All for one, one for all

Why is climate change dominating the headlines like no other issue? Mid-way through the first week of the climate talks, my mind wandered back to last week’s climate change instalment of the Munk Debates, and I came upon the answer. Although science is foundation, it has escalated far beyond that. 

The Munk Debates brought together an interesting cast of characters to answer the question: “is climate change the defining challenge of our time and does it demand a commensurate response?”

On the Pro side were Elizabeth May, introduced as the Green Party Leader, and George Monbiot, the award-winning Guardian newspaper journalist, welcomed as the “Climate Change Activist.” On the Con side were Bjorn Lomborg, labelled the “Climate Change Expert,” (a bit of a stretch, considering he is a statistician who seems to make a living by taking the side of Big Oil and other dinosaurs), and Nigel Lawson, identified as “Best Selling Author,” (although of the four people on stage, he had sold the least books).

Dissatisfied by their titles, I came up with my own names for the four during the course of the debate:

Elizabeth the Evangelist

George for the Good-Fight

Nigel the Naysayer

Bjorn the Big-Coal Court Jester

Elizabeth made the point that none of them were qualified to actually debate the merit of the question as none of them were climate scientists. But that never seems to matter much. While the climate change discourse may at times seem bogged down in science, the forces lining up for and against have more existential axes to grind.

That’s because climate change is a unique conundrum for human civilization. Never before has there been a problem where our common fates were so intertwined on cause and effect. Climate change is the first global manifestation of the maxim made famous by Alexandre Dumas’ novel Three Musketeers: all for one, one for all. A destabilized climate will affect us all (cutting the human population down by 80 per cent if you believe James Lovelock pictured below), and it can only be avoided if we all join in the solution (if the rich world moves, and the poor world doesn’t, we are still pooched).

The stakes are so high and the solution so precariously dependent on collective action, that climate change arouses our animal spirits like nothing else. This goes to the heart of the public’s climate preoccupation, and is what inspires the passions of activists like Elizabeth May and George Monbiot, while scaring the jeepers out of conventional folks like Nigel Lawson and Bjorn Lomborg.

Bubbling below all the scientific charts and Al Gore PowerPoints, this planetary awakening foretells the uncorking of our collective moral consciousness. The prospect of which is highly destabilizing, and terrifies defenders of the status quo. And that’s the real reason why climate change is making the temperatures go up in more ways than one.

Comments

[jay]

If you want to hear the truth of ClimateGate, a great video can be seen at the following url. It describes in detail the tricks and fraud involved in making up global warming.

http://www.cfact.tv/2009/12/07/lord-monckton-on-climategate-at-the-2nd-international-climate-conference/

[Streetcar]

What a biased one sided article this is.

It would appear May and George lost the debate

Pre Debate Pro 67% Con 39%

Post Debate Pro 53% Con 47%

What did Nigel and Bjorn do to make this turnaround that May and George didn't do?

[Phi]

Are you actually in Copenhagen Toby?
And are you into having a discussion on the developments here?

[snowmaneasy]

I listened to the entire debate and I believe that you are presenting a rather biased view of the debate...it is obvious that Ms May and Mr. Monbiot lost the debate. You make no mention of that....you should post the scores taken before and after the debate. Ms May has no understanding of the science and misquoted it a number of times. Mr Monbiot's contribution was all about his adventures in Africa...whatever you may think about Lomborg and big oil, he made fools of the opposition.

I do not believe in Anthropogenic Global warming, I do not believe in Cap and Trade, I do not believe in Carbon Sequestration, and for all our sakes I hope that I am right and you are wrong because if I am wrong then we are truly doomed. To try and bring down CO2 levels e.g. 80% global reduction in emissions compared to 1990 levels by 2050 is not going to happen. You see Mr. Heaps we are a stubborn bunch us humans and mustard gas would have to be coming out of the floorboards before we would do anything about it.

[Rita D]

Ok, I've had climate on my mind for quite some time and I currently think that I have the easiest sollution to it.

Why not consider going back to Sunday as being a day of rest? Closing all polluting industries making no exception as to who is allowed to operate on that day. It would give us the ordinary people the chance to spend some time with family and friends, to have a leisure day without the thought of work interfering. Yes, there are exceptions like hospitals, fire and police, those are basic needs that we cannot do without, don't go into that field if it's such a hassle to have to work on Sundays.

