The latest United Nations conference on climate change took place in mid-November 2006, this time in Nairobi, Kenya. In line with most of its predecessors, it was much hyped in coming up with a groundbreaking regimen in doing something in addition to the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but whose only achievement was maintaining the status quo, and going on safaris photo ops.
Representatives from China and the US, the largest benefactors of heat trapping carbon dioxide, nitric oxide and chlorofluorocarbons gases, were rather thin on the ground; likewise the energy industry, except for the nuclear sector, now savouring its re-evaluated status. Indeed with the exception of environmentalists and low-lying island nations, the public at large remains indifferent. Why should this be so?
For one, the jury is still out over who is guilty for the 0.6°C average rise in global temperature over the last century, as determined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: either humans, or mother nature in terms of solar spot activity, a tilting or wobbling of the earth’s axis, orbital eccentricities, and, or spontaneously occurring emissions of greenhouse gas.
If it were indeed the former, a glance at the streets during waking hours hints at where people’s priorities lay. “I’m returning to Massachusetts this summer to work as a housekeeper, waitress and ice-cream vendor,” said Daniela, a student at the Varna Economics University as she sips a cappuccino at a cafe that would have normally withdrawn its outdoor tables by this time of year (November). “So I can save up and buy a used Fiat, like my friend.”
Tim Flannery, an Australian zoologist, in his book Field Notes from a Catastrophe presents a more primeval explanation for this attitude. Homo sapiens, he claims, is by nature a tropical species, having evolved and lived for most of its existence in eastern Africa, with some having only comparatively recently forged into temperate regions. Thus humans, at least in cold habitats, subconsciously greet the prospect of a projected global temperature increase of 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius degrees this century with glee – as opposed to another ice age, in which case the matter would have been tackled with the resolve and expediency accorded to a security threat.
But in a sense it is, say many scientists. The intricacies and interplays of climatic, geographical, atmospheric and solar systems are far more complex than simply transforming Komi into Acapulco, so much so even powerful computers cannot fully model their dynamics. And much of what is known is empirical.
For the past two to three years, according to Dr Geogi Mitev, professor of agronomy at the University of Rousse, less snow, a vital source of melt-water for maize, soy and especially winter wheat in north-eastern Bulgaria, has fallen. It would not have posed a problem had ample spring and summer rain followed, or back-up irrigation systems in place, but neither were forthcoming. “Though the water supply was just barely sufficient, and farmers got by, the quality of crops was lower,” says Mitev. He adds that cycles of drier or wetter periods like this normally occur every six to 11 years, but cannot say why.
Studies by Josefino Comiso, a meteorologist at NASA, indicate that higher average temperatures begets more evaporation and thus clouds, producing more precipitation in some regions, but leaving others drier, with an irregular timetable. This would disrupt normal farming patterns.
Moreover a report by the International Climate Change Taskforce in 2005, has raised the ante by saying that unless drastic measures are taken to curtail greenhouse gas emissions within the next 10 years, irreversible changes could occur, such as a greater respiration to photosynthesis ratio of plants brought about by warmer nights, leading to an autocataclysmic shrinkage of forests and vegetation.
Does this all really matter? Daniela maintains that it is our inalienable right to cruise around, emulate the Hollywood lifestyle and enjoy warmth. Kiril Barzev, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Rousse, agrees wholeheartedly, “based on clean forms of energy”. He is conducting research on hydrogen technology, as an alternative power source of cars. “The only exhaust is H2O,” he says.
However, Martin, a medical student, thinks everyone can play their part. He had recently experienced culture shock on a trip to the Netherlands. “Everyone I saw in Maastricht – children, old people, housewives, businesspeople – were riding bicycles. Bikes were everywhere. Everywhere. I could even rent one from one of the many bike-racks. And the pollution in this rich and beautiful city wasn’t so bad.” He hopes the Dutch fetish catches on elsewhere.
