I graduated from forestry science and once active in youth environment organization. Many of my friends and acquaintances are climate, sustainability, and environment advocates—some might be swamped during this year's controversial COP28.
Coming from this background and circumstances, I was reluctant to voice my inner, growing concern: is saving the planet a wishful thinking? Sometimes I feel such thought is a form of betrayal to their diligent work.
Now, not to undermine political polarization, healthcare system, inflation, racism, social disparity, gender equality, AI disruption, mass unemployment, and other humanity issues—but these are problems about human, caused by human, and only affecting human. We won't be having those conversations again if the planet died, also caused by human.
Current global life expectancy (at birth) is 73 years old. I might die in the next 40 years where we still have trees and maybe the last drop of fossil fuel. What about the next generation? Children three decades younger? At this point, I too, tempted to mind my own business, occasionally cheering for people working on climate crisis, die, then let the youths after me deal with the impending doom of living in 40°C.
Despite some initial faulty responses, we have seen how good we
actually can be as human race when all sectors working collaboratively
to survive Covid-19. Why aren't we responding to global warming with
sense of urgency as we did to the pandemic? I mean, seriously, aren't
they experiencing the heat? Living in the tropics, I can't survive 15 minutes in my room without a fan 🫠
2023 IPCC report as highlighted by WRI detailed devastating consequences of rising greenhouse gas emissions—the loss of livelihoods, biodiversity, and fragmentation of communities. Maybe it isn't perceived as a threat because no human is physically dying—for now. Try asking the corals.
Thousands climate scientists and advocates have been working to push global warming issue, to the point greenwashing and plastic waste are now seen as somewhat against society norm. As early of 1969, environmentalist Gordon Macdonald warned fossil-fuel burning could lead to dangerous global warming. In 1988, climate science pioneers Michael Oppenheimer and James Hansen testified in front of US Congress about the relationship of greenhouse effect and global warming. They had foreseen and work on this problem for half a century. Time and time again, they all faced similar challenge: fossil fuel industry.
Burning fossil fuels is the number one cause of climate crisis. COP is the only place where the smaller and developed nations can stand beside (or against?) the giants—to demand, negotiate, and be taken seriously on climate change. Historian Sean Munger argued that if COP28 really serious on addressing global warming, they should've discussed terminating Exxon-Mobil, BP, Shell and the rest of similar industries, confiscating and redirecting their wealth to build renewable energy-based infrastructures.
We do reach record-breaking progress on renewable energy. Still I guess climate change risks and severity aren't enough to drive any government to completely terminate their usage of fossil fuels. COP28 president himself said phase out of fossil fuel is not necessary and will take us back to the caves—a comment that was heavily criticized as verged on climate denial. Saudi Arabia has taken a stance of "absolutely no" to fossil fuels phase out, they're in favor for carbon capture technology which is an absolute unit of expensive.
Phasing out may give us a few setbacks and put additional burden on developing countries that currently expanding infrastructures and growing economy. But it's not the end of the world, unlike the case if we continue using fossil fuels. The science is clear, to achieve the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, the vast majority of fossil fuel and coal reserves must remain unextracted.
I can't deny my budding qualms on geopolitical matters behind cornering oil & gas producing countries and business, not to mention the potential rising wealth of renewable energy industries. It's difficult for oil & gas to defend their means when currently seen as almost public enemy. Well, with those oil money they've sequestered for around two centuries, they can start pivoting to develop breakthrough technology in renewable sectors, help making it cheaper and accessible, then tinker around to make profit.
On the other hand, renewable energy from large solar panel and wind turbine projects should pay attention on minimizing environmental impact and logistics efficiency (how it could reach villages and cities). We might weigh in expansion of nuclear power as energy source which appeared to be reliable for France, although it's understandable that historical record of its usage and risk management factor in public perception need to be addressed carefully.
In reference to dystopian sci-fi, I wonder if our world leaders and contingency of world billionaires would be much interested on finding and funding new habitable planet rather than fixing what we have. The first energy transition from whale oil to earth crust oil took 100 years and left irreparable damage to whale population. Maybe the next energy transition only happen to near-extinction situation too ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sure, slow progress is a progress; tell me what's the odd of winning against human greed again?
Comments
Post a Comment