Post
Who speaks for them?
The world has been debating about climate change. All sorts of arguments have been put forward. To me what strikes as the most convincing argument is this: We have to move on from a fossil-fuel based society to a more sustainable one. We cannot just go on exploiting nature. Because, as someone rightly said, Nature doesn't do bailouts.
Maybe we would'nt get so carried away in defending oil and coal and big polluters, if we weren't so selfish. Out talks are always centred around us. What about the animals and birds? Who speaks for them? Don't they have a right to this planet? Should we not strive for a world where we don't harm plants and animal species beyond recognition? The more I spend time walking in the forests, watching birds, the more I am convinced that getting closer to nature is the key to develop a better understanding of the world we live in.
The blue tit is a common UK bird. It's an amazing bundle of energy. I have spend hours upon hours on weekends watching its antics on birdfeeders. It has taught me to care about the world around me, more than any Nat Geo documentary. I want to preserve natural areas so that blue tits and robins and chaffinces can survive. If we have to be selfish, then let us be selfish about the joys we can have from nature. And not from aerated drinks which waste natural resources and take huge amounts of greenwashing to come clean.
So my question is, at Copenhagen, who will speak for the dying vulture? Poisoned by Diclofenac, it has almost become extinct. We don't just lose the vulture, we break the ever important ecological cycle. Should the climate deal be only about controlling emissions, or should it also be about life?
So my question is, at Copenhagen who will speak for the Indian tiger? Poached and hunted to satiate the ever growing Chinese desire for its body parts. If we kill the tiger, we lose water. Because the forests tigers live in are home to water bodies. No tiger, no forests, no water.
So my question is, at Copenhagen, who will speak for the dying rivers? Who will speak for the Yamuna in Delhi? From a mighty river, it has become a trickle of sewage. Corruption, apathy and ignorance has led to this.
And should we speak in such a language, who will disagree? Who will disagree about a more agreeable world?
I leave you with some portraits of the silent voices that we may hear, if we stopped listening to just ourselves.
Comments
All of these things that you mention are valid points and concerns. However, are you aware that COP15 will tax the populace of richer nations for the alledged benfit of poorer ones. I don’t see why this issue can not resolved without further taxing already overtaxed societies.
In my humble opinion, COP15 should not be about taxes and carbon trading. I think it should be more about - how do we, together, find a better way of living. If we measure everything in economic terms of profit and loss, we are fighting a losig battle.
That’s my point exactly. Since COP15 is really about profit/loss for a few this taxation is really about a transfer of wealth from the people to the wealthy. The World Bank is a big player in this as are the Rothschlds. They will be facilitatiing the transfer of the taxes. Banksters and money changers are never to be trusted and are the root cause of the najority of the worlds suffering. They are also the orchestrators of the world economic crisis.
It would indeed be a pity if that happens. If there is a lesson to be learnt from the economic crisis, it is the fact that the principles on which modern economy is based aren’t going to work.
Keynes said: Fair is foul and foul is fair.
Not done.
Keynes said: In the long run we are all dead.
That’s a myopic, selfish view.
I suspect, as you do, that COP15 may indeed turn out to be one big business meet.
But I am hopeful.
How long can they ignore people’s voices?
With every passing day, more and more people are joining in.
I am sure that, if not at COP15, then soon enough the tide will turn.
I asked the same. Who does?
Great post, asking one of the most pressing questions.
I always interpreted Keynes’ “in the long run we are all dead” as we should not act for the humanity around us rather than for utopian ideals, but quite frankly I might have misunderstood this.
I think the economic crisis should offer some perspectives on sustainability, that would make us eventuelly realize that we can not keep borrowing from the future, rather we need to save our resources.
For me, it’s never been about co2 emissions only. That’s why I tried (and still do) to cover as many areas as possible, areas that are just as important as emissions (water scarcity, biodiversity, deforestation).
Everything’s in the same climate change bubble, ready to pop.
And to answer your question, I think Brazil will also speak about more than co2. The Amazon’s voice will be there for sure.
@Adela: Yes, and it should be. The danger is that the business interests may drown the real voices.
Daniel, interestingly, Delhi high court recently said:
“Economic growth and environment protection is a fine balancing act. Public interest requires protection and care of the environment. Public interest also requires economic growth… It has been accepted that ecological damage and prevention thereof for the sake of life and future generations should take precedence over other public interest.”
Wish everyone could think like that.
Unfortunately, this order isn’t going to prevent the ecology being destroyed:
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main43.asp?filename=Ne211109another_nandigram.asp
Thanks for the link, the statement from Dehli high court shows that things are posible I think. It might be easier to get a court to say this than to change anything on the ground, but nontheless it is a step forward.
I guess also here (as always) it is ultimately the responsibility of civil movements to follow up courts’ decisions like these, and make sure that they are enacted.
A really good question Hemant. I’ve seen very little of this in the press and I don’t know why the impact on wildlife isn’t being talked about a whole lot more.
Yes Lara, I wonder too.
Is it because, this whole climate talks have become a business proposition?
A place to sell clean coal technology? Or cap and trade?
There is a very very good set of essays which has been published in London which says - Why climate change isn’t an environmental issue. It’s really insightful.
You can download the pdf here:
http://notenvironmental.blogspot.com/2009/10/download-pdf.html
We raise a question here about what kind of issue climate change is, what does it includes, what we need to do, people voices..
I somehow missed reality.. It is about deals, about finding a way to live and develop. Today there are also a lot of others important points to go on and solve.
There are voices of people who say that climate change is one huge venture capitalism for new energy sources.
There are voices of people in all fields of issue.
We win? We participate? We are what?
Is it enough to have a voice?
I guess a voice is a start.
I do not think there is anything wrong with investing and benefitting from new energy sources. In fact, that is perhaps a good solution.
However, when I ask if climate talks have become a business propositon, what I mean is the big polluters seeing it as a greenwashing opportunity.
Alternate energy is great. But clean coal is greenwashing.
Investing in green enterprises is great, but selling the concept of carbon trading is greenwashing.
We have to be careful of the lies.
And whch is why havning a voice is a start. We have to make that voice louder. And heard by a lot of those in power.
That’s my humble opinion.
I believe that we don’t need to look at institutions and economics and businesses to come up with new ways of living. We need to get closer to nature.
I have that not nice feeling of losing idealism .. That we can be heard there somewhere up, as I am not sure that we even have a clue from where power comes..
It comes together with my post about habits and taking them, liking them, not being aware of need of change them.
I ma not idealist. I do not believe that we can get back to nature.
Look around you, do you really think you are not a part of it? How can you go back to it when you never left?
Whether we like it or not, believe it or not, we are a part of nature. We need to get closer to it, not back to it.
It would simply mean respecting it more and taking care of the environment a little more.
The price of peace is always very high. It should be paid.
Today it is peace with ourself which should be done and that is even more expensive!
Mankind make that you say because everyone of us is not in peace with himself.
A really good question Hemant. I’ve seen very little of this in the press and I don’t know why the impact on wildlife isn’t being talked about a whole lot more.