Climate science is an evolving science and it is difficult to determine the accuracy of research findings in many cases. Skepticism over the phenomena is bound to exist as the complex inter-relationships between diverse life forms, their dependence on climate, and respective adaptive strengths are still largely undetermined.
What we actually know of Nature is perhaps just the tip of the iceberg or at best a close approximation to reality. The dilemma in front of us is but obvious – that in the absence of a perfect model, what do we do? Shall we wait till we acquire the ultimate knowledge and then prepare for action? Or act in accordance with the best predictive advice offered by science?
It would be a utopian dream to accede to the idea that we can sharpen our knowledge to perfection. Our knowledge would lag behind as Nature is dynamic – it is constantly changing and gives rise to uncertainties and ambiguities. To follow what science tells us is a challenge as we will have to seek change in our deeply-rooted systems – political, economic and social. This makes it difficult to deal with climate change issues. A paradigm shift is needed in our ways of looking at things. Can we nudge our politicians, economists, businessmen and society to think differently?
We know how political shortsightedness has crippled climate talks and has spurred resource nationalism. It is evident when a nation tends to protect its turf under the pretext of safeguarding market competitiveness, like the U.S., or protects its natural resources, like Canada, or goes to the extreme of calling climate change a hoax! While political leadership is well informed about the repercussions of delayed action, the short-term goal of clinging to power has been more lucrative.
Our political systems need to change by incorporating the challenges posed by climate change. Political leaders need to put forward their stand on climate change and inform people on how they are going to plan mitigation and adaptations strategies.
Some governments have taken bold steps to set the right example. Carbon tax introduced by Australia and aviation emissions tax by EU – are some examples where political leadership has confronted the threat of rising greenhouse gas (GHG) levels. However, it would be difficult for such legislations to have a significant impact if not supported by a global voice. Climate negotiations at Durban have not been able to take immediate actionable steps, which demonstrates that a top-down approach to garner global support on tackling climate issues is going to be difficult. Climate linked issues like – mass migration, droughts, heavy floods, heat-waves – are becoming more prominent and impact the general public. A bottom-up approach, where people put pressure on their political parties to speak-up, is more likely to show better results.
For businesses that have traditionally ignored the social and environmental impact of business operations, working on climate issues would be tough. Seeking business opportunities by flagrant violation of environmental norms would not work in future. Their approach to identify a business opportunity needs to radically transform to incorporate the triple bottom line approach – people, planet and profits. For instance, the melting glaciers in the Polar Regions are being eyed upon as a business opportunity – to extract the huge reserves of oil and fresh water. Tourism is also slated to get a big boost in these regions, but at what cost? Any business activity in the name of tourism, agriculture, mining or fishing would wreak havoc. Is this an opportunity or a ‘recipe for disaster’?
But more than what we expect from politicians and businesses, there is a bigger need for a change at the individual level. In a consumption-driven society, bringing around behavioral changes is a challenging proposition. This can be tackled to a great extent by building awareness on climate change and providing reliable inputs to a growing community of environment enthusiasts.