on a cultural process. This process, and not economic rationality, must guide a new style in consumption and the use of natural resources. Elaborating a model of sustainable development is one of the biggest and most urgent cultural challenges. I’ll give you an example: here in Italy tap water has higher security standards than those of mineral waters. Nonetheless, people prefer to buy mineral water, therefore tons of water must be transported by truck from one place to another, with the environmental impact that this energy consumption implies, the exhaust pipes, etc. These are things that must be corrected and that each citizen can help to change. For example, buying merchandise produced in their own region or city, without having to bring it in from thousands of kilometers away. This implies structural changes in world economy. Another change would be to use renewable and non-contaminating sources of energy… Every source of energy contaminates. When people talk of nuclear fusion in terms of “clean energy”, it is demagogy. Nuclear fusion produces helium and we have to see how to dispose of this gas. There are fast neutrons which activate everything around them and the entire reactor becomes a residue. In nature, everything we do has a price. The point is to minimize this price. Concerning other sources of energy, such as solar or wind power, technologies must be developed that are easily adopted. What sometimes hinders the development of these sources of energy are rather the barriers put up by groups which are often linked to other sources of energy. You spoke of a cultural process. In the meantime, there are political measures that must be taken. Of course, it has to do with politics. A good policy will be that which preserves the earth in a global manner and not the one that only ensures a quantitative development of the economy. But what measures will we apply without taking into account that humanity is one global unique family, without rediscovering values such as common good and fraternity in this scope, without passing from an individual outlook to a more global one? I believe that the contribution of every culture is most important. There isn’t a culture that has “its” solution. It is a radical change, compared with the Neolithic revolution or the Industrial Revolution. Only in this case, it must not only be a fast revolution, but a conscious one. Which is the role of the civil society? I believe that if there is a civil society which is aware of the change that must take place political activity will be able to understand this need. It is a process that supposes huge social participation. Citizens are the first subjects for the sustainability of the land they live in. This capillary participation is the one that can generate the adequate solutions for that territory, in other words, following that well-known phrase of “think globally, act locally”.
__________________
Alberto Barlocci Lawyer and journalist. Director of Ciudad Nueva magazine .