SCIENCE was sidelined at the climate conference in The Hague last month. Its
very success means that everyone who matters is now prepared to agree that, yes,
human activity contributes significantly to climate change. But in the process
the political argument has altered. Now that all but a few holdouts have
accepted that belching out carbon dioxide is changing things, we鈥檙e confronted
with the fact that the effects of emissions so far will arrive over decades.
This century鈥檚 climate has already been changed.
Hence the focus on 鈥渃oping鈥�. This emphasis is shared by countries ranging
from Britain, which seems to really want the problem brought under control, to
the US, which believes that the free market shouldn鈥檛 be interfered with. Those
who will lose money from a treaty that reduces emissions may think that this new
emphasis serves them well. Whatever agreement results in the end may well aim to
reduce harm in the 22nd century and beyond. Meanwhile, their business ingenuity
will help us cope.
But cope with what exactly? The answer may well prove unknowable. What we do
know is that there will be a lot more weather this century. Its nature will be
the outcome of chaotic processes. Think of that famous little butterfly whose
flapping wings might just perturb the system to generate a typhoon鈥攐r
cause a small cloud to rain on your parade. Now visualise all the car exhausts
on the planet, spewing out caterpillars. That鈥檚 the real image to get across to
politicians, who are not best known for enthusiastically contemplating strict
mathematical definitions of chaos.
Advertisement
Britain will be particularly affected by this uncertainty. The warm, wet
climate depends on the ocean current called the North Atlantic Gyre, of which
the part on the surface is the Gulf Stream. This current could well flip from
its present path to another within a few years. Will it happen? And if so, when?
Chaos says the only way to find out is to wait while British weather resembles
that of Madrid or Murmansk. Or both in turn.
So how should we be thinking? What kind of principle is needed? Obviously
something stronger than the 鈥減recautionary principle鈥� on which the talks in The
Hague were based. This argues that the price of being wrong about our
contribution to climate change is so high that we have to act 鈥渁s if鈥� it is
proven and work to reduce or slow our effect.
A new principle might sound like this: if the climate is unstable, do not
kick it. We are all balancing on pointy sticks, so everyone needs to move very
carefully. We need, in that delightfully hippy phrase, to 鈥渢read lightly upon
the Earth鈥�.
With that as a guiding notion, business as usual clearly wouldn鈥檛
do鈥攁nd business would not be pleased. People, however, might take to the
new way. Rather than despairing of public transport getting everyone to work on
time, we could work shorter and more flexible hours. And why give ourselves
ulcers rushing to the airport for Marrakech or Marbella when we could just take
an extra week off so we can take the train. Who knows? Such slow-down policies
might even enthuse people enough to start voting again . . . or just show up
late for work.