In tumultuous times

Bouazizi’s act has set the Maghreb on fire and we have a North African upheaval on its doorstep. Libya, the big constant in Malta’s political and socio-economic development post-Independence, has not been spared. Those prophetic words of wisdom that there can be no security in Europe unless there is also security in the Mediterranean have never been so relevant. The apocalypse in Japan has brought the nuclear industry into the limelight.

In his advice to Lorenzo de Medici, the Florentine political philosopher Niccolò’ Machiavelli writes: “The Romans did in these instances what all prudent princes ought to do, who have to regard not only present troubles, but also future ones, for which they must prepare with every energy, because, when foreseen, it is easy to remedy them; but if you wait until they approach, the medicine is no longer in time because the malady has become incurable… Thus it happens in affairs of state, for when the evils that arise have been foreseen (which it is only given to a wise man to see), they can be quickly redressed, but when, through not having been foreseen, they have been permitted to grow in a way that everyone can see them, there is no longer a remedy.”

Written 500 years ago, Machiavelli’s words of wisdom remain valid nowadays when the leaders of the modern world face crucial decisions not just on the Maghreb and perhaps even Japan, and the way forward on nuclear, but also on climate policy. The Kyoto Protocol’s commitment period expires in about 24 months’ time but the global community is still in the wilderness as to what happens next. But how relevant is the climate change debate given current world events? What are the world’s priorities right now?

In what may be interpreted as a modern reflection on Macchiavelli, Lord Anthony Giddens, eminent sociologist and emeritus professor at the London School of Economics, argues that “since the dangers posed by global warming aren’t tangible, immediate or visible in the course of day-to-day life, however awesome they appear, many will sit on their hands and do nothing of a concrete nature about them. Yet waiting until they become visible and acute before being stirred to serious action will, by definition, be too late.” The Maghreb is tangible, so is Japan and nuclear plants but how about climate change?

Not enough is known about the global carbon cycle to reassure ourselves that the present levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, hovering around 379 parts-per-million (2005 values) and a record high for the past 650,000 years, with further increases envisaged in the immediate future, do not present any danger to ourselves and future generations. It is also about humanity that has been undertaking an experiment of unprecedented proportions. But the big picture of climatic changes can neither be missed.

Global climate is thought to be affected by the positioning of earth in orbit round the sun, which follows natural cycles covering thousands of years. Studies of Antarctic ice cores have revealed an alternation between ice ages and warm periods characterising long-term global climate; we are living in the latest “warm” period in earth’s history that has begun 10,000 years ago marking the end of the Pleistocene. What bigger paradox perhaps than to say that judging by the planet’s studied cyclical trends and perhaps removing the 379 parts-per-million abnormality the planet should plunge into an Ice Age in the next few or several thousand years!

Never in earth’s history has there been such an impact on the environment, the atmosphere in particular, by just one species – mankind – and in so short a time, a mere 200 years, and by just one cause – greenhouse gas emissions. Even the most sophisticated climate models present limitations but the core of the global scientific community agrees that the extent of disturbance on the global carbon cycle is such that human-induced climatic changes are already unavoidable.

The politics of climate change requires substantive and robust economic analysis. Climate change is a global market failure of unique proportions but as Lord Stern puts it “there is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change if strong collective action starts now”. Lord Stern’s 2006 economic assessment of climate change estimates that the annual costs of greenhouse gas stabilisation at 500-550 parts-per-million carbon dioxide equivalent should be around one per cent of global domestic product by 2050 and despite the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report suggesting that the damages to be incurred are most likely to be at the higher end, in Lord Stern’s own judgment, this level is “significant but manageable”.

The modern world leaders’ dilemma in a nutshell: going nuclear is the key towards drastic global greenhouse gas emissions cuts while sustaining global energy demand, and yet Fukushima is a wake-up call into a nightmare. Where do we go from here?

sapulis@gmail.com

The author specialises in environmental management.