To combat global warming, governments talk about reducing CO2 emissions by 20% (i.e. to 80% of the present) by 2010 or 2005; but some think that is too costly and want only to remain constant without further increase. On the other hand, a recent expert study reported in Greenpeace Magazine concluded that a reduction by 70% (i.e. to only 30% of today’s rate) by 1995 is necessary in order to hold the warming to the level at which it is already. That is a huge gap, even if the plan by governments is implemented, which is doubtful.
To achieve a global 70% reduction, North Americans and Europeans would have to reduce use of fossil energy by 90% (because they are the major users) by 1995, in only 5 years; otherwise developing countries would be close to zero, which is intolerable. A 90% drop is almost a total stoppage, a social revolution.
How do you get an addict to quit “cold turkey”? Only by making them realize that it’s either quit or die. Even then some cigaret smokers persist. The pain of withdrawal is severe, maybe worse than the pangs of death. The difference is that there is life after withdrawal, but not after death (I assume). Will we addicts take a long enough point of view? Do we yet sufficiently believe the stark alternatives? Will we wait till the 39th day to try to clear the water lilies that are choking the pond?
Life is so comfortable and denial is so strong. The future seems so far off. Maybe the predictions are wrong; maybe something will pop up; science will find a way; God won’t let it happen.
I hate to be a spoiler and a Cassandra, but I don’t believe such excuses. Of course the predictions may be wrong, but a rational risk-averse person would choose the worst-case scenario to react to, just as safety insurance. How come the nuclear war hawks always assume the worst about the Soviets and the eco-hawks always assume the best about nature?
World Federalists think that they would solve the problem by creating a world agency, but that is only passing the buck. The question is what would the agency DO. If it merely listens to governments, we are lost. It will take action all along the subsidiarity spectrum, from person to planet, to solve the problem.
It is not so much a question of what we must do, but what we must refrain from doing. We must lose life in order to gain life, as the Bible says. Translated: we must lose our present way of life in order to gain life on a respectably long scale of geological time. When asked “your money or your life”, we must choose life. The motto must be: Pass from denial to self-denial.