Religion will have a say in it also. Too bad! all religions believe in God, there is only one God and we were taught that he created and rested on the seventh day, why we as humans believe that we could keep on going like the everready battery, this ONE day would give us time to reenergize our batteries, our health and so forth.

One single day of the week, 4 days in a month we would allow mother nature to do her thing, clean the air of all pollutants. Canada would have to take the initiative and be a leader in promoting this. When the states started their Sudnay shopping we followed suit, why not make other countries follow our lead as we're supposed to be a peace leading country and not followers or warriors.

I'd like to see a poll done on this, let people take the time to savor the benefits that can be had from this one day. Everybody seems to think its so difficult to solve the ongoing issue of climate change, don't shoot it down without consideration, the greed has to stop somewhere.

[wascally wabbit]

Good synopsis Mr. Heaps.
I find the climate change deniers a fascinating bunch.
They cling and claw at isolated diamond chip "facts" that run contrary to vast mined sources of irrefutable information - much as their "white knights" drill and dig - with many dry wells, uneconomic mines and a trail of destruction easily visible from space as evidence of their frenetic "play the percentages" efforts in between any "big strikes"!
They litter the earth with a trail of abuse of land and peoples - the good exploiters being distinguished from the others only by the lesser amount of blood found on their hands.
No doubt - they are quietly digging bunkers against the serious possibility that the science is in fact true and its conclusions irrefutable. Of course, these bunkers will only have the capacity to protect them and theirs - mine mine mine - will be the cry!
It would be an insult to the habits of the long legged flightless birds with the wonderful tail plumes to compare these deniers to them...except...if they do leave their arses in the air while burying their heads - I for one will be happy to take the first kick!

[Streetcar]

My comment is shown as submitted by Jay and Jay's comment is posted by me.

Why don't you do an article on the devastating cost a legaly binding agreement will have on the economies of North America.

It is getting very easy to start believing the New World Order theory and that this is purely nothing more than the biggest trnsfer of wealth. It will most surely ruin the the North American economies

[Orik_Ibad]

There have been recently published some real article by well known publishers that talks around climate change are lie and do not have scientific foundation. These talks are used for commercial purpose only and scientists involved to this talks delibarately.

[myna lee johnstone]

It was evident to me that Elizabeth and Gorge on the debate.
I followed on Cover It and at the end, the pro votes went up over 10%
So,like, here is the science in the voting?
luved your new labels!

[Streetcar]

myrna lee johnstone

How do you figure Elizabeth and George won the debate.

Pro was 67 % before the debate 53% after.

Don't get me wrong, I think the environment is a very important issue. We should be taking steps to reduce pollution etc. My reluctance to this is to enter a one sided legally binding agreement with no consideration for the consequences is wrong. It could devastate our economies. Everybody seems to be all for signing the agreement in Copenhagen but nobody is talking about the effect it will have on us eonomically.

[bernie 37]

Mr. Heaps I agree with you.

Streetcar It's just the opposite. Not protecting the environment will have multiple times as much damage to the economy as not doing anything.

[MJH]

Wow, what an objective,balanced report! Surely the Star could do better than this!

[Streetcar]

bernie37,

I am not saying we should not protect the environment. It is most important we do what we can to get away from the dependence of fossil fuels. I am qustioning the process regarding the funding. Is cap and trade and carbon credits the best way to go. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars going to the UN. The UN is made up of communist, socialist, dictatorships and anarchists. Throw corruption in there as well. How much of that money will somehow vanish or be lost in administration costs and bureaucarcy. The Oil for Food program is one example of things gone wrong.

[Streetcar]

It is going to take some time to figure out what the results of Copenhagen was really all about. Harper has a lot of room for criticism but he didn't sell the farm. I am not a Harper fan. I recognize that we have to reduce out dependence on fossil fuels. My complaint has been with Cap and Trade, Carbon Credits. Is creating a bureaucracy mananged by the UN with people like Chavez, Morales et al the right way to go. Say what you want about Harper. Obama still has to get his fluff and puff passed through the Senate. I truly hope this can be resolved because it is serious. There are just to many unanswered questions. I think the old saying goes. Caveat Emptor.

[john]

I do believe that we need to reduce oil consumption but because it will run out one day soon. Global man made warming is a farce and I am glad at least a few of the media are exposing it for what it is.

[awn]

The solar activity is what has provided all energy on earth and continues to do so. Global warming as well as global cooling when it occurs can be traced right back to the sun and the energy, output solar flares, sunspots etc.