The Hindu Business Line : Climate change: Greed and fear may drive agenda

The present debate on climate change and global warming is driven more by hysteria and scare-mongering. Unfortunately, scientists also seem to have contributed to this. What is needed is a more sober and rational analysis, devoid of hype, of the problems posed by climate change.

G. Chandrashekhar

Climate change, global warming, environmental pollution, ecological disaster... words that seem to have become fashionable and animatedly uttered in places as disparate as boardrooms, classrooms, households, parliaments, chambers of commerce, non-governmental organisations, not to mention seminars and conferences.

The media — electronic and print — are full of stories, expert comments and prognosis on what is likely to happen to this earth 20, 30, 50 and even 100 years from now. Reams of paper are written everyday on the subject of global warming and climate change warning about the cataclysm the world will face sooner than many think. Vivid images of glaciers melting, lakes drying up, drought or flood ravage are being circulated in words or pictures.

Is it real?

Many wonder what’s happening. Is climate change and global warming for real? Will it affect you and me, today or may be tomorrow? Or is a tacit conspiracy emerging among the world’s scientists that are willy-nilly contributing to a mass hysteria? Experts assert that doomsday is nearing because of not only past omissions and commissions of the human race, but also current emissions of mankind that pollutes and may potentially wipe them out if immediate steps to fight climate change are not taken.

Nobel Peace Prize awarded recently to advocates of fight against climate change has further elevated the subject to a high pedestal reserved for those dealing with esoteric subjects. It is of course another matter that the connection between global warming and world peace is tenuous.

Be that as it may, one cannot dismiss growing suspicion that the climate card is being overplayed. In the past also, several such issues came, engaged people’s attention, aroused passions for sometime and quietly waned, perhaps after something else more engaging came up. Social psychologists suggest there is mass herding at the social level on the global warming issue. How much can we trust the scientists? In analysing data, are they being selective or totally objective? Do their personal biases unintentionally influence their minds and make them blinkered? The answer is unclear.

Hype vs reality

But what’s clear is that scientists are often given to exaggerated opinions. One is reminded of developments in the last 10 years. When genetically-modified (GM) crops were first introduced in the US in 1996, waxing eloquently about the technology and aggressively recommending its rapid adoption, scientist after scientist used to assert that the world’s food produced through conventional methods would be totally inadequate to feed the growing population; and that without adoption of agricultural biotechnology, there would be widespread famine and so on.

The world has come some way in the last 10 years with only a handful of countries embracing this technology. The Food and Agriculture Organisation is on record that even without agbiotech, the world will be able to produce enough food to meet rising demand till 2030.

The hype about GM technology was unwarranted; and was perhaps motivated by corporate greed. This is not to belittle the importance of the technology (the technology has surely delivered); but to point out how mass frenzy is successfully created. There is a flip side too. We have known organisations including some self-styled scientists attempting to denigrate the technology by creating a scare amongst consumers. ‘Frankenstein food’ and ‘monster technology’ were the scary words used to describe agbiotech products. Gullible public was even told that consumers of GM foods would grow horns like cattle!

Yet, GM foods are here to stay; and no consumer of GM foods is known to have grown horns. It often seems that the bored world looks for exotic subjects to keep itself occupied.

Real estate hysteria

Another example that comes to mind is the real estate hysteria that swept the US some years ago. Everyone jumped into the bandwagon and huge investments (with borrowed money, of course) were made in real estate on the ground that land supplies are limited and prices can only keep going up. Now with sub-prime woes enveloping the economy, there is a sense of regret that people overdid what they did a few years ago.

Any mass hysteria needs powerful orators, charismatic personalities and telling imageries; and those raising the issue of climate change and global warming seem to have succeeded in creating not only awareness, but also a sense of heightened scare. Information and communication technology helps spread of news almost instantaneously.

Then, is global warming a hoax? Using today’s sophisticated technologies, scientific evidence suggests it is real. What may not be real or open to debate is the projection of today’s evidence into the future. It may be possible scientists are unconsciously bringing their own biases into the prediction.

Instead of shrill noises, what we need is a more informed and more sober debate on the subject. Scientists are simple people and often fall prey to corporate designs. Collectively they should desist from becoming purveyors of scare and fear. A mass frenzy on the climate change front has the potential to influence governmental policies and divert substantial public funds ostensibly to fight climate change. Someone somewhere is going to reap huge benefit.

Equitable growth

It is most unlikely that the world will ever return to Spartan lifestyles of the 18th or 19th century. The current manufacturing technologies are by their very nature polluting. Growth has not spread across the world evenly; and it is imperative there is growth with equity. If there has to be more equitable growth, some under-developed regions have to grow rapidly and would inexorably contribute to pollution. This cannot be avoided.

Two thoughts may be worth pondering over. Nature is known to have its own unique ways of addressing issues and balancing itself. If mankind did not do anything to fight climate change, would nature take care of itself? Unfortunately there is no knowing whether it will take care in a peaceful way or in a violent manner. The second thought relates to technology. Technology has the potential to solve a very large number of problems the world faces today. Can technology help fight global warming or slow down climate change? What kind of financial, technological and human resources are required for the purpose? Finally, cynics point out that in the long run all of us are dead. So why worry about climate change 100 years from now?

More Stories on : Environment | Climate & Weather

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
India must do a China in Africa

Pondering over reforms

Climate change: Greed and fear may drive agenda

Inter-modal transport and logistics — Evolving a system for Asia-Pacific region

Real inclusion

Turning around India Post

Alternative to LC

Growth without equity