Are you climate fit or climate weak?

Image source: unlao.org

It’s occurred to me many times that being prepared for climate change is not necessarily a function of wealth — at least not how wealth is defined in the West. Consider, for example, a family living in Singapore versus a family living in Laos. Very much First World and Third World in classic economic development terms. But which family would be able to cope best if (the increasingly likely) worst case scenario were to eventuate? Singaporeans get their imported food from supermarkets and their (Malaysia-sourced) water magically appears when they turn on the kitchen tap. They are anything but self-sufficient. Their Laotian counterparts, on the other hand, have a much stronger connection with the land and are, therefore, far more likely to be able to adapt if — as a growing number of ecological economists are predicting — climate change has significant ramifications for food security.

Communities within countries will also differ in terms of preparedness for a whole variety of reasons, as Gaia Vince points out in her recent piece entitled: Coping With Climate Change: Which Societies Will Do Best?

Rebel Without a Pause

Image source: robertlpeters.com

There was a nice piece in Planet Green last week on one of my intellectual heroes, the inimitable Professor Noam Chomsky. I first came across him more than 20 years ago when I read The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, a long time before people started talking about the so-called Washington Consensus. I have read a lot of his stuff since, and listened to countless interviews, and he has never wavered from his radical position; one reason, perhaps, for the ‘rebel without a pause’ tag given to him by Bono.

As the Planet Green article notes, the environmental movement needs to take a resolute, Chomskyesque approach if it is to achieve its aims. Chomsky himself puts the case very succinctly in the 1992 Manufacturing Consent documentary:

“Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilization has been individual material gain. Now it’s long been understood–very well–that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist–with whatever suffering and injustice it entails–as long as it’s possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource, and that the world is an infinite garbage can. At this stage of history, either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community issues guided by values of solidarity and sympathy and concern for others or–alternatively–there will be no destiny for anyone to control.”

Is It Too Late to Prevent Catastrophic Climate Change?

People in 181 countries are coming together today to take part in arguably the most widespread day of environmental action in history. An estimated 5200 events are scheduled to take place around the world, to call for strong action and decisive leadership on the climate crisis. The main objective is to draw attention to the science of climate change and what constitutes an acceptable level of CO2 in the atmosphere. The figure is 350 parts per million (ppm); hence the formation of 350.org. Right now, it is around 389 ppm. Meanwhile our politicians are saying that 450 is politically realistic. If you agree with Clive Hamilton, then 450 is simply not acceptable at all. This speech, entitled: Is It Too Late to Prevent Catastrophic Climate Change? was delivered in Sydney at a meeting of the Royal Society of the Arts last Wednesday, and the message is very depressing.