Extract III from 'Ten Billion' by Stephen Emmott
But think about this. In transporting
us and our stuff all over the planet, we are also creating a highly efficient
network for the global spread of potentially catastrophic diseases. There was a
global pandemic just 95 years ago – the Spanish flu pandemic, which is now
estimated to have killed up to 100 million people. And that's before one of our
more questionable innovations – the budget airline – was invented. The
combination of millions of people travelling around the world every day, plus
millions more people living in extremely close proximity to pigs and poultry –
often in the same room, making a new virus jumping the species barrier more
likely – means we are increasing, significantly, the probability of a new
global pandemic. So no wonder then that epidemiologists increasingly agree that
a new global pandemic is now a matter of "when" not "if".
We are going to have to triple – at
least – energy production by the end of this century to meet expected demand.
To meet that demand, we will need to build, roughly speaking, something like:
1,800 of the world's largest dams, or 23,000 nuclear power stations, 14m wind
turbines, 36bn solar panels, or just keep going with predominantly oil, coal
and gas – and build the 36,000 new power stations that means we will need.Our
existing oil, coal and gas reserves alone are worth trillions of dollars. Are
governments and the world's major oil, coal and gas companies – some of the
most influential corporations on Earth – really going to decide to leave the
money in the ground, as demand for energy increases relentlessly? I doubt it.
Meanwhile the emerging climate problem
is on an entirely different scale. The problem is that we may well be heading
towards a number of critical "tipping points" in the global climate
system. There is a politically agreed global target – driven by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – to limit the global average
temperature rise to 2C. The rationale for this target is that a rise above 2C
carries a significant risk of catastrophic climate change that would almost
certainly lead to irreversible planetary "tipping points", caused by
events such as the melting of the Greenland ice shelf, the release of frozen
methane deposits from Arctic tundra, or dieback of the Amazon. In fact, the
first two are happening now – at below the 2C threshold.
As for the third, we're not waiting for
climate change to do this: we're doing it right now through deforestation. And
recent research shows that we look certain to be heading for a larger rise in
global average temperatures than 2C – a far larger rise. It is now very likely
that we are looking at a future global average rise of 4C – and we can't rule
out a rise of 6C. This will be absolutely catastrophic. It will lead to runaway
climate change, capable of tipping the planet into an entirely different state,
rapidly. Earth will become a hellhole. In the decades along the way, we will
witness unprecedented extremes in weather, fires, floods, heatwaves, loss of
crops and forests, water stress and catastrophic sea-level rises. Large parts
of Africa will become permanent disaster areas. The Amazon could be turned into
savannah or even desert. And the entire agricultural system will be faced with
an unprecedented threat.
More "fortunate" countries,
such as the UK, the US and most of Europe, may well look like something
approaching militarised countries, with heavily defended border controls
designed to prevent millions of people from entering, people who are on the
move because their own country is no longer habitable, or has insufficient
water or food, or is experiencing conflict over increasingly scarce resources.
These people will be "climate migrants". The term "climate
migrants" is one we will increasingly have to get used to. Indeed, anyone
who thinks that the emerging global state of affairs does not have great
potential for civil and international conflict is deluding themselves. It is no
coincidence that almost every scientific conference that I go to about climate
change now has a new type of attendee: the military.
Every which way you look at it, a
planet of 10 billion looks like a nightmare. What, then, are our options?
The only solution left to us is to
change our behaviour, radically and globally, on every level. In short, we
urgently need to consume less. A lot less. Radically less. And we need to
conserve more. A lot more. To accomplish such a radical change in behaviour
would also need radical government action. But as far as this kind of change is
concerned, politicians are currently part of the problem, not part of the
solution, because the decisions that need to be taken to implement significant
behaviour change inevitably make politicians very unpopular – as they are all
too aware.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home