Double edged knife

There are 101 ways how to engage in the climate change debate but those who have scored most internationally are those who regularly keep their arguments simple without becoming over simplistic. But even this can prove to be a double-edged knife. Because this tactic is used both by strong supporters of climate change-related issues and by those who try to rubbish them.

The best example of the latter is The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary film originally broadcast by Channel 4, which showcased scientists, economists, politicians and writers who are skeptical about the scientific theory of global warming. The programme's publicity materials assert that man-made global warming is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times".

A quick Wiki look will bear me out.

Even more dangerous than that are deniers like Bjorn Lomborg who rather than adopting a fundamentalist anti climate change approach, has turned out to represent a new generation of deniers.

You may ask what makes people like Mr Lomborg represent a new generation of deniers? As Sherlock Holmes would put it: Elementary, my dear Watson...

The first generation denied that global warming was happening at all. When too much evidence emerged, second generation deniers appeared. They argued that global warming was happening but that human activities had nothing to do with it. This was the original stand of the new Republican vice presidential candidate but, following strong advice from her campaign strategists, she has conveniently changed tack these last few hours not to embarrass the man who picked her as his running mate after just a 15 minute meeting!

Mr Lomborg pioneered a third generation denial argument. He says global warming is happening, human activities are at least in part responsible but that the threat of global warming is over-rated and might even be good for us.

The hidden strength of Mr Lomborg's approach is that he writes simple direct English, which even a not-so-smart secondary school student without any technical background would be able to follow with great ease.

A case in point is his Cool It: A Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide To Global Warming, which one can easily find himself reading through in a matter of hours.

For the uninitiated, Mr Lomborg can sound even more balanced because he tries to come across as someone who can carefully balance in the middle between equal but opposing forces.

His conclusion generates complacency on climate change by leading us to believe that hunger, HIV, AIDs, disease and poverty should command priority attention ahead of it. Ignoring that on a massive billboard on the front of FAO's Rome headquarters nowadays climate change features ahead of food!

His subliminal message is that the planet was in much better shape than the environmental groups would have us believe.

But, on the other hand, if one still wants to keep it simple, then one should go for a true environmentalist who roots for climate change without falling into the fundamentalist trap. I am referring to George Monbiot, whose writings are impressive on many counts.

I suggest that both our Prime Minister and the Minister for Rural Affairs should have a go at them because not only does he distinguish between climate change and hot air but he also considers as a significant event in the UK the launch of the Climate Change Bill in March last year. He describes it "as the first occasion on which a government has legally committed itself to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and ruled that if it misses its own targets it can be taken to court". An eye opener indeed for our governing party.

Mr Monbiot does not shirk from controversy. He has a website that receives a quarter of a million hits a month. He spares no one in his criticism.

His biggest concern is that although, in Tony Blair's own words, climate change is the single most important issue we face as a global community, we have also agreed to do nothing about it. A recent UK survey showed that only four per cent of the people made substantial changes to the way they lived, the reason being that everyone else is waiting for everyone else to act. And by everyone I am not limiting myself to governments. Some of his remarks should impact locally, especially when he advises against those who place too much trust in unproven technologies.

He equally has no hesitation in concluding that if those governments that have expressed a commitment to stopping climate change have found their efforts frustrated, it is partly because they wanted them to be frustrated.

Without being partisan, please allow me to address this to our Minister for the Environment - our Prime Minister - and to the minister directly responsible for climate change.

Speaking of his government, Mr Monbiot says that "by commissioning endless inquiries into the climate change problem and the means by which it might be tackled, the government creates the impression that something is being done while simultaneously preventing anything from happening until the next review".

It is time for us Maltese to grow up and prove him wrong as far as our island goes.

Mr Brincat MP is the Malta Labour Party's spokesman on the environment.

leo.brincat@gov.mt