 |
 |
 |
 |
||
| |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comments
on id21 viewpoints
In his article, Some thoughts on plantations and global cooling (Unasylva Vol. 52/204, FAO 2001) Professor W.J. Libby stated: "Global warming has recently received much more attention than global cooling. However, the long-term trends shown in Figures 1 to 3 indicate repeated cycles of long glacial periods and much shorter interglacials. The seven most recent glacial periods lasted 90,000 to 125,000 years each, while their interglacial periods each lasted about 10,000 years (Figure 1). Whether some natural secondary or tertiary event has reversed the general cooling trend of the past 4,000 years and is now warming the earth, is not certain. It is clear, however, that very recent anthropogenic inputs, such as greenhouse gases and vast areas paved or painted with dark materials, are warming the planet. It is not clear whether or for how long such anthropogenic inputs can forestall or even prevent the next glacial period". Unfortunately, through an editorial error, the figures preceding the text above are not 100 percent clear, but Libby´s ideas are at least partly in line with the ones courageously expressed by you (and - technically- largely shared by myself; NB however that I am a forest geneticist rather than an expert in [forestry and] climate change). Congratulations on an excellent write-up! Christel Palmberg-Lerche, 27th June 2006 Christel Palmberg-Lerche recently retired as Chief, Forest Resources Development Service, Forest Resources Division, Forestry Department, FAO, Rome, Italy From Bob Pokrant, Curtin University of Technology, Australia I wish to comment on some of the observations made by Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen. Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen makes many unsubstantiated claims about what she refers to as the 'green' (environmental) lobby and its relationship to the climate change debate. I shall discuss four such claims. Claim one: disaster prevention is not motivated by concern for the afflicted but rather by an ideology misusing science. Who and what is being referred to here? Does she mean all disaster prevention activities or those connected to concerns over climate change? If the former, she is apparently condemning what are established parts of the emergency services of all developed societies and some developing societies, which time and again have helped to save lives and property. This is not ideology misusing science but science in the service of community. In addition, disaster prevention services across the world are beginning to include climate change in their package of measures to assist countries to mitigate and adapt to natural and human-made hazards. While not climate change-related, the 2004 tsunami's impact would have been much less if disaster preparedness measures had been in place. This is now a top priority in those countries afflicted. My own government has committed AUS$69 million to an Indian Ocean tsunami warning system and is working with several Indian Ocean countries to create cultures of prevention along vulnerable coastlines. Large numbers of volunteers are working in tsunami-affected countries at their own expense to assist affected communities in developing means to adapt to future natural hazards, including the potentially negative impacts of climate change. Claim two: The advocated ‘sustainable' policies may well prevent developments that serve poor people while…promoting those that serve the rich through the creation of new markets for expensive ‘green' goods, the decline of tourism, and support for population control. Before any response can be given to this assertion, some idea must be provided of what the advocated sustainable' policies are. This Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen does not do. Yes, some policies may be self-serving, but no discussion of or evidence for such self-serving is provided. I agree that some such policies may de-prioritise particular development initiatives that might have been pro-poor. For example, calls for reducing fishing effort in several marine and inland water environments might mean some unemployment among artisanal fishing communities. However, such calls often form part of a package of measures to absorb any unemployment resulting from the policy and to work towards more sustainable fisheries which would provide a more secure long-term livelihood for some, but not all, displaced fishers. For example, the central aim of integrated coastal management strategies and co-management policies, which are being implemented in many developed and developing countries, is to balance development, livelihood and conservation. In the absence of policies to protect fish stocks, poverty among fishers will increase. The hypothetical examples she gives are curious. A decline in tourism as a goal of sustainable policies can be argued to work against the rich (if by ‘rich' is meant any person from a developed country wishing to go on holiday overseas) as it reduces cheap holidaying opportunities. Creating new markets for green products is likely to be an offshoot of greater environmental awareness, but it is naïve and one-sided of Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen to suggest that this is what motivates environmentalism. Much aid, be it green or otherwise, is tied to developed country purchases. Many environmentalists also call for fairer trade with poorer countries, by which is meant that a greater proportion of the value-added in products should go to small-scale producers and that that the wages and working conditions of workers be improved. Yes, some ‘rich' people see growing populations as a threat to their own life styles. However, population control is a problem for many communities in fragile environments and many poor people recognize this to be so but may be unable or unwilling to take any action because of a lack of wider economic and social support to mitigate the impact of fewer children as potential workers. Also, environmentalists call for a change in consumption habits in the North precisely to avoid the claim that they blame the poor for over-population. Surely, Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen can see this. I find Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen's treatment of poor people as patronizing as nowhere does she recognize them as actors in their own right who work singly and with others, including so-called ‘greens', to improve their situation. Claim three: NGOs are adopting alarmism and pessimism which are destroying societies with poorly considered disaster relief and aid. What NGOs are being referred to here? How and where are they destroying societies? I agree there has been poor management of official and NGO aid distribution in several instances, the recent tsunami being particularly noticeable. However, to claim societies are being destroyed is itself a form of alarmism which does not help Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen 's case. Negative impacts of poorly managed aid provision can be rectified. To hold NGOs responsible for this is to ignore the positive work that thousands of volunteers around the world are doing to assist communities to adapt to what appears to be a growth in the number and intensity of natural and human-induced hazards. Also, it ignores the differences in views between many so-called green NGOs about the relationship between climate change and development policy. Claim four: Environmentalism is an ideology of the guilty rich wanting to return to some poetic idea of 'Nature' that has never existed. No doubt there are some who feel guilt about the impact of Northern colonial policies and the impact of post- Second World War models of development on the environments of developing countries and want to create societies that have fewer negative environmental impacts than we see today. However, I suggest that rather than guilt, many environmentalists are motivated by the desire to create more just and equitable relations between rich and poor societies not simply for reasons of equity but as part of a balanced policy of improved production, equity and sustainability. There are anti-modernists among environmental groups but to claim that this pervades environmentalism, itself an undefined term, is nowhere supported by any evidence or serious discussion. In my admitted limited experience, ‘environmentalists' are much more pragmatic in their approach to development and climate change and are working towards improved mitigation and adaptive capacity measures at the grass-roots level and who work with poor people on a daily basis on poverty alleviation measures. Skepticism is an admirable academic trait, whether it is related to climate change or any other issue. However, such skepticism must be based on scientific rigour and systematically collected evidence. In her comments on the motives and activities of ‘environmentalist', Dr. Boehmer-Christiansen abandons such scientific caution, instead falling into sloganeering, slurs and an ideological black hole of her own making. Until she applies proper standards of scientific analysis to the subject of environmentalism and its off-shoots, her comments cannot be taken seriously. Bob Pokrant, 29th June 2006 From Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen Clearly I state only one side of the argument in a brief opinion piece, without evidence or naming examples. I therefore do consider this response unfair, as it expects much more from such a piece than it can provide. For a fair assessment of my work, rigour and evidence, Bob Pokrant would have to read a bit more widely and take into account my experience of three major ecological 'disasters': limits to growth, overpopulation, the death of the ocean, acid rain/forest death and only last in line, global warming. These were allegedly global disasters that had as many political motives as ecological ones, something hardly spotted by environmentalists, including WWF, FoE, and above all Greenpeace, who jumped on every green bandwagon they could find in order to maintain their influence with the public and the government. Now they sit happily together with the World Bank and the UN on the climate change wagon; let's see where it will roll to. At the moment, their immediate goal would appear to be accessing public money, with most decisions being top-down with little local say or attention to local priorities. There are lots of points we would agree on, in a well mannered debate. Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, 4th July 2006
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
