Sanctifying global concerns

From time immemorial, humans have laid a lot of store by sanctification and legitimisation. So no matter how good an idea is, it is nothing if not blessed; and no matter how bad an idea is, it will gain currency if sanctified by, shall we say, "the appropriate authority". While arriving at a judgment over climate change, it is useful to bear this in mind. Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), chaired by R K Pachauri, may have received a huge nod in the form of the Nobel Peace Prize but that does not mean that the probability of climate change "" global temperatures rising by 2 degrees over the next 100 years as a result of current levels of human activity (emission of greenhouse gases) "" is one. It should also not be forgotten that properly qualified climatologists "" as opposed to people who use their hearts to think, or use the risk of climate change (which is by no means an imaginary one) to advance their own careers "" are yet to agree that the threat is as vast, big or as imminent as Mr Gore and, to a lesser extent, the IPCC would have everyone believe. It is there, for sure, but is the beast as big as it is said to be?

There are two ways of dealing with this question. One is to assume, foolishly, that it is not as big as is being made out and therefore no one need worry. The other is to assume the opposite. The first approach carries with it the risk of inaction until it is too late; the second leads to hasty actions that slow down economic growth for four-fifths of the earth's people. The political problem inherent in this is that the world's poor lose either way. If nothing is done, they run many, if not all, of the risks to which Mr Gore and the IPCC have been drawing attention. But if too much is done immediately, and growth slows down, they face the prospect of remaining in their low income traps for a much longer period.

This conflict between complex science and complicated politics lies at the root of the controversies that surround climate change. Everything has become grist to the mill. For example, there are those who argue that the Gulf Stream is not going to vanish. Nor do many accept the Gore 'finding' that the close relationship between carbon dioxide and temperatures during the ice age proves that the former was responsible for the latter. There has also been some shyness in separating global causes from purely local ones.

It is possible to go on in this vein but in the final analysis, the approach should be clear: when the issue is as important as it is, and the results of arriving at the wrong conclusions can be devastating for humankind and indeed life on earth, you need the scientists to keep working at improving their understanding at the forces that are at work, and politicians to err on the side of safety. It is better to lose 0.5 per cent of the GDP growth rate than to risk cataclysmic results that will send GDP into a steep decline "" this much should be common sense. Viewed from this perspective, it is clear that the world has done far too little in the 35 years since the first environmental warnings were issued. What is worse, the West is now turning the heat on poor countries as though they are the villains of the piece, which is the height of absurdity when the US with 5 per cent of the world's population is responsible for 25 per cent of carbon emissions. It is here that the Nobel Prize Committee has done humankind a service by sanctifying the work done by Mr Gore and the IPCC. If that spurs the debate on the action that is needed, and prompts the rich countries to share more generously the clean technologies that they have developed, the prize will have served a larger social purpose